Lens Recommendations

wunwhlup · Aug 7, 2009

I own a Canon EOS, Rebel Xsi (kit). I'm mostly interested in action/sports photos, including air shows and motorcycle racing, but also enjoy close-ups. I feel that the lens in the kit is basically useless for what I like to photograph.
Any suggestions for a lens that is suitable for a variety of situations? I'm not planning on upgrading the camera for a long time. Thanks!!

robertwsimpson · Aug 7, 2009

my tip would be to save up and spend money on good lenses.

that being said, are you photographing at night/low light situations? if not, get the 55-250 with IS. I just got this lens, and it's fantastic. if you need to be able to get better pics in low light, you're going to have to go for an L I think.

I agree that the kit lens is rubbish. I think I am going to go for the 50mm 1.8 next for portrait stuff.

hope this helps!

edit: also, google lens rental places and try some different ones out. you can rent $1000+ lenses for $50-$100 per week. if you're going to pony up big bucks for nice lenses, it's nice to know exactly what you're getting.

Village Idiot · Aug 7, 2009

You'd probably want something longer than the 55-250 for sports, racing, and air shows. Canon 100-400? It's about $1500 though.

robertwsimpson · Aug 7, 2009

yeah 250 might be short depending on where you are situated and how you want to frame your shots. I just love this lens and think everyone should have one.

bigtwinky · Aug 7, 2009

Depending on what level sports you are shooting, you will need something in a telephoto that goes at least 200mm (for lower level sports) to something in the 400mm range for pro sports (if not more).

The key to Sports photography is getting a really fast shutter speed. The XSI at 1600 ISO is not the greatest for sharp images, you will probably be stuck at a max of 800 or even 400 if you really want nice images.

With that being said, if you are shooting in the evenings or even late afternoon, you might have issues with the 250mm as the aperture is only 5.6. You do have the IS that helps though.

If you don't plan on upgrading the body (which would help with higher ISO), I would seriously think about getting good, fast lenses such as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Its pricey, but probably one of the better lenses you can get for what you want to do.

I just finished a Sports photography class where we shot in the evening or at night an ultimate frisbee game, water polo, beach volleyball and boxing. I used a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, a 50-200 f/4.5-5.6, the 55-250 f/4.5-5.6 IS and for a few shots, I borrowed someone;s 70-200 f/2.8 IS. While its a hunker of a lens, it gave me some really nice shots in somewhat poor light conditions. (8pm at night with crappy overhead lights)

robertwsimpson · Aug 7, 2009

Like I said, rent a couple of lenses, and see which you like the best!

Village Idiot · Aug 7, 2009

robertwsimpson said:
yeah 250 might be short depending on where you are situated and how you want to frame your shots. I just love this lens and think everyone should have one.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is better. Everyone should own one of those. It's still going to be short but with a 1.4x or 2x convertor, it'll own the 55-250 hands down any day of the week.

Annamas · Aug 7, 2009

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is better. Everyone should own one of those. It's still going to be short but with a 1.4x or 2x convertor, it'll own the 55-250 hands down any day of the week.

What he said.

I was doing alot of amateur sports photography where I could get onto the baseball field / side lines of high school football . . that kind of stuff. I purchased the 70-200 f/4.0L USM and it worked great for what I wanted to do . . .but, as soon as the light started to dim even just a bit, I got frustrated. The lens mentioned above should be perfect for any amateur stuff you want to do.

If you're looking to go more pro, you'll have to upgrade to a longer lens. Also remember that with the crop factor your 200 is really the equivilant of a 320mm lens.

robertwsimpson · Aug 7, 2009

70-200 f/2.8L IS - $1700
55-250 f/4-5.6 IS - $255

what you said is like saying that a Lamborgini murcialago is better than a honda civic. Of course it is, that lens costs almost 7 times more!

Village Idiot · Aug 7, 2009

robertwsimpson said:
70-200 f/2.8L IS - $1700
55-250 f/4-5.6 IS - $255

what you said is like saying that a Lamborgini murcialago is better than a honda civic. Of course it is, that lens costs almost 7 times more!

Nah. Buy used. I've seen them go for $1275ish.

Also, the 70-200 f/2.8L is a great lens for sports. IS won't do crap for a moving subject. $700-800 used and then you'll never lose money on it until Canon drops a 70-200 f/2.8L II. Plus the IQ and wider max ap make the arguement for spending the extra $500 or so that much better.

There's also the 70-200 f/4 if you're on a budget. Great IQ, consistant aperture through out the zoom range, and a price tag of around $500.

Annamas · Aug 7, 2009

Some optinons for you:

70-200 f/2.8L USM
Canon | 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens | 2569A004 | B&H
It doesn't have Image Stabilization, but if your using a tripod . . . you should be ok, especially if you have a remote that you can use to trigger the shutter. It's listed at 1229 USD.

70-200 f/2.8 IS USM
Canon | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens | 7042A002 | B&H
Has Image Stabilization. But your still going to want to support it, minimum a monopod IMO.

70-200 f/4.0 USM
Canon | 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens | 2578A002 | B&H
My old faithful. I love the lens, except for the aperture, it's awesome. If I had to do it again though, I would of fronted the cash for the higher model.

bigtwinky · Aug 7, 2009

Annamas said:
..........
70-200 f/4.0 USM
Canon | 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens | 2578A002 | B&H
My old faithful. I love the lens, except for the aperture, it's awesome. If I had to do it again though, I would of fronted the cash for the higher model.

Higher model being the f/4.0 with IS or the f/2.8 or the f/2.8 with IS?

Annamas · Aug 7, 2009

In order of the model type;

f/4.0 is the weakest / cheapest of the three.

f/2.8 w/o the IS is next

and the 'best' lens is the f/2.8 IS.

But as VI said above, the f/2.8 w/o IS should be good for what your doing. I just reread, if I had to repurchase it would probably of been the f/2.8. I don't really have need of the IS at this time, and fully extended at 200mm on my tripod i'm not getting any shake. (I use timer or remote).

But remember, if you buy cheap now, it is affordable, but if you need to upgrade a year down the road . . .well, you just wasted money in the long run. I went cheap, love what I could do with it, and was very happy at the time, but now I'm wishing I would of splurged.

Samanax · Aug 7, 2009

Annamas said:
Some optinons for you:

70-200 f/2.8L USM
Canon | 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens | 2569A004 | B&H
It doesn't have Image Stabilization, but if your using a tripod . . . you should be ok, especially if you have a remote that you can use to trigger the shutter. It's listed at 1229 USD.

70-200 f/2.8 IS USM
Canon | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens | 7042A002 | B&H
Has Image Stabilization. But your still going to want to support it, minimum a monopod IMO.

70-200 f/4.0 USM
Canon | 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens | 2578A002 | B&H

You forgot the EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM lens.

wunwhlup · Aug 7, 2009

Thanks for everyones responses!
Just wanted to mention that I am a beginner and F stops/ISO, 200 or 400mm, and so on, can get confusing. Especially since there can be a difference of $400 between F2.8 and F4.? So, since I could be paying upwards of $1500 (new) for this and seeing it will be the sole lens I rely on, of the lenses that have been mentioned, which one would be the "one lens" that could possibly be the only one I will ever need? Or at least until I can save to buy a wide angle.

Will definitely rent before buying to test it out. Good idea, thanks

As you can see, I'm not a pro. Just threw these three up for the hell of it. Please feel free to comment, I like constructive criticism.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wunwhlup/