Newbie asking for lens recommendation

[68camaro]

Hello, first post and camera newbie here. We just got a Canon EOS Rebel SLi digital camera. It works great with the standard 18-55 lens. However, we need to get clear crisp pictures and videos of sons wrestling tournaments held in high school gyms. Lighting is not the greatest and sometimes dim. The wrestling is done in a 28 feet diameter circle, we would be at most 25 - 75 feet away, sometimes shooting much closer.

We are looking for a zoom lens that will keep in focus, be good quality, not too heavy and take good sports pictures so I assume needs to be fast. Do I need to go all the way up to a 70-200mm f/2.8 or is there another option to save weight and still meet needs of good sports camera for indoor not the greatest lighting. For pictures we will not use tripod but will use it for videos.

What suggestions would you give?

Thank you in advance.

Chuck

 

[Dao]

I went to flickr and search for "highschool wrestling" and got quite a bit of result. I look at some of the better one and they did show lens focal length were 70-200mm. Few of them shots around 90mm to 100mm range. So I EF 70-200mm f/2.8 will be my guess. Pair that with a monopod.

 

[Robin Usagani]

What dao said but that might be out of your budget. Maybe buy an 85mm f/1.8? It wont zoom but almost 2 stops faster than the 70-200.

 

[68camaro]

Thank you, what do you think about Tamaran, they are half of Canon but I am concerned about lens quality, manufacturer support and risk of higher percentage of blurred shot?

 

[68camaro]

What dao said but that might be out of your budget. Maybe buy an 85mm f/1.8? It wont zoom but almost 2 stops faster than the 70-200.

Is this a "focal" lens? Will this be adequate for movement that is contained in 28 foot diameter circle? I think zoom is important so I am willing to invest some money to get right lens.

 

[Gavjenks]

70-200 2.8 is first thing to come to mind, yes. But as I'm sure you're aware, it runs $1500, and a lot more for image stabilization (which you don't really need for this, but still). Also, it might even still be a little bit long at 70 if you get closer than 25 feet, since you have a crop frame. I'm guessing most of the people using one in the wrestling images Dao found would be using full frames (though he can correct me if I'm wrong). At 15 feet away, for instance, on a crop frame, 70mm doesn't even fit a whole standing adult in the frame, and would be rather difficult to work with for capturing the action of two wrestlers.

There are a ton of budget alternatives, though that would work about as well, if not better in some ways. The most straightforward would probably be to have two fast primes in your pocket and switch out as you move right next to the action versus further back.
In crop frame, you can very comfortably fit a person in the frame at the closer distances you're talking about with a 50mm, without much waste. Less cumbersone at 15 feet, and a breeze at 25 feet without people being excessively small in frame.
For the further distances (50-75 feet), 100mm would be a better choice.

So as a budget alternative, have one of each on hand, all for 1/3 the price of the cheapest 70-200 2.8:
100mm f/2 USM = $500 ish
50mm 1.8 = $100 ish

Also, both of these are at least a full stop faster than 2.8, so you will have fewer issues with lighting than the 70-200 if needed (don't just use stuff wide open because you can, though).
And their optics are as good, if not better in the case of the 100mm.
Also lighter weight combined than the 70-200.
Sadly, you cannot hammer in a nail with the nifty 50, unlike the 70-200, but I suggest hammers for that job anyway.
And they aren't nice and weatherproof, but you're in a gym, so who cares? Also, your camera isn't weatherproof.

 

[hirejn]

I would recommend a xx-200 if you're on a full frame camera, but recommending a 2.8 to a beginner would be like recommending a Ferrari for a trip to the grocery store. It's quite a tool that takes understanding and skill to wield to its maximum potential. And remember that when you're paying for a 2.8, you're paying for 2.8. So if you can't use 2.8 effectively, you might as well get a cheaper f/4 or 3.5-5.6 variable lens. Also, just because you have 2.8 doesn't mean you get better photos. You get the ability to let about one stop more of light into the lens, not a machine that converts crap into art. There's also the finer glass, but that's irrelevant until you master the ability to consistently and predictably create good negatives. What I'm saying is focus on getting a tool that will tell the story, not necessarily the most expensive version. If you can't get good quality at high ISO, learn to use flash.

 

[Smokeyr67]

I would recommend a xx-200 if you're on a full frame camera, but recommending a 2.8 to a beginner would be like recommending a Ferrari for a trip to the grocery store. It's quite a tool that takes understanding and skill to wield to its maximum potential. And remember that when you're paying for a 2.8, you're paying for 2.8. So if you can't use 2.8 effectively, you might as well get a cheaper f/4 or 3.5-5.6 variable lens. Also, just because you have 2.8 doesn't mean you get better photos. You get the ability to let about one stop more of light into the lens, not a machine that converts crap into art. There's also the finer glass, but that's irrelevant until you master the ability to consistently and predictably create good negatives. What I'm saying is focus on getting a tool that will tell the story, not necessarily the most expensive version. If you can't get good quality at high ISO, learn to use flash.

So what your saying is that a beginner should spend money on a cheap lens first, then upgrade later? Sounds like false economy to me.

Buy the best you can afford, if you can't afford it save some more.

 

[Gavjenks]

So what your saying is that a beginner should spend money on a cheap lens first, then upgrade later? Sounds like false economy to me.

Buy the best you can afford, if you can't afford it save some more.

You are assuming that they have any reason to EVER upgrade. Notice that the stated motivation is to document their son's wrestling career. Not to become career pro event photographers.
So it's quite likely that if they bought the cheaper lens, it would serve them for that purpose until he no longer wrestles or whatever, and then they would never have any reason to ever upgrade, thus ultimately saving quite a lot of money.

Also, I think that a f/2 100mm + a f/1.8 50mm is actually a BETTER set of equipment for performing the desired type of photography described in the OP anyway than a 70-200 2.8 would be. It's a known, controlled, repeating environment and their relative position compared to the wrestlers at any given time is probably going to be fairly consistent, so a zoom is not really that huge of a benefit. And those lenses are brighter than 2.8. And they have a crop-camera, making 70 almost certainly too long if they're near the front row. And they're lighter weight...

 

[Gavjenks]

So what your saying is that a beginner should spend money on a cheap lens first, then upgrade later? Sounds like false economy to me.

Buy the best you can afford, if you can't afford it save some more.

You are assuming that they have any reason to EVER upgrade. Notice that the stated motivation is to document their son's wrestling career. Not to become career pro event photographers.
So it's quite likely that if they bought the cheaper lens, they would never have any reason to ever upgrade, thus ultimately saving quite a lot of money.

Also, I think that a f/2 100mm + a f/1.8 50mm is actually a BETTER set of equipment for performing the desired type of photography described in the OP than a 70-200 2.8 would be. It's a known, controlled, repeating environment and their relative position compared to the wrestlers at any given time is probably going to be fairly consistent, so a zoom is not really that huge of a benefit. And those lenses are brighter than 2.8. And they have a crop-camera, making 70 almost certainly too long if they're near the front row. And they're lighter weight...

So it's not so much "buying the best" as it is "paying more for something sub-par for your needs."

 

[Smokeyr67]

What you said was so important that you had to say it twice, So important that you thought I was talking to you when I infact quoted someone else's post

Your right, I just assumed that an enthusiastic photographer, one that took the time to find this site, then register, then ask a question would ever feel the need to upgrade. I agree that the primes you suggest would be superior to the standard 24-70 and 70-200mm kit, but they would be less flexible if the OP decided to shoot other events.

 

[vimwiz]

I went to flickr and search for "highschool wrestling" and got quite a bit of result. I look at some of the better one and they did show lens focal length were 70-200mm. Few of them shots around 90mm to 100mm range. So I EF 70-200mm f/2.8 will be my guess. Pair that with a monopod.

Do Canon not make a 70-150 focal length lens any more (Though i recall it being slow - f/4.5?)

 

[Gavjenks]

SLi sort of speaks "got a practical family memories camera" to me, just the vibe I get. Could be wrong, OP can apply whatever the actual situation is to either set of advice as appropriate (Yes, I also agree a 70-200 is generally more useful in the world at large)

 

[robbins.photo]

Hello, first post and camera newbie here. We just got a Canon EOS Rebel SLi digital camera. It works great with the standard 18-55 lens. However, we need to get clear crisp pictures and videos of sons wrestling tournaments held in high school gyms. Lighting is not the greatest and sometimes dim. The wrestling is done in a 28 feet diameter circle, we would be at most 25 - 75 feet away, sometimes shooting much closer.

We are looking for a zoom lens that will keep in focus, be good quality, not too heavy and take good sports pictures so I assume needs to be fast. Do I need to go all the way up to a 70-200mm f/2.8 or is there another option to save weight and still meet needs of good sports camera for indoor not the greatest lighting. For pictures we will not use tripod but will use it for videos.

What suggestions would you give?

Thank you in advance.

Chuck

I would recommend a 70-200 mm F/2.8 if it's within your budget. I've never used the Tamron version but I do own the Sigma version with OS, and it is an outstanding lens. You will get your best results by stopping down the lens just a bit rather than shooting wide open (F 3.2 or F 3.5) and keeping your shutter speed high to avoid motion blur or camera shake.

The 70-200 mm is an outstanding lens and one that I think you'll find you'll get a lot of use out of, I purchased mine just recently and other than a few occasions when I needed to swap it out for the 18-55 it's pretty much stayed on the camera since, it is extremely versatile and just takes great photos.

The Sigma version with OS (Optical stabilization) usually runs around $900-$1000. You'd have to price the Tamron version and maybe solicit some opinions from folks that own it for comparison, but I can tell you from experience that the sigma focuses fast and is a great lens for sports.

 

[Dao]

If cost is an issue, the 85mm f/1.8 may not be a bad choice based on the photos examples I saw in flickr (some of the good one were taken with focal length between 70mm to 100mm). Buying used or refurbished is another route. I picked up my used Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (older version) for $350 last year from a local craiglist ads. A little soft when shoot at f/2.8, but quite good from 3.5 to 4 at 200mm.

Whether you need to shoot at wider aperture or not depends on the light conditions. Based on what I saw, some of them even shoot at f/2.8 with ISO3200 with shutter speed of 1/200 (or 1/250) already. Imagine if you need to shoot at a smaller aperture with a consumer grade lens. Your ISO settings may need to be ISO6400 or ISO12800.