Canon Lenses (Page 2): i would say,a 70-200 L 2.8 IS if your budget allows but any of the 70-200 are great.and must have for any person shooting sports,sorry if i mispelled,cant find...

heyjoe Loc: cincinnati ohio

i would say,a 70-200 L 2.8 IS if your budget allows
but any of the 70-200 are great.and must have for
any person shooting sports,sorry if i mispelled,cant find my glasses this morn.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

reidnebs24 - I made this suggestion for another user looking for 'reach' for birds with a Rebel (cropped body). They'll work just as well for your situation. Of the suggestions already, the 70-200 f/4L is a good idea but you'll have to decide if that will get you close enough from your typical vantage at a sporting event. If you'll always be maxed at 200mm, look instead at a 200mm prime. The 24-105L is a nice lens on either a full frame or cropped body, but will not long enough for sports action.

EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM (this is still a current lens, but used runs around $650 and would give you the lowest light capabilities although not the longest reach. I own this lens.)
review - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

EF 300mm f/4 L USM (approx $800 at KEH)
review - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

EF 400mm f/5.6L USM (another still current lens, approx $1050 at KEH used)
review - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

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

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.

Good Point. I don't shoot sports, so I may be completely off base. Perhaps with outdoor lacrosse?

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

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.

Excellent point!

eSteve Loc: Newark, DE

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

The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC compares very favorably with the Canon counterpart for $1000 less money NIB. I got a mint copy on eBay for $1000.

kekoakona Loc: Michigan

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:

Reidnebs,
I photographed my son's college team for 4 years. I shot over 100,000 photos and uploaded around 23,000 for the team parents. Most were shot with the stock 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS. Since then I've owned the L lens 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I have since sold it and settled with the 70-200 f/4 IS and love this lens. I didn't find the 2.8 any better than the f/4 plus the weight of the 2.8 wasn't worth it for me. Here are a couple shots with the 70-300.

(Download)

ole sarg Loc: south florida

start with the nifty 50 for about $100. See if you like changing lenses. If you do then go primes if not go with a rather weighty zoom.

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

Canon has great lenses, if you can afford them. I use several Tamron lenses and a Sigma super wide. They all work great. Don't limit yourself to the most expensive brand names.

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:

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

FredB wrote:

I'm assuming, since you titled the thread, "C... (show quote)

Canon shows the EF24-105mm in refurb for $919.00. The EF70-200mm f/4.0 USM is listed for $567.99. Both lenses are very versatile and wear well. Canon refurbs come with 12 mo. warranties.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

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:

No budget mentioned or sports.
Good general purpose sports is 100-400L II.
Good walk around lens and close to action (HS BB Court) 24-105L.
Good tight inside space lens Sigma (Raquet ball) 12-24

Basil Loc: New Mexico

I have both the 70-200 f4 L and the 300mm f4 L prime. Have not tried my new 300mm for sports yet, but for birds, I really like the 300 f4! One of the things I really like is the built-in slide-out lens hood! The lens is also very sharp! I can use it with a 1.4x extender and still have center point auto focus on my 7D Mark II.

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

For your stated purposes, a 50mm is useless. The 24-105 is next to useless. 105mm is just not enough zoom for sports photography, even if you're right on the sideline. Both are nice lenses (I own both), but you just need to get closer to the action for sports photography.

Whereas for indoor photography the 70-200 2.8 is more useful, it is no real advantage for outdoor sports in daytime. On the Bob Atkins Best Canon Lenses site, the 70-200 f4 is consistently rated within a tenth of a point of the f2.8; sometimes a 10th higher, sometimes lower. That is statistically negligible. So unless you really need the extra stop at the cost of an extra $1000 and want to carry the extra weight, the 2.8 might not be worth it. HOWEVER, if outdoor sports is really your top priority and you're willing to spend $2000, why not consider the brand new 100-400 ii IS? Double the reach and fast focus would be really useful to you. I just bought it and am blown away by how sharp it and how effective the IS is on moving animals. Also, I politely differ with others here that IS is not useful for high shutter speed sports shots. On the 70-200 f4 IS there are two types of IS possible; one designed specifically for subjects moving primarily laterally, as in most sports shots. The 100-400 ii has three types of IS. I suspect Canon IS has progressed more than some UHH'ers realize. Yes a fast shutter speed can stop the subject's action, but if the camera is moving slightly, the image will still blur.

Consider reading Ken Rockwell's review of the 100-400 ii. From that review:

"The improved IS of this new lens is also a huge reason to get it for us who hand-hold everything."

"This is THE lens for professional hand-held general-purpose nature and wildlife shooting . . . The only reason for the old f/2.8 lenses is for shooting indoor sports. Otherwise, the added reach and closer focus of this new lens replaces the 70-200."

There are many other advantages to this new lens over any of the 70-200 versions. Best of luck making a decision. It's wise to take your time and also think about what other types of photography you might be getting into.

If you go used, buy from a reputable dealer (KEH, e.g.) not from any old internet site. Even used is a lot of $ to not know what you're getting and have no recourse if you're sold a lemon.

mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

I have a 70D and my main lens is the 24-105mm, f/4, 'L' and it is wonderful. I bought it from Adorama refurbished a year ago and it works just fine. I also have a Sigma 70-300mm that I use when at a race track, like Daytona, and it is no problem.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

mikedidi46 wrote:

I have a 70D and my main lens is the 24-105mm, f/4, 'L' and it is wonderful. I bought it from Adorama refurbished a year ago and it works just fine. I also have a Sigma 70-300mm that I use when at a race track, like Daytona, and it is no problem.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

LiamRowan wrote:

Also, I politely differ with others here that IS is not useful for high shutter speed sports shots. On the 70-200 f4 IS there are two types of IS possible; one designed specifically for subjects moving primarily laterally, as in most sports shots. The 100-400 ii has three types of IS. I suspect Canon IS has progressed more than some UHH'ers realize. Yes a fast shutter speed can stop the subject's action, but if the camera is moving slightly, the image will still blur.

I guess we will have to politely agree to disagree on this one.

(1) In the days of film, before IS, I was stopping trains with shutter-speed, and everyone routinely used strobe light to stop all kinds of motion.

(2) Motion is motion. Whether the object is moving or the camera is moving, they are moving relative to each other, and shutter speed can stop both types.