yeahh.
im looking for a telephoto lens for my canon to shoot sports.. im not sure which one to get i don't want to spend more then 200 though...
helppp helpp helppp
i know you can get lenses cheaper on certain websites, used.. shooting motocross paintball etc..
Answer
A Canon obviously.
Look for a 70-300 mm lens, but you will have to spend more than $200, closer to $650. There is a less expensive 75-300 mm for $200, but is does not have IS or USM something you will want if your goal is to shoot sports
The 300 mm lens I use cost me over $6,000.
I am a sports photographer
A Canon obviously.
Look for a 70-300 mm lens, but you will have to spend more than $200, closer to $650. There is a less expensive 75-300 mm for $200, but is does not have IS or USM something you will want if your goal is to shoot sports
The 300 mm lens I use cost me over $6,000.
I am a sports photographer
f/4 budget telephoto lens for sports photography?
APKINS
I am using a Canon EOS Rebel T3i and looking for a budget telephoto lens under $500 with good picture quality. My eyes is currently on the Tamron SP 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. The review people said it focuses fast, great image stabilization and great image quality with some CA. The thing that bothers me is, some people said that I would need a f/2.8 lens for sports photography and a f/4-5.6 is not suitable for fast shutter speed needs. A f/2.8 would be lovely but I have to take into consideration of my lightweight kit for travel and my limited budget, $500. How bad is f/4-5.6 going to be? Or will it be fine? Let's say a nighttime football match light up with the stadium floodlights or a concert, will it be fine and capable of speedy shutter speeds?
Answer
In daylight conditions the lighting should be good enough for the lens. But in low light, it is going to struggle. The difference between f/2.8 and 5.6 is 2 f-stops.
You have to compare it to f/5.6 rather than f/4.5 as the lens will be at f/5.6 at 300mm.
Take your camera, and put it into shutter or aperture priority. Take a photo. Then without changing anything else, find the exposure compensation on your camera and set it to -2EV and take another photo.
Then compare the two photos and you will see how much less light the f/5.6 setting will let in than the f/2.8. Then imagine if this was at night time, and you will have your answer.
Also consider shutter speed with that lens. Using the old conventional rule-of-thumb, the shutter speed should be 1/300 of a sec minimum, just to correct any camera shake. You could use a monopod, but you are also having to compensate for action, so you will not be able to get less than 1/125 sec for any kind of sharp photos.
The problem is that sports or any action photography, especially at night, really tax the equipment. The reason that there are big, expensive lenses is that they are the only ones that will do the job.
Your best bet is a $850 Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. It is a little shorter in the focal length, but it is a pro-speed lens, and will work with low-light situations a lot better than the Tamron.
In daylight conditions the lighting should be good enough for the lens. But in low light, it is going to struggle. The difference between f/2.8 and 5.6 is 2 f-stops.
You have to compare it to f/5.6 rather than f/4.5 as the lens will be at f/5.6 at 300mm.
Take your camera, and put it into shutter or aperture priority. Take a photo. Then without changing anything else, find the exposure compensation on your camera and set it to -2EV and take another photo.
Then compare the two photos and you will see how much less light the f/5.6 setting will let in than the f/2.8. Then imagine if this was at night time, and you will have your answer.
Also consider shutter speed with that lens. Using the old conventional rule-of-thumb, the shutter speed should be 1/300 of a sec minimum, just to correct any camera shake. You could use a monopod, but you are also having to compensate for action, so you will not be able to get less than 1/125 sec for any kind of sharp photos.
The problem is that sports or any action photography, especially at night, really tax the equipment. The reason that there are big, expensive lenses is that they are the only ones that will do the job.
Your best bet is a $850 Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. It is a little shorter in the focal length, but it is a pro-speed lens, and will work with low-light situations a lot better than the Tamron.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment