[Weislenalkata]

I'm looking for a high quality lens for my Canon T2i DSLR. I'm pretty much looking for a macro/zoom lens. Something I can take to an NFL football game, sit halfway up the stands, and get clear close-up pictures of players and plays. Somewhere around 70-250mm minimum. I'd like to find 300mm+ if the IQ is there and the price remains reasonable. I'm looking for a lens right around $500-$600 and I wouldn't go a penny over $1000. I know that's quite the range but of course I'd prefer to be sitting closer to the $500 mark. It doesn't have to be Canon brand. I currently have a Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 that I couldn't be happier with.

Thank for any help guys [thumbup]! Even if you could point me to a good review site or forum I'd really appreciate it.

[mirex]

Get a used Canon 70-200mm f4 IS (if you're only doing outside shots with sufficient lighting) or the f2.8 non-IS (if doing more indoors). 3rd party lenses can't match up to Canon's quality and IQ in the low-tele range.

If you need even more reach, you can try to get a used 100-400mm, but with a crop body like yours, 200mm is usually sufficient (320mm effective).

[siflversonemunk]

Thanks man, great recommendations. Image stabilizer is pretty much a necessity but I'm not concerned about indoor lighting conditions. This will be for outdoor use only more-or-less.

Any recommendations close to $500 though? Again my max is $1000 and those recommendations are just above that. I'd rather spend much closer to $500 if there are any other plausible options.


Also, anyone have any suggestions on wide/superwide lenses? Something in the 10-24mm range? I might buy one of those first because I'm thinking I can find something like that for a bit cheaper, perhaps.

Thanks again for any recommendations [thumbup].

[vipdumpp]

For your requirements I don't think a 70-200 would be long enough. The player would have to be pretty close to the side line if you want a full frame body shot at 200mm. Ideally you'd want a 300 or 400mm lens to ensure you can capture decent shots of players anywhere on the pitch.

The best zoom lens for the job is the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM, but it's slightly above your price range. You could consider the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM. Not as good optically but still decent and great value for money. There is also a Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM available, but I haven't read up on this lens so you'd have to do some research.

Alternatively you could go down the fast 70-200mm + 1.4x tele converter route, which would give you an effective 98-280mm lens while sacrificing 1 stop of aperture. Both Tamron and Sigma offer 70-200mm f2.8 lenses that fall within your price range. The Tamron is sharper but the Sigma has HSM and therefore is faster focusing, so take your pick. However, neither has IS (the IS versions are a lot more expensive).

Finally the Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM is a great lens but with a tele extender it would be rather slow for sports (f5.6) and without one it doesn't quite have enough reach.

I would personally recommend the Canon 100-400 if you can get hold of one at a decent price, or the Canon 70-300 which has everything you want at the cost of some minor loss of sharpness at 300mm.

[hereiamguy]

For your requirements I don't think a 70-200 would be long enough. The player would have to be pretty close to the side line if you want a full frame body shot at 200mm.

He has a crop body, so 200mm should be ok.

If you want to stick closer to $500, get the 70-200mm f4 non-IS. IS isn't that crucial if you are pretty stable and follow the 1/FL = SS rule or use a tripod/monopod.

For UWAs, Tokina 12-24mm or 11-16mm would be best, depending on what you want.

Again, grab a good condition used one, it'll save you tons of money and really lens is not something you absolutely need to buy new. Good places to buy are fredmiranda and potn classifieds.

[sicheAscems]

Forgive me for asking but what exactly does it mean to have a crop body? And what does potn stand for? Thanks much guys.

[Sliliashdes]

The T2i is a crop body, meaning it has an APS-C sensor. It is a smaller sensor than a full frame (ie. 5D series, 1Ds series). Due to the smaller sensor size, you don't "capture" as much image, so everything will look a bit more "zoomed in" (pictures that you would capture in full on a full frame will be cropped on the APS-C sensor).

So if a 200mm focal length on a full frame will be 200mm, on a crop body it will be 1.6x the focal length. So really, the effective focal length "view" on a crop body will be 320mm rather than 200mm as the image will be cropped off more due to the smaller size.

POTN means photography on the net, it's a popular Canon-based photography forum.

[Alice_Medichi34]

He has a crop body, so 200mm should be ok.

Yes, ofcourse. I did take that into account. In my experience at the distances covered in (American) football stadiums, it is difficult to get full frame shots of players with a 200mm lens on a crop body, especially half way up the stand.

Assuming a player is an average of 50m away from the camera (which is a very conservative estimate), in order for the player to fill the frame of an aps-c sensor you will need a 600mm lens, and that's abslute focal length, not 35mm equiv. With a 200mm lens the player's body will only fill about 1/3 of the frame.

I made the above calculations using this focal length calculator.

You can ofcourse crop each shot in post processing but it's time consuming and you'd be throwing away 2/3 of your sensor's resolution.

So, my recommendation is to go for the longest lens you can afford, preferably something around 300-400mm if you want to get the kind of close-ups you see on the papers. It will also open up the possiblity of even tighter half body crops or headshots that can't be achieved with a 200mm lens.

[Zhgrlpil]

Even with a crop sensor, I'd say 200mm would not be sufficent.

I've shot with both the 200mm F4 and the 100-400mm on crop and full frame Canon DSLR's - and even on a crop body I found the 200mm lacking in reach.

The 200mm with a 1.4x telecoverter would be cheaper option than the 100-400mm, but you'd be sacrificing image quality.

[Nashhlkq]

Higher teles get costly, seeing as he has a max budget of 1k though, the 70-200mm are really the only options.

If you don't mind sacrificing build quality, the EF-S zooms are quite good bang for the buck though (like the 55-250mm IS is good IQ, though plastic build).

Not only is the FL the issue, I don't think the T2i is really suited for sports either (3.7 FPS). A used 40D would be great (6.5 FPS) for sports.

Bottom line is, photography is expensive lol.

[smifatv]

What about the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens? I've read quite a few reviews that suggest it's a 'hidden gem' in the Canon lens lineup. I can get it for ~$500 as well.

Anything in particular that stands out as a negative for this lens?


Thanks again for the help btw. Those wide angle lens suggestions are great.

[Queueftof]

It's not a bad lens at all, it just can't reach the IQ and build quality of the 70-200mm. It'll be an all plastic build similar to the 55-250mm, but if you baby it and take care of it well, it should be fine. Just don't think it'll be weatherproof or anything.

The IQ should be great, just won't be as good as the 70-200mm Ls (and the aperture will be less wide and not constant).

[ENGINESSQ]

Regarding the 70-200s being weathersealed, afaik only the IS version is weather proof, at least with the f/4 versions.

[Vagtlaldo]

What about the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens? I've read quite a few reviews that suggest it's a 'hidden gem' in the Canon lens lineup. I can get it for ~$500 as well.

Anything in particular that stands out as a negative for this lens?


Thanks again for the help btw. Those wide angle lens suggestions are great.

The 70-300mm can almost match the sharpness of the 70-200mm L lenses from 70 to 200mm, but from 200 to 300mm the sharpness deteriorates slightly, although still excellent compared to many other 300mm zooms.

The downsides are the 1 stop slower maximum aperture at full zoom (although this is less of an issue with modern sensors with amazingly clean high ISO performance), and the fact that it does not use a true ring USM focusing motor that the L series use, so it will be comparatively slower focusing when used for sports (although focus accuracy is still good). Other downsides include the lack of weather sealing and a rotating front element when focusing, but that's only an issue if you use circular polarizers (very rarely used on tele zooms). It also doesn't have full time manual focus, but this will not affect many users.

All in all, it's a quality, value for money lens, I'm sure you won't be disappointed if you bought it. The only thing that may be of concern is the AF speed when shooting moving subjects, but I'm sure with practice it can give you some great shots.

[Stetbrate]

Just bought a Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 today. Just in time for my trip to Vegas next week [thumbup].


I'll post pics/impressions as I use it more. Won't be arriving till early next week. Can't wait!