Sports Shooting Lens?

[RacePhoto]

i shoot motocross and i have similar distances. sometimes in a corner or next to an a jump im right in the thick of the action and i love to use my 24-70 f2.8; its a great 'walking around' lense, but for the farther shots (like you mentioned 10'-75') the above mentioned 70-200 2.8 is absolutley killer, and worth every dollar. i dont own one but have access to one. id like to see some comparison shots of the 70-200 vs a 70-300....

Had a 70-200 IS USM 2.8, sold it, the 1.4 extender and my 10D to get a Canon 100-400 and 40D, which is nice because of the reach for auto racing. They keep moving the walls and fences back. It works just fine.

Next lens will be a 70-200 f/2.8 because I miss the sharp pictures.

I have a 400mm f/2.8 and my orthopedic surgeon wants to look at my shoulder after I lugged it around for a season. Remember the lens comes in a case, with a handle, not a bag. They say it's 11 lbs, by Noon it feels more like 25.

If you can get close enough the 70-200 2.8 is the best lens I've ever owned. If you need more zoom, go for the 100-400.

To quote someone, who was right, the best way to make a great lens into an average lens, is put a tele-extender on it. The 70-200 (100-280 effective) with the 1.4ex is not as good as the 100-400 by itself.

Mostly though, it depends on what you are shooting and how close you can get to the action. I like to fill the frame as much as possible with the subject.

70-200 will usually make the 70-300 look soft, but for the $1000 difference, what do you expect? :mrgreen: Slower AF, not as sharp or bright, but still an adequate lens. Use the $1000 to buy a couple of primes like a 100 macro ($470) and a nifty 50 1.8 for under $100, or 24mm for $250 and have money left over towards a 430EX flash.

The 70-300 is not bad, it's just not an L lens. Don't plan on being unobtrusive and shooting candids with the 70-200 or 100-400.

ps the 400mm f/5.6 is not bad at all for a moderately priced prime. Many pros who have to deal with air travel and now carrying these instead of the 2.8 because of the luggage restrictions. "Sir would you like us to throw your $7000 lens around in the baggage compartment? It's too big for carry on."

 

[DRoberts]

From the way this keeps going I'll make another suggestion...If you are trying to make money with your equipment then you will need to spend some money...So my advice, with the conditions you keep refering to is to buy the 70-200 f/2.8, another body and an additional general use USM lens. the 23-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM should work. (Just don't use the IS for action shots.) Alot of people like the new 18-200 but it is not USM, and for what you are after you will want the USM lens.

 

[jeph]

Just to throw another wrench in the works, I was recently at the fort william downhill marathon and brought a 70-200 but spent the whole day with my 18-55 so... thats it.

This was shot at 1/80 and 55 mm uncropped

 

[DRoberts]

Just to throw another wrench in the works, I was recently at the fort william downhill marathon and brought a 70-200 but spent the whole day with my 18-55 so... thats it.

This was shot at 1/80 and 55 mm uncropped

Not even comparable to the 70-200 though

By Village Idiot

 

[Frozen]

Just to throw another wrench in the works, I was recently at the fort william downhill marathon and brought a 70-200 but spent the whole day with my 18-55 so... thats it.

This was shot at 1/80 and 55 mm uncropped

This is a better example of the shots I am hoping for but I am in Southern California so there are less trees in most places, you guys are a fountain of knowledge thanks so far.

I can really only spend under $500 at this point(and plan on saving up for a longer focal length lens at a later time), so I am looking at these lens now:
Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens
Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF)
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Wide Angle Lens

So as far as picking what lens is best for what distance, is just experience, or is there a way to tell by the focal length?

Thanks again for all the helpful responses!

EDIT: Never mentioned it in any other post but I have a Canon 450D XSI.

 

[GeneralBenson]

So you've got 18-250mm covered, just not with fast glass. If you get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, you can pretty much throw our 18-50 in the garbage. I would got for the tamron 28-75 2.8. That way you've got a third zoom range to work with and it's f/2.8. I have that lens, and I love it. Very sharp and excellent for the price.

 

[Frozen]

So you've got 18-250mm covered, just not with fast glass. If you get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, you can pretty much throw our 18-50 in the garbage. I would got for the tamron 28-75 2.8. That way you've got a third zoom range to work with and it's f/2.8. I have that lens, and I love it. Very sharp and excellent for the price.

The Tamron 28-75mm is the lens I was leaning towards, how would you rate the AF is is fast, slow, decent?

 

[mxracer32]

*note these are not my shots. they are mostly shots of me, with a first time dslr user, using my camera(except the last one). there was no post editing of the pics. these were taken last weekend and i thought it may help you to see what kind of shots this lense gets at different lengths.

canon 20d, sigma 24-70 f2.8, approx 4' from bike

approx 100'

approx 4'

approx 15'