Need a zomm for shooting sports on my 30D

[Wheaten59]

I just purchased a 30D with a 28-135 IS lens. I don't think this is going to help me in shooting baseball games. So can some of you please recommend a nice zoom lens? I really would like to keep this under $400.00. Also can some of you posts a few pics with the lens you recommend?

Thanks
Tom

 

[Big Mike]

Your option are rather limited with a budget of $400.

For shooting sports, you usually need a)a long lens and b)a fast lens (large maximum aperture).

Long & fast lenses are rather expensive...so what is more important to you?

You could get something like the Canon 75-300 F4.5-5.6 for a few hundred dollars (or something similar from Sigma or Tamron). The problem with these lenses is that they are slow, which means you will need plenty of light in order to get a shutter speed that is fast enough to freeze the action.

You could get something like the 50mm F1.8 or the 85mm F1.8. These will really help to get faster shutter speeds...but may not be long enough for shooting sports.

You might want to look at a 70-200mm zoom lens. The cheapest one from Canon is the 70-200 F4 L and you can also get it in an F2.8 version and you can get either version with IS. Sigma makes a 70-200 F2.8, which is cheaper than the Canon version.

 

[DSLR noob]

Yeah a 70-200 F/4 L sounds like your best bang for buck combo you can pull off. Sadly it's nearly $600. Not to sound mean but if you got a prosumer 30D you should've been expecting to support it with some cash.

 

[lifeafter2am]

I agree that the 70-200 would be your best bet. It's going to be more than $400 though, probably even used. Truth be told, if you can get a good lens for under $1000 your doing pretty good!

 

[Big Mike]

To be fair, you can get great shots with cheaper lenses...but it's just harder. Sports is one of those things that is hard to capture well with cheaper lenses.

It depends on thinks like the time of day you are shooting, the weather (light) and the location (distance) from where you can shoot.

If you are shooting a little league game in bright light...the 75-300 will probably be OK.

 

[Wheaten59]

Mike,
If I have to spend the extra cash for that f4L then I'll do it. Two more questions if you don't mind. How much light does this lens actually need to perform well? Would it perform well on a cloudy day, or when the sun is just starting to go down? Just trying to get a good perspective on this lens.

Thanks

 

[lifeafter2am]

Mike,
If I have to spend the extra cash for that f4L then I'll do it. Two more questions if you don't mind. How much light does this lens actually need to perform well? Would it perform well on a cloudy day, or when the sun is just starting to go down? Just trying to get a good perspective on this lens.

Thanks

It's not that it won't perform well, its that your shutterspeed might not be fast enough to stop the action because the aperture can not let enough light in. I, personally, shot both my little sis's soccer game and some surfing (both on pretty cloudy / overcast days) with no problems on that lens. It was a friend of mine's lens, and it convinced me to get one.

 

[Wheaten59]

It's not that it won't perform well, its that your shutterspeed might not be fast enough to stop the action because the aperture can not let enough light in. I, personally, shot both my little sis's soccer game and some surfing (both on pretty cloudy / overcast days) with no problems on that lens. It was a friend of mine's lens, and it convinced me to get one.

Well then, it sounds like this may be the route I may have to take. Thank you.

 

[soylentgreen]

I concur with the previous post on the 70-200 f/4 L. Being a past owner, it is an excellent lens for the price. I found the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS just too slow for any action shots and the AF was slow to boot. Your only let down will be in low light situations where the shutter speed will slow down. It will be difficult for you to get decent shots handheld if it drops below 1/60. With the 30D you should be able to jack the ISO up higher to compensate without too much noise effecting the image. Or just use a monopod/ Tripod.
The EF 70-200 f/2.8 L would be better but is out of your proposed price range though Sigma does make a version of the 70-200 f/2.8. Haven't used it but hear a lot of good things from other users. You sacrifice some image quality, and build but it's like half the price of the Canon. Worth a look anyhoo.

 

[table1349]

Wheaten59,

soylentgreen makes a good point about looking at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I shoot a lot of sports so my Canon 70-200 f2.8L is the ticket for me in that focal range, but it was expensive. I have had a chance to shoot the Sigma and was very impressed with both the quality of the build and the IQ. The AF was about as fast if not as fast as the Canon's and was a nice piece of glass and the price is much better that Canons. It is one of the few lenses of this type that I would seriously recommend you look at if you are looking at shooting sports.