Which Lens is Best?

colonelcamp

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Location
NJ
Website
www.flickr.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hi,

I have an XSi that I would like to buy a better lens for.

For new lenses I am considering a few options:

24-70 2.8L USM
200 2.8L
85 1.8

My needs are to shoot soccer games that will take place primarily during the mid day. I already have a 70-200 4.0L and that's just fine for mid day shooting, plenty of light.

The main need that I have is to shoot baseball at night and basketball indoors and the faster 24-70, 85 or 200 would be much better suited to that task. the 70-200 4.0 is pretty useless for this especially coupled with the XSi's poor performance at ISO levels higher than 800 (even 800 is pushing it).

So which lens is best? I like the 24-70 for basketball but the reach of this lens might be limiting for Baseball.

The 200 is good but limiting for the closer focal lengths both in Basketball and Baseball.

The 85 is the same as the 200 as far as pros and cons for what I need.

Which is the better lens as far as sharpness; all things being equal.

Thanks,
Danny
 
If you need to shoot low light indoors and also outdoors I would go with the 200 2.8, it's fast and you can zoom in quite a bit to get those good action shots. The 85 1.8 is more for portraiture and that sort of thing. the 24-70 definately is not a big enough zoom for sports, IMO. I would personally go with the 200 2.8 and sell your 4.0.
 
70-200 2.8L IS and if you can spend the extra $400 go for the II
 
agreed with the 2.8 70-200.. otherwise the 24-70.. having a bit of zoom is important. plus.. you can also take the 24-70 into almost every application and get great shots
 
I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. I was talking about the prime 200mm 2.8L
 
you need the zoom range man.. get the 70-200. It will pair nicely with your 28-70
 
I've shot my son extensively playing both basketball, baseball, and soccer. I used my 50mm f/1.4 for the basketball and 80-200mm f/2.8 for the baseball and soccer on a D90.

200mm is really not long enough for baseball, especially if it's a professional sized field. My son is only 9 and he plays on youth fields, and it's still not long enough. It's about the right length for shooting the pitcher and for shooting the batter from the dugout area, but if you're on the third base side and looking to get a shot of a play at first, plan on doing some major cropping in post. Even plays at second need cropping. And forget about plays in the outfield.

For basketball I've found my 50mm f/1.4 to be just about right on my D90 for shooting under the basket, although it can get a little tight. Something a little wider would be good. I think the 24-70mm f/2.8 would be perfect under the basket, but even at f/2.8 you'll need to use a fairly high ISO. In the best lit gyms my son has played in I was shooting at ISO 1600, f/2 @ 1/640. I wouldn't go slower than a 1/500 shutter for any type of action shots.

The 85mm is too long on a crop body for under the basket shots, unless you're shooting them standing at the 3-point line. Of course that is youth sports. On a full-size court you'll probably get better results with an 85mm.

For soccer, if you are shooting from the baseline to about 1/3-1/2 of the field then 200mm is fine. Beyond that you'll need something longer. Again, this is based on my experience shooting youth sports on youth fields. You'll have to adjust accordingly for full-size fields.

My advice would be to pickup a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 for the basketball and a 70-200mm f/2.8 for the others. Although you'll get better results with a 300mm for the field sports. Since you're shooting the field sports during the day then you can get more affordable options, like a 300mm variable aperture zoom.
 
Has anyone used any of these lenses?

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Lens

I wonder if the drop off from the Canon 24-70 sharpness and image quality is apparent. The cost is more than half so I would imagine there is a difference, but is the difference enough to not get either?

I guess you get what you pay for... maybe

Danny
 
i like my sigma. But the AF sucks in low light.
 
Has anyone used any of these lenses?

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Lens

I wonder if the drop off from the Canon 24-70 sharpness and image quality is apparent. The cost is more than half so I would imagine there is a difference, but is the difference enough to not get either?

I guess you get what you pay for... maybe

Danny
 
Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD

I have this lens and bought it when I had an XSI. Loved the lens. For the price, compared to the 24-70 from Canon, its a no brainer.

It is so much lighter. It shoots just as sharp at f/5.6.
At f/2.8, the Canon is slightly sharper. The kicker though is that the Tamron has somewhat slow AF when in dark conditions compared to the Canon.

Quick story: I was planning on upgrading the 28-75 for the 24-70. I had the cash. I went to my local store, ready to buy. Spoke to my regular guy. He brought me in back, turned on his PC, and we looked at sharpness charts online. He told me I probably wouldn't be too impressed. Somewhat, yes, but not too.

I had a dance show to shoot that weekend, so he let me rent it for 3 days for the price of 1 and if I bought the lens, he would knock the price of the rental off the overall price of the lens.

I brought both lenses to the show and switched them around.

Yes, the autofocus was faster, but guess what...at the end, I did not buy the 24-70. I bought a 70-200 2.8 IS instead. I will buy the Canon one day, but the Tamron is still a kick a$$ lens.
 
For canon, the best lens, and probably the most popular would be the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I just got mine a few weeks ago, and its superb. It focuses so fast and smooth its crazy.
 
I agree with what others have said about selling your 70-200 f/4 and getting a 70-200 2.8 IS.

The reason I say this is because you said your current 70-200 is ok for good light, but lacking in low light. The logical thing is to replace it with what you really want, and then you can sell it. The 2.8 is good for low AND bright light, and will be all you will ever need 99% of the time in that focal range.

Its such a good time to buy the 70-200 2.8 IS, because the price dropped with the release of the mk II.

If you could afford it I would recommend getting the mk II though. It is one of the best if not the best Canon zoom lens ever made. It is razor sharp, even wide open, and the IS is much improved over the mk I. It would also be longer before you consider an upgrade.

Hope this helps.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top