Your favorite action sports lens

Fritz_Wetherbee

Fritz_Wetherbee

Member
Hey all, I'm looking to drop about 300/400 for a lens.(used)
So i was wondering what your favorite lenses are for outdoor shooting. Assuming there would be pretty good light most of the time. This is mostly going to be for skiing and Football games so i'm looking for a good fast af.
But im having trouble deciding on what zoom i should have. And I'm not sure of the build quality of other name brand companies are being pretty new into photography.
I was looking at the cannon ef 28-135 f/3.5 but apparently it has a really soft focus?[/b][/b]
[/b][/b]I am just so sick of this 28-55 crap they put in the kit.
thanks
[/b][/b]
[/b][/b]

[/b]
 
if you're looking for a something with a little bit of range then i would suggest just stomaching the extra 150 and try and find a used 70-200 f4L
otherwise if you're okay with having a normal lense then you can't go wrong with a nifty 50. 50mm 1.8 and its 95 bucks (don't buy it used)
i just got the 18-135 on my 7d and so far i've been able to stop action pretty nicely so that would be in your price range but i would stronnnggggly suggest the 70-200. It's not IS but if you're outside then that won't matter.
assuming you're shooting canon btw
 
mmm that is a little bit more but it does look like the best option. I like that the front element doesn't turn so I don't have to mess with my polarizing filter.
and yeah I think I'm picking up a 50 soon as well.
Yeah you were correct with cannon. and I think I will just save up some more, I can get through the fall with just the 50 and then ill have enough to buy that for the start of the season.
Thanks man +k
 
you can get used 70-200 f/4 L's for like $425-475

my advice for anything camera related, especially lenses, is don't don't don't cheap out. you will upgrade at some point anyway so just spend the extra money and get a good lens. it's not worth it to cheap out on some shitty glass and regret it and eventually upgrade
 
I am almost 100% sure this is not what you want, but it looks dope anyways:

http://www.lensbaby.com/

Not sure on the cost of them, just thought I'd share.

Fisheyes are 100% the way to go if you're shooting video, but for stills I personally don't like them.
 
For football games you'll want something reasonably long, so listen to no_steeze.

For skiing, something long won't be that good because you'll have to be further away. Good for shooting big lines in AK from across the valley or a jump line, not great for shooting urban, jibs, or closer-up onslope stuff.

As for apertures, for football games you'll want a big wide aperture because they take place at night and though the lights are bright, they aren't THAT bright, and you won't be able to crank you shutter speed too high. For skiing, you don't need as wide an aperture since the snow is damn bright unless you're shooting at night, in which case you've got lighting to deal with and are probably shooting with flashes.

All that said, you're going to want to jump on the $300 dollar 55-250 that Canon sells.

Don't.

You want something of better build and actual quality, and though the zoom range sounds inviting, the price shines through like a polished turd elsewhere. I know, because it came with the T1i kit I returned in favor of a Nikon D90 body.

What I would do if I were you is spend $99 dollars on the 50mm f/1.8 prime Canon offers- it's a great lens for the price and will definitely turn into your "always on the camera" lens.

I'd spend the remaining $450-475 (yes, I did increase your budget for you) on a used 70-200 f/4L like no_steeze suggested.

 
^^^ is exactly what im doing. haha and yeah i know those consumer zooms are trash

but do you think that f4 is good enough for those friday night lights games??
 
70-200mm f/2.8
handddddssss down.

or the f/4 - I prefer the 2.8 though, it is a bit more expensive
 
Don't get a lensbaby, I bought one a ways back for artsy shit, thats what it's made for, not sports. It allows you to manipulate the lens to give an odd dof in portions of the photograph. Kind of like a poorly made tilt-shift.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a waste of cash in my opinion. Yes it's under $100 and it produces great images if it's on a tripod, but the build is subpar with a completely plastic mount. And it's af is super slow and noisy so you'll miss most action shots unless pre-focused. If for portrait stuff though, go for it. You might want to look into the f/1.4 for a couple hundo more.

Telephotos, get an L series while you're still new, you won't regret it. The water sealing, build quality, and optics are amazing. If you don't care about the physical condition, you can get a 70-200 f/4 for under $500. $500-$550 would be if you wanted great condition. I use a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, which allows for use in super dark places, and the IS helps a ton for low shutter speeds.

Just buy a 70-200 used and you won't regret your decision.
 
I think that depends on what ISO levels you'll want to shoot at. It should be fine, and the bump from f4 to f2.8 is like the bump from ISO 800 to 1600. That said, the f2.8 will give you more options, and your shots with it at tighter apertures should be even sharper with the 2.8.
 
Yes, and trust me that jump in iso is very important with entry level cameras as they are super noisy even at 800 to begin with. I try and keep my iso at 50 in the day and 400 in the dark and play with the shutter speed. It's much more important than playing with the iso. Better to get a noisy shot, than a blurry unuseable shot.
 
^Agreed. If you can stomach to cough up the cash for the 2.8, do it, if you just don't have the means, the f4 will do.
 
I'd have to disagree/say you can't tell. I've done very close inspection on both lenses and can't tell a difference at a 3000% zoom. Unless you are saying the f/4 at f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 at f/2.8, then I'd agree, it's due to the amount of bokeh produced. I can tell you that the f/2.8 is much sharper than it's counterpart the f/2.8 IS due to the extra elements and stabilizing unit.

I rarely shoot the f/2.8 at f/2.8 to be honest unless necessary, I normally bump it down to f/4 for better clarity when the shutter speed is not an issue. The f/2.8 lenss has a much better af than its counterpart the f/4 lens, which is the most important.
 
Sports games, big aperture, and fast shutter speed, which I know doesn't have to do with the lens but nonetheless. For skating, skiing, anything, I suggest the Nikon 10.5. Best lens I've ever used hands down
 
He's not shooting nikon..

Go 70-200 F/4 (i'd reccomend IS though, i love mine) and then get a 24-105 and finally a fisheye or a UWA (tokina 10-17 or 11-16 OR samyang/rokinon 14 if you're on a budget and shooting stills.)

There you go, if you're not shooting birds or something you've got a 3 lense setup for all FL's. If you are, buy a 1.4x teleconverter and you're set!
 
So im seeing some pretty sweet deals on the 70-200 f4 on ebay.
I think im going to get that first, save up another $700 and throw down for the 2.8 is. I'm liking how nicely lenses hold resale value.
Now here is another question for you guys, I'm only shooting with a rebel xsi. Will it even live up to these lenses potential? I feel like i should get the 70-200 and then just save to upgrade to the 7d before i get more glass.
 
Glass before body always. You will produce superb shots with a 70-200 on a xti even though it's not a great body. But put a tamron lens f/3.5-5.6 on a 1dsmk3 and you will be regretting your 7k body.
One of the bonuses of the L series is it's weatherproof. The rebel series doesnt have that ability to pair with it. The xxd and xd have weatherproofed battery seals, while the 1d series has a complete weatherproofing.
 
Good glass on a "bad" body is infinitely better than bad glass on a "good" body.

Shooting with L lenses on your rebel will produce better images than shooting with the stock 18-55 on a 7D.

I'd work on my array of lenses while saving for a new body. If you're looking to a 7D, wait for its replacement to come out- the 7D will drop in price AND you'll have a better alternative if you want it.
 
upgrading your body wouldn't be a bad call at all, but it's more about what you do behind the camera than what the camera does itself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top