203

6/5/2012 10:28:59 AM

I just bought my first dslr yesterday , It came with the 18-55. Will this be acceptable to take photos of my daughter/family in sports,etc. Can you suggest a better lens?

6/5/2012 11:34:15 AM

The kit lens is okay for general use, but for sports it is not going to be that hot except on a bright sunny day and if you can get in really close to the sidelines. Generally a telephoto is going to be required to do anything like that though. More importantly though what dSLR is it?

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM. Reason : What Igor said!]

6/5/2012 11:46:23 AM

For sports you will probably need a zoom lens. Preferably one with a large aperture. Post the camera manufacturer/model, type of sport your daughter plays, and your budget.

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM. Reason : ^beat me to it]

6/5/2012 11:48:03 AM

Canon T3i, Soccer mainly right now. Softball later. Nothing to extreme. 300-400 bucks or less

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM. Reason : sports]

6/5/2012 11:49:12 AM

I'm just a dad trying to take some photos

6/5/2012 11:53:09 AM

Soccer will be tough on a budget, sofball will be a little easier. GOod news that they are both set outdoors in bright light. Since you will be dealing with a field where you can't physically be close to your daughter, you need a zoom lens. Here are some options.

Budget:

EF 75-300 http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1338911430&sr=8-3

EF-S 55-250 http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0011NVMO8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338911397&sr=8-1

A little more money mill get you optical image stabilization for the 75-300:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1338911430&sr=8-2

What you really need if you want quality sports photos is the 70-200L. There are several flavors of it, and you can pick them up used for as little as 600 bucks for the 70-200 f/4 non-IS. Here are all the different versions you can get:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=70-200

f/2.8 aperture is almost a must for indoor sports photos, but in your case f/4 will do.

If you hate swapping the lenses all the time, the sport is played outdoors, and you don't mind sacrificing image quality a bit, you can get an ultrazoom like the 18-200. Image quality-wise it will be like combining your 18-55 and 55-250 above into one lens.

There are also similar lenses from third-party manufacturers such as Sigma and Tamron, but I can't speak for them since I don't have any hands-on experience with those.

You can also rent zoom lenses if you only need to take these photos every so often. Rental of the top-of-the line, 2500 dollar 70-200 f/2.8 IS is something like 40 bucks per day or weekend.

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2012 11:58:51 AM

^Yes if you did the 18-200 you could pretty much just sell that 18-55 kit lens to help fund the new lens. As stated on the page before, its not pro quality glass, but it is a good one size fits all lens for situations like travel or your vacation where you don't want to carry a whole slew of glass.

Also I have shot with a 70-300mm VR II Nikon lens and even some with my first purchased lens, the 55-200mm VR. They do pretty good as sports lenses in bright light, and will get you pretty close. If you want a one size fits all lens, go with the 18-200 ultrazoom. If you want something that will be a good midrange telephoto for practically anything, go for the 70-300mm that Igor posted above. If that is too much, step down to the 55-200mm.

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2012 12:02:23 PM

Honestly budget isnt a big deal, i just want to get the most out of my camera.

Where does one rent lens around raleigh

6/5/2012 12:09:18 PM

I would really like to have a everyday lens like stated before i dont want to be carrying or swapping out alot of them.

6/5/2012 12:11:31 PM

^^^The only caveat is that it's kind of hard to sell the 18-55 for any kind of a decent money because it's the lens that everyone upgrades from. 18-135 kit lens is a little better in that respect.

^sounds like the 18-200 will be a good compromise for you then. I own one and use it all the time for casual photography, even though I have higher quality lenses that are more limited in range.

Another good thing to get for photographing sports with a zoom lens is a monopod. You can pick one up locally for 30 bucks or so.

But the best thing you can get is a book explaining how to use all the capabilities of your new camera. There are various titles that will be specific to your camera model: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T3i-600D/dp/032177664X they will teach you all the basic concepts behind good photography, as well as model-specific functions and features. This same information is available for free from the Internetz, but really having it all sequentially laid out and referenced to your camera is well worth the 15 bucks.

T3i has a very solid feature set that should keep you going for a while.


[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2012 12:17:32 PM

Great! thanks guys for the information.

6/5/2012 2:57:19 PM

If budget isn't an issue, I'd say a 24-70 or a 70-200 would be the best bet.

6/5/2012 3:46:02 PM

This might be a bit outside of this thread's scope, but here it is anyhow

6/5/2012 10:55:39 PM

Wife has approved this purchase? Thoughts before I press Add to cart

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1338952858&sr=1-2

6/5/2012 11:22:26 PM

Quote :

"zoom lens"

Quote :

" preferably with a large aperture"

lol

have fun buying a $3000 lens

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 11:49 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2012 11:48:36 PM

or a $1400 lens...

or an $800 lens...

6/5/2012 11:54:48 PM

Yes I am sure there are plenty of telephoto lenses under f/4.0 that are also under $1000. They're all over the place.

6/6/2012 12:16:51 AM

shoulda grabbed an SLR

6/6/2012 12:24:14 AM

^^there may not be many, but 70-200 f/4 non-IS is can be had for under 1000 new

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338957951&sr=8-1

On a used market, he may be able to even snatch the IS version for under a grand

But I think we have already established that for his needs, one of the non-L zooms, or a superzoom like 18-200 will be fine. It will not have the sharpness, the quick autofocus, or the build of the 70-200, especially on the telephoto end, but there will not be much difference in the amount of light it will pass through.

f/2.8 telephotos, on the other hand, get expensive quickly

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 12:56 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2012 12:50:20 AM

So i should go with the above link

6/6/2012 12:56:24 AM

Yes, the 70-200 in the link you posted will be your best bet for a new lens for sports photography under 1000 bucks. It will have a solid build, sharp L-grade glass, fast autofocus, and constant aperture through the zoom range. You will not have image stabilization, which comes handy when shooting indoor with a relatively low shutter speed, but won't make much difference for high-shutter-speed sports photos. Used IS version can be had for a grand if you really want that. http://raleigh.craigslist.org/pho/3035614564.html

If you really really hate having multiple lenses, and you want to have a better all-around lens than what you got for about the same price, 18-200 may be the lens for you. See my post above.

The best way to find out what's good for you is to try out both of these by renting or borrowing, and decide for yourself. If that's not an option, i'd say go ahead and get the 70-200, you won't be disappointed.

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 1:12 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2012 1:06:56 AM

Quote :

"Yes I am sure there are plenty of telephoto lenses under f/4.0 that are also under $1000. They're all over the place."

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html

Sorry.




There also used to be Sigma 70 or 80 to 200 f/2.8's for under $1000 but i think they discontinued them, upgraded them, and bumped the price up to 1200 or so.


[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2012 1:11:26 AM

Yeah i'm going to rent a couple to see whats best. alot to digest

6/6/2012 1:12:27 AM

^that's pretty sweet price for a 2.8 telephoto. Haven't had much experience with third-party lenses, but the 2.8 aperture under 1000 bucks may be worth going to Tamron, assuming that lens can autofocus quickly.

6/6/2012 1:15:43 AM

6/6/2012 3:37:03 PM

When there's literally one lens with the stats you want at that price point, you can probably bet that it's going to be the shittiest one.

6/6/2012 3:42:48 PM

^^
pretty cool....where is that?

6/6/2012 3:44:18 PM

that's where Igor lives

6/6/2012 3:45:19 PM

Sultan's library at Topkapi palace in Istanbul, Turkey.

6/6/2012 3:52:54 PM

I want Igor to photograph me

not in a creepy way

just sayin'

6/6/2012 5:10:06 PM

I want to photograph people

not in a creepy way

although I hear there is a lot of work in boudoir these days

6/6/2012 5:23:33 PM

let's do it

not in a creepy way

6/6/2012 5:31:49 PM

Quote :

"When there's literally one lens with the stats you want at that price point, you can probably bet that it's going to be the shittiest one. "

An $800 Tamron lens is shittier than the $2300 Canon L series version II with image stabilization? No way!

Does this guy need a $3000 or $2300 lens to shoot his daughter's soccer games? Should I refer you back to the video that you posted on page 202?

He can split the difference and get a version I canon, or a Sigma, or an f/4, whatever. but sub-$1000 f/2.8's telephotos do exist. And sub-$3000 ones definitely exist.

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ,]

6/6/2012 5:35:25 PM

God is just trolling as usual. Not even worth replying to him outside of the film SLR thread

^^i do not live in the Raleigh area anymore, so maybe next time we have a TDub photo meetup

that way all the other d00ds on here can join in on the fun

not in a creepy way

6/6/2012 5:42:35 PM

well of course

not in a creepy way

6/6/2012 6:03:55 PM

well damn...

what about those of us looking for a creepy shoot?

6/6/2012 7:25:40 PM

^^^Wow, I didn't realize that guy could actually post something that wasn't caustic in some way. Are the photos God posts ITT actual DSLR shots, or his way of trying to prove his self-perceived superiority in every-which-way possible (since the film thread gets so much traffic)?

6/6/2012 8:59:03 PM

Everything I post here is from a DSLR.

6/6/2012 11:45:42 PM

Here are some more concert shots since that's all i post:











[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 11:54 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2012 11:49:21 PM

would have liked to see less crop

[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 12:10 AM. Reason : ]

6/7/2012 12:10:47 AM

^would like to see less you

6/7/2012 12:17:05 AM

^^this is probably the best concert set out of the last few

6/7/2012 12:26:51 AM

I never said it was bad

6/7/2012 12:41:28 AM

Wider? I'm on my phone now but I think there's a better variety here if that's what you mean:

http://www.beachedmiami.com/2012/06/04/nabedipalooza-photos/

Or in the facebook link in the post.

[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 4:45 AM. Reason : .]

6/7/2012 4:43:20 AM

Trying to take some photos in dark without flash. would i be suited with 50mm 1.4 or will i see i huge difference 1.2. thanks for the help again.

I picked up this

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00006I53W/ref=sr_1_5?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1339552827&sr=1-5

LOVE IT.

6/12/2012 10:02:45 PM

That's what we like to call a "baller" lens. Nice decision.

And honestly, the 50 1.2 is nice, but not worth the difference. The 50 1.4 is one of the best and most useful lenses you can buy for the money, and is over a grand cheaper than the 1.2.

What body are you using this on?

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2012 10:37:13 PM

I really want to pull the trigger on 70-200 f/2.8, but I still can't decide if the IS is worth the extra money. I mean, the non-IS version is less than the f/4 IS version, and an entire grand less than f/2.8 IS II.

Has anyone use the original f/2.8 IS? How much better is IS II? the difference on the used marked is about a grand between the two

6/12/2012 11:14:59 PM

^^T3i. Im happy with my decision. maybe in six months or so ill be ready to move up

Like stated before I'm just a dad trying to take some photos

6/12/2012 11:31:17 PM

Why such a price difference between 1.2-1.4

6/12/2012 11:33:27 PM