Lens suggestions?

[Sharkbait]

Okay, I'm starting to get into the market for lens upgrades...

I shoot a Canon back, and my current lenses are an 18-55 and a 75-300 F4-5.6

I'm looking first at the zoom, as I shoot a lot of hockey games, and will need to rely more heavily on that lens this fall/winter. The arena is pretty dark, so I need a fast lens. I'd love to go F2.8, but I doubt I could swing that kind of price.

So does anyone have any suggestions for good, decently priced lenses?

Thx!

 

[bshearer]

Any reason you have to have a zoom?

Ive seen a couple of opinouns on Sports Shooters, about
going with a fast prime for sports. Which my understanding
is you wanna fill the frame right? You could problaby pick up
say a good 300 2.8 for around the same you could pick up another
zoom that is slower.

 

[Sharkbait]

It'd take some learning I guess, but I wouldn't be opposed to a fixed focal length... I just don't know anything about them.

 

[Digital Matt]

The only difference is that you have to move your body when you want to recompose

 

[Sharkbait]

See that might be a problem--most of the hockey games I shoot from the penalty box, so I relied on the zoom, but it seems like most of the time I was zoomed all the way out to 300mm anyway. Hmm...

 

[Digital Matt]

I'm sure you will have some room to move, even if only 2 or 3 feet. That makes a huge difference at 300mm.

 

[markc]

I'm sure you will have some room to move, even if only 2 or 3 feet. That makes a huge difference at 300mm.

It depends on which direction you are talking about. With a telephoto, moving a few feet forward and back makes very little difference. The amount moved is a very small percentage of the working distance. With a wide angle, forward and back makes a huge difference because of the effect on the forground.

 

[Sharkbait]

If I go with a prime, it'd be in the neighborhood of 300-400mm. My current zoom is 75-300...I just need more light.

 

[mrsid99]

If I go with a prime, it'd be in the neighborhood of 300-400mm. My current zoom is 75-300...I just need more light.

Maybe up the ISO?

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

-most of the hockey games I shoot from the penalty box

Doesn't that get a little crowded after a fight?

 

[Sharkbait]

If I go with a prime, it'd be in the neighborhood of 300-400mm. My current zoom is 75-300...I just need more light.

Maybe up the ISO?

I usually shoot around 1/250 at an ISO of 400 or 800. If I go to 1600, I get too much grain--shot looks like a photo in a newspaper, especially if I have to crop any of it.

The arena where I shoot is over 100 years old, and the lighting is probably around 40 or 50 yrs old. :?

 

[Sharkbait]

-most of the hockey games I shoot from the penalty box

Doesn't that get a little crowded after a fight?

It can, yeah. ;-) If it gets too crowded in there, I hop out into the stands right next to the box.

 

[Sharkbait]

I ended up finding this Sigma 70-200 f2.8 used at Roberts Camera in Indy. Couldn't pass it up... Can't WAIT to get in the box and get some shots with it!

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I'd suggest 70-200/2.8 also. I have the sigma EX, it's a great lens, but it's focusing is MUCH slower than that of the L Canon lens.

So, your first choice would be this:

Then this:

Then this:

 

[absolut]

Agree as to DocFrankenstain's suggestion. the only downside of Canon 70-200/f2.8 lens is its price. The one with IS costs over 1000 bucks with 2.8 lens you may add a TC and still get a decent light.