Sports/wildlife lens? - DPChallenge Forums

11/02/2005 10:38:17 AM · #1

My boyfriend is going to get me a lens for my birthday and I'd like to get something that would be good for sports and wildlife pictures. Currently I have the kit lens for the Canon Digital Rebel and the 100mm f2.8 USM macro lens.

I have been reading about lenses, but I'm not sure what would be my best choice. What would you recommend?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 10:43:56 AM · #2

Is money a concern?
For wildlife the Sigma 50-500 is rather nice.
for sports, canon's 70-200 2.8 IS is the way to go, and add on a 2x converter and you can make it work as a wildlife lens too.

If you are on a tighter budget...sigma makes a 70-200 2.8 EX for 1/2 the cost of the big canon and it is good glass. Alan uses this lens for covering the Steelers - sample shots here

You chose will with your macro lens, and since you are getting used to nice glass you may not be satisfied with anything inexpensive.

For sports the 200m range works pretty well. The 2.8 ap gives nice DOF control and low light useability.

For wildlife, the longer the better, hence the 'Bigma' recomendation.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

11/02/2005 10:44:28 AM · #3

Budget?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/02/2005 10:47:36 AM · #4

Originally posted by doctornick:

Budget?

I don't think I'd want to go as high as $1000. I know some of the lenses are quite expensive.

Thanks for the suggestions.
-Roxanne

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/02/2005 10:48:22 AM · #5

what kinds of sports? indoors, outdoors, field sports?

What kind of wildlife, squirrels, birds on the feeder, big cats in Africa?

Budget?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 10:52:04 AM · #6

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

what kinds of sports? indoors, outdoors, field sports?

What kind of wildlife, squirrels, birds on the feeder, big cats in Africa?

Budget?

Sports: mainly tennis and beach volleyball outdoors.

Wildlife: birds especially egrets, herons and pelicans. Don't know what else I'll see.

-Roxanne

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

11/02/2005 10:56:31 AM · #7

For less than $1000 and as a starter sports and wildlife lens I'd recommend the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 US IS zoom lens for US$634.95 or for a little less range but better quality the Canon 70-200mm f/4L for US$564.95. Remember with your Rebel this is equivalent to a 112-480mm zoom and a 112-320mm zoom, more than adequate for some sports and wildlife. When you get more experience and if you see it's not enough in terms of quality and range then I'd recommend prime telephotos like the Canon 300mm f/4L IS for US$1104.95

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/02/2005 10:59:53 AM · #8

Originally posted by doctornick:

Thanks doctornick. This is very helpful.
-Roxanne

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/02/2005 11:01:31 AM · #9

Originally posted by Zippy:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
what kinds of sports? indoors, outdoors, field sports?

What kind of wildlife, squirrels, birds on the feeder, big cats in Africa?

Budget?

Sports: mainly tennis and beach volleyball outdoors.

Wildlife: birds especially egrets, herons and pelicans. Don't know what else I'll see.

-Roxanne

Well, if your budget was more generous, I'd suggest this lens, and a gym membership, but it's well worth it. You could try the "If you really love me, you'll buy it for me" approach, but that's not so nice to your boyfriend.

Within your budget, this lens is just under $1k before tax. It's not particularly fast, but has the reach.

If you want a faster lens, this would be a good choice.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

11/02/2005 11:17:48 AM · #10

For the sports you mentioned the 70-200 is long enough, maybe f4 is fast enough instead of f2.8 if your thinking about daylight shooting. For wildlife think about something longer like the Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6, or Sigma 170-500mm f5-6.3; or the Tamron 200-500mm f5-6.3.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/02/2005 11:18:28 AM · #11

Thanks Spazmo99, Prof_Fate, and coolhar. It's going to be hard to decide, but I can't wait to get the new toy.

-Roxanne

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 11:21:20.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

11/02/2005 11:26:25 AM · #12

Originally posted by Zippy:

I don't think I'd want to go as high as $1000. I know some of the lenses are quite expensive.

Do keep in mind that the amount of money he is willing to spend is directly proportional to how much he loves you... ;)

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/02/2005 11:30:01 AM · #13

Originally posted by alansfreed:

Originally posted by Zippy:
I don't think I'd want to go as high as $1000. I know some of the lenses are quite expensive.

Do keep in mind that the amount of money he is willing to spend is directly proportional to how much he loves you... ;)

I'll tell him that...

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/02/2005 11:31:44 AM · #14

For birds the 70-200 is way too short. I would reccommend the sigma 50-500 or the Canon 100-400.
Of course they are way too long for the beach volleyball, you just can't swing glass that long, fast enough to folow the action, so you have to pick a spot and wait for the action to come into your frame. Going with the Canon 70-200 either 2.8 of 4 ( the Sigma 2.8 sells for the sameprice as the Caono 4) would work best for these sports IMHO. And as Doctor Nick pointed out the Canon 70-300is is an underrated lens, a bit soft but tremendously versitile, might do both things pretty well if you can give up the quest for ultimate sharpness.

11/02/2005 11:36:00 AM · #15

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Thanks BrennanOB.
-Roxanne

Thanks everyone. I'm off to play some tennis and I'll check back here later.

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 11:37:13.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/02/2005 11:40:39 AM · #16

As you narrow it down, you'l want to read some reviews...
comparable ratings of most all lenses
The better lenses out there

And of course, sample shots are helpful, so try DPC first!

Anything will be a compromise - price, speed, reach are the easy ones as those are hard numbers. Brand, color, contrast, focus speed are all more matters of opinion.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/02/2005 01:15:46 PM · #17

Here are some examples of action and animals using the Sigma 50-500Ex. Retails near $999.00 US

riot

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Helios 40-1 85mm f/1.5

11/02/2005 05:53:11 PM · #18

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

For birds the 70-200 is way too short. I would reccommend the sigma 50-500 or the Canon 100-400.

I wouldn't recommend one of the "megazooms", especially not a sigma, as quality will suffer at both extremes of the wide focal range. I definitely second the 100-400L IS though, i bought it for birding and it's never failed me yet - i also find myself using its long end shooting sports a lot of the time, and i wouldn't say a 70-200 can touch it (in terms of what i use it for, anyway). I dunno if you'd find one for under $1000 though, i was lucky to get a new one under Â£1000 :)

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/02/2005 06:12:31 PM · #19

get a 70-200 2.8 -- sigma if that's what you can afford...then for wildlife, save up for a 400 f/4

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/02/2005 06:19:37 PM · #20

The Canon 100-400 IS is $1400. Beyond the budget.

Why is it in almost all threads of this type must people recomend lenses that are way off the mark, price wise?

Sigma makes lots of long zooms and most are rated rather well.
Sigma 50-500 4-6.3 APO EX HSM $999
Sigma 80-400 4.5-5.6 EX OS APO $999 - an image stabilized lens
Sigma AF 135-400 4.5-5.6 APO $539
Sigma 170-500 5-6.7 APO is the lowest rated of these. $699
(prices from bhphoto.com, ratings from photozone.de)

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/02/2005 07:25:42 PM · #21

Unless you plan on making money from your sports, and nature pix go ahead and spend the money on a good lens.

There is this thing called a "write off" that you can use twords your photographic business. In a business, quality should always come first or you won't get call backs.

300mm 2.8f canon or my personal favorite 400mm 2.8 Canon for sports and wildlife.

600 4f Canon for surfing type sports, and that really far tree with a birds nest.

If you just want a lens that helps you get by to do some personal stuff, for yourself, and for family and friends, and want to break into that piggy band of quarters you have been saving up listen to Prof_Fate.

deapee

Kodak V803

11/02/2005 07:51:38 PM · #22

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

well said.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

11/02/2005 08:16:27 PM · #23

You might also want to look at this lens:

Tamron 200-500

For $850 it gives you plenty of range. I have used the Nikon version with a 1.4 teleconverter and had pretty decent results. Many of these were taken with that combo:

Bird shots

P.S. - I do not believe you can get both bird photography and sports photography out of the same lens with a budget under $1,000. I would pick one and go with it. 70-200 F4 (or faster if you can find one under $1,000) for sports and the longest lens you can get for birds. I happen to use the Tamron because it is less zoom (200-500) vs the Sigma (50-500). The rule of thumb I have been told is that more than 3x and you start to lose quality at both ends. Just my opiniopn of course.

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 20:25:35.

riot

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Helios 40-1 85mm f/1.5

11/02/2005 08:27:38 PM · #24

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

If you just want a lens that helps you get by to do some personal stuff, for yourself, and for family and friends, and want to break into that piggy band of quarters you have been saving up listen to Prof_Fate.

To be fair, prof_fate has a good point - we were given a budget, it's stupid to just ignore it and say "get a bigger budget if you want to be a good photographer". On the other hand, budgets mean different things to different people - one person's budget of $1000 may be all they have to spare to be able to eat for the rest of the year (my studentness comes out here), while another's $1000 implies being stretchable to $1500 if the difference is worth it.

Both kinds of advice are useful to both kinds of people, but i don't think it's right to give people the impression that their budget is holding back their creativity - this talk of "quality" is pretty subjective. Sure if you're talking sharpness, colour reproduction, whatever... then yes, you get what you pay for. But four different cheap lenses in the hands of a creative individual may get better results than a single expensive lens for the same price. Even in marketing terms, not all saleability pivots around razor sharpness and billboard-size printability.