Canon Lenses: I am trying to get more into lenses and which one is best for me, rather using a stock lens that comes with the camera but... I don't know where to start. I kinda want to...

reidnebs24 Loc: Sandy, Utah

I am trying to get more into lenses and which one is best for me, rather using a stock lens that comes with the camera but... I don't know where to start. I kinda want to get into sports photography so I am looking for a reasonable telephoto lens, as well as one just while I'm out and about. Any recommendations from anyone and why? Thanks, any feedback will help :thumbup:

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

reidnebs24 wrote:

I am trying to get more into lenses and which one is best for me, rather using a stock lens that comes with the camera but... I don't know where to start. I kinda want to get into sports photography so I am looking for a reasonable telephoto lens, as well as one just while I'm out and about. Any recommendations from anyone and why? Thanks, any feedback will help :thumbup:

Need more info- What camera? What sports-indoors or out? Budget?

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

I'm assuming, since you titled the thread, "CANON lenses", that you don't shoot Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, or Fuji.

That said, there are two very decent quality Canon "L" designation lenses that you can get that provide a lot of bang for the buck:

The 24-105mm f:4 IS USM which you should be able to pick up for between $600 and $700, and the 70-200mm f:4 NON-IS lens, which you can probably find for not a whole lot more. The 24-105 is sold as part of a kit with the 6D, and you can find a ton of them on eBay, Craigslist, and so one from people who bought the kit but don't need the extra lens. The 70-200 is the least expensive of the four 70-200 L lenses, and by many accounts is as sharp as its $2300 f:2.8 IS brothers.

reidnebs24 Loc: Sandy, Utah

boberic wrote:

Need more info- What camera? What sports-indoors or out? Budget?

I have a Canon 70D and I'd like to do mostly outdoor sports like skiing and lacrosse, and then if I can i would love to do some hockey (indoors) photos. I would love it if they were under $1,000.

reidnebs24 Loc: Sandy, Utah

FredB wrote:

The 24-105mm f:4 IS USM which you should be able to pick up for between $600 and $700, and the 70-200mm f:4 NON-IS lens, which you can probably find for not a whole lot more. The 24-105 is sold as part of a kit with the 6D, and you can find a ton of them on eBay, Craigslist, and so one from people who bought the kit but don't need the extra lens. The 70-200 is the least expensive of the four 70-200 L lenses, and by many accounts is as sharp as its $2300 f:2.8 IS brothers.

Very helpful, thanks a lot.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

reidnebs24 wrote:

I am trying to get more into lenses and which one is best for me, rather using a stock lens that comes with the camera but... I don't know where to start. I kinda want to get into sports photography so I am looking for a reasonable telephoto lens, as well as one just while I'm out and about. Any recommendations from anyone and why? Thanks, any feedback will help :thumbup:

As others have said, camera model and budget will have a significant influence.

How does the EF 70 - 200 f/2.8L IS II sound at around $2500?

If you are lying on the floor shaking in disbelief then a different discussion is needed!

Ahh!, Just saw the earlier reply, The 70 -200 F/4 L IS USM could be the one....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000I1X3W8/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1421630326&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+ef+70-200mm+f+4l+is+usm&condition=used

Under a grand used....

There are also rumors of a new EF-S 18-300 coming soon. http://www.canonrumors.com/category/photography/canon-lenses/

Nothing definite yet though...

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

reidnebs24 wrote:

Very helpful, thanks a lot.

Just remember that both lenses are going to alter your FOV on the APS-C camera. I've used my 6D and both lenses indoors at funky elementary school b-ball games and gotten decent results, but my 6D does not lend itself to action shots like your 70D does. Either one should suffice, with the nod towards the 24-105 for landscape and nature type stuff.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

.

reidnebs24 wrote:

I have a Canon 70D and I'd like to do mostly outdoor sports like skiing and lacrosse, and then if I can i would love to do some hockey (indoors) photos. I would love it if they were under $1,000.

As above the 70-200 F4 L non IS version at about $700 might be the best allround choice. Adding a 50mm 1.8 at under $200 might help in low light/

reidnebs24 Loc: Sandy, Utah

Peterff wrote:

As others have said, camera model and budget will have a significant influence.

How does the EF 70 - 200 f/2.8L IS II sound at around $2500?

If you are lying on the floor shaking in disbelief then a different discussion is needed!

I would have to save up some more money but yeah, I would be willing to spend at around that cost.
-I mean sure it sounds nice, but any specific reason why you would recommend this lens? Thanks

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

You can likely find a used 70-200 2.8 IS L lens for around $1000 as I did.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

BigBear wrote:

You can likely find a used 70-200 2.8 IS L lens for around $1000 as I did.

That would be a good deal in any situation! The faster lens and IS would definitely help for indoor lacrosse. Not so much for the skiing but a 2.8 IS L for under a grand is a deal in anyone's book.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

reidnebs24 wrote:

I would have to save up some more money but yeah, I would be willing to spend at around that cost.
-I mean sure it sounds nice, but any specific reason why you would recommend this lens? Thanks

Yes. Not from personal experience unfortunately. I go to a lot of conferences where flash cannot be used, and that is the lens I see most of the pros using that are covering the events.

Although the older version is cheaper, if you decide to do an upgrade to FF then that lens would sail right along with you.

Or, there is ebay for the older IS version:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f2-8-L-IS-USM-Lens-70-200-2-8-642-/141542800996?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item20f49bbe64

reidnebs24 Loc: Sandy, Utah

Peterff wrote:

Yes. Not from personal experience unfortunately. ... (show quote)

Thanks a lot!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

FredB wrote:

The faster lens and IS would definitely help for indoor lacrosse

Why would IS help in any sport setting?? Any time I've shot sports of any sort, I've had to use a shutter speed high enough that IS doesn't add anything.

hj Loc: Florida

rehess wrote:

Why would IS help in any sport setting?? Any time I've shot sports of any sort, I've had to use a shutter speed high enough that IS doesn't add anything.

TRUE! When I purchased my Canon 70-200mm f2.8L (non-IS) my night-time soccer photography improved considerably. Bought it used on eBay for $1000 from a dad whose son wanted to be a photographer for about one week :-) It was absolutely pristine.