Ben Griffi
around £500, also what does like f.2 mean and 4.8 l mean and everything mean?
Answer
Canon makes an excellent prime lenses, it's stuck at 200mm which at first seams like a hassle, not being able to frame by means of zoom, but that's the only trade off. In fact, I have found that I never have had trouble framing, since I work with primes quite a bit, I have found myself working with what scene I have in front of me rather than zooming to make a scene work, I might have less pictures, but the ones I do have tend to always be more interesting and better composed than my companions.
The lens costs about what you are asking for and is a solid F2.8, also it's a canon L series lens
Now, for the F2 F4.8 or whatever you were asking about. F is the F stop, this is a ratio that let's you know how much light your particular lens can let in. it works like this, if you have a canon 100mm @ F4 then the lenses opening for the aperture blades will be a 25mm diameter, 100mm/f4 =25mm.
If you set the f stop to F2.8 this gives you a diameter of 35.71mm when doing the math of the area of the circle created by the aperture, you find that the F4 setting lets in exactly 1/2 as much light as the F2.8.
If half the light is coming in, then that means it takes twice as long to get the same exposure, and in sports photography, that's a BIG deal.
Canon makes a sports lens, 70-200mm at F4, no image stabilizer, but it has the reach you will need. 200mm is kind of a minimum distance for most sports. The prime lens I mention that costs the same if not less, is twice as fast as the zoom model and offers significantly better image quality and in my opinion a superior build design.
Stay away from any super zoom, the ones that are 18-200 or 55-250 or 70-300 these all have a variable shifting minimum F stop. meaning at the wide angle you might get F3.5 which is still to slow for most fast sports and can go upwards of 5.6 to 6.3 at the zoomed in range. plus the glass offered at the low end products is very poor for tack sharp high detailed images that you will desire for your shots.
A lens that shoots at F 6.3 is 4 and 1/3 times slower than a lens at F2.8.
I hope this helps, good luck
Canon makes an excellent prime lenses, it's stuck at 200mm which at first seams like a hassle, not being able to frame by means of zoom, but that's the only trade off. In fact, I have found that I never have had trouble framing, since I work with primes quite a bit, I have found myself working with what scene I have in front of me rather than zooming to make a scene work, I might have less pictures, but the ones I do have tend to always be more interesting and better composed than my companions.
The lens costs about what you are asking for and is a solid F2.8, also it's a canon L series lens
Now, for the F2 F4.8 or whatever you were asking about. F is the F stop, this is a ratio that let's you know how much light your particular lens can let in. it works like this, if you have a canon 100mm @ F4 then the lenses opening for the aperture blades will be a 25mm diameter, 100mm/f4 =25mm.
If you set the f stop to F2.8 this gives you a diameter of 35.71mm when doing the math of the area of the circle created by the aperture, you find that the F4 setting lets in exactly 1/2 as much light as the F2.8.
If half the light is coming in, then that means it takes twice as long to get the same exposure, and in sports photography, that's a BIG deal.
Canon makes a sports lens, 70-200mm at F4, no image stabilizer, but it has the reach you will need. 200mm is kind of a minimum distance for most sports. The prime lens I mention that costs the same if not less, is twice as fast as the zoom model and offers significantly better image quality and in my opinion a superior build design.
Stay away from any super zoom, the ones that are 18-200 or 55-250 or 70-300 these all have a variable shifting minimum F stop. meaning at the wide angle you might get F3.5 which is still to slow for most fast sports and can go upwards of 5.6 to 6.3 at the zoomed in range. plus the glass offered at the low end products is very poor for tack sharp high detailed images that you will desire for your shots.
A lens that shoots at F 6.3 is 4 and 1/3 times slower than a lens at F2.8.
I hope this helps, good luck
Canon T2i camera. What is a good telephoto/zoom lens to purchase for indoor sports? under $1000?
Q.
Answer
I haven't tested the T2i at any indoor sports arenas.
The lenses we use most are lenses with apertures of f/2.8. Right there you are pushing outside your $1,000 limit. Most of us have switched to using the Nikon D3 or D3s, so shooting at high ISO's does not add any appreciable image noise, even at ISO's of 6400 or in the case of the D3s, 12,800 ISO.
The key is to be able to shoot at shutter speeds of 1/250th second or faster. That can be done by shooting with the lens wide open and adjusting the ISO until you see fast shutter speeds showing up in your viewfinder. If you are using a slower lens that has a maximum aperture of f/5.6, you can see how you may have to really use a high ISO to get the shots without blur.
In the past before dSLR's handled high ISO's well, we had to post process with a plug-in program like Noise Ninja. Now with Adobe Lightroom having an excellent noise reduction tool in the program, we just use it as necessary to clean up any noise we find objectionable
The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM for under $710 may be a good compromise for shooting court sports (basketball, volleyball, etc) and for field sports (baseball and football) the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM $650 will work. You will just have to have Lightroom3 or Photoshop CS5 with Noise Ninja on your computer to help you out noise wise
I am sure I don't have to tell you what the big boy use.
14-24, 24-70, 70-200 mm for court sports and 70-200, 200-400, 400 and 600 mm lenses for shooting field sports. Now you are talking some big bux
As you can see, you have to pay the big dollars somewhere and now with the performance of cameras like the D3 and D3s, sports photographers can use slower lenses (at a much lower cost) than those who have less sophisticated cameras.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/645%7C0/(appareil2)/628%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon
As you can see, for about 6x what you paid for your T2i, you too can have a high performing dSLR and that the extra 6 mp on the T2i doesn't mean all that much when it comes to performance
I haven't tested the T2i at any indoor sports arenas.
The lenses we use most are lenses with apertures of f/2.8. Right there you are pushing outside your $1,000 limit. Most of us have switched to using the Nikon D3 or D3s, so shooting at high ISO's does not add any appreciable image noise, even at ISO's of 6400 or in the case of the D3s, 12,800 ISO.
The key is to be able to shoot at shutter speeds of 1/250th second or faster. That can be done by shooting with the lens wide open and adjusting the ISO until you see fast shutter speeds showing up in your viewfinder. If you are using a slower lens that has a maximum aperture of f/5.6, you can see how you may have to really use a high ISO to get the shots without blur.
In the past before dSLR's handled high ISO's well, we had to post process with a plug-in program like Noise Ninja. Now with Adobe Lightroom having an excellent noise reduction tool in the program, we just use it as necessary to clean up any noise we find objectionable
The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM for under $710 may be a good compromise for shooting court sports (basketball, volleyball, etc) and for field sports (baseball and football) the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM $650 will work. You will just have to have Lightroom3 or Photoshop CS5 with Noise Ninja on your computer to help you out noise wise
I am sure I don't have to tell you what the big boy use.
14-24, 24-70, 70-200 mm for court sports and 70-200, 200-400, 400 and 600 mm lenses for shooting field sports. Now you are talking some big bux
As you can see, you have to pay the big dollars somewhere and now with the performance of cameras like the D3 and D3s, sports photographers can use slower lenses (at a much lower cost) than those who have less sophisticated cameras.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/645%7C0/(appareil2)/628%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon
As you can see, for about 6x what you paid for your T2i, you too can have a high performing dSLR and that the extra 6 mp on the T2i doesn't mean all that much when it comes to performance
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
