File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ok /p/.

I got the job to cover local sports for a news website. I know magaploxels don't matter much cause it's web, but I've already got a DSLR and I want to get a decent lens within my own budget to take the shots.

I'm looking at a 55-250 IS. Should I spring for a 70-300 IS? Or does Image Stabilization make a difference in sports shots?

I'm shooting with a Canon XT.

I've already got a speedlite for getting that flash out there. Anything else I need?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:10:20 19:28:33Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width864Image Height467RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>286879
I suggest the 18-300 f5.6-f7 its image quality is maximum.
>> Anonymous
>>286882

... Is this a real lens or should I feel trolled?
>> Anonymous
>>286887

nvm it's real, I'll look into it.
>> Anonymous
What sort of lighting will you be in? What type of events will you cover?
>> Anonymous
>>286889


Oh right I should Specify.

Basketball. Many different venues(tons of different courts, we cover a wide area). This may continue into baseball and football, should I do a decent enough job. This will all mostly be indoor, unless said continuation of job occurs.
>> Anonymous
Sigma 50-150 f2.8, 85mm f1.8, or 50mm f1.8

Other lenses you looked at are too slow for indoor sports, you need an F2.8 zoom, or a prime thats at least that fast.
>> Anonymous
>>286892

OP here, I've already got my nifty fifty, so I'll look into the f2.8 lenses. Thanks for your help ^_^ And wish me luck!
>> Anonymous
OP HURR again,

Is Image Stabilization really that great? Ok, so it can stop down the exposures and allow slower speed while still maintaining sharpness, but is it any good for sports shots?
>> Anonymous
IS will help get rid of any camera shake, but it won't slow down the games.
>> insipid fuckstain
is is fine and dandy for sports. i have found that when shooting indoor basketball it is best to have my camera set on the lowest aperture possible. i use a 100 2.0 prime personally.
>> Anonymous
>>286897
Yes and no. IS helps to prevent blur from handholding slow shutter speeds. It does nothing to freeze the motion of moving objects = does nothing for sports. For other situations it's great.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>286897
Unless you're looking to play with motion blur, taking clear shots of sports necessitates high enough shutter speeds that camera shake won't be an issue. However, you'll need fast glass in order to let you do that - thankfully being indoors means you don't have to buy anything particularly long yet.

>>286892is on the right track, though 50mm cropped is still a tad short for most sports IMO. If you ever move outdoors you should look at the 70-200/4 (not too much more expensive than the 70-300IS) or 300/4.
>> Anonymous
The 85mm f/1.8 does seem to be a decent way to get something fast and somewhat telephoto. But do keep in mind that if you are using f/1.8 you will need to focus very carefully.
>> Anonymous
>>287095

if this guy>>286742

can focus with the 85mm f/1.2, i hope he can do it with the 1.8

at these distance, dof is thin but not that thin
>> Anonymous
stupid request but can the op post the full size of that photo?
>> Anonymous
>>286879

I bought the Canon 55-250 a week ago, and I did look for comparisons for that lens and the 70-300. Main difference is the build quality and the extra 50mm. If you're on a budget, go for the cheaper one, but if you have the money, go for the 70-300. The only thing I don't like about the 55-250 is that is feels cheep, so I had to buy a lens hood. Other than that, its a great lens for the price.

In regards to IS, if you're zooming in, it will make a hug difference. If you're taking photos on a tripod, turn IS off so it doesn't get confused.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>287530
After trying out different friends' 55-250 and 70-300IS, I figure that the 70-300 just isn't worth it. It's not very different from the 55-250, and isn't much cheaper than a 70-200/4. Save your money and get the cheaper one while saving to go L.
>> Anonymous
The lens you want is the 70-200 f/2.8L, save up for that. I wouldn't recommend wasting your money on a lesser lens if you want to do a decent job.

Don't bother with IS, it doesn't freeze action.

Try not to use the flash, it's distracting and doesn't usually help on the longer end of things.
>> Anonymous
>I got the job to cover local sports for a news website.

>I'm looking at a 55-250 IS. Should I spring for a 70-300 IS? Or does Image Stabilization make a difference in sports shots?

id fire you (not joking, id really fire you.)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286879
>I'm looking at a 55-250 IS. Should I spring for a 70-300 IS?
The 55-250 is a *lot* lighter (390g vs 630g), costs something like half as much, and the extra 50mm isn't that big a deal at the tele end. I'd only say get the 70-300 if you plan to get full-frame at some point.

>>287539
>Don't bother with IS, it doesn't freeze action.
Damn helpful when panning, though.
>> Anonymous
Since your doing sports, speed of the lens is paramount. The best zoom lens you could get in this regard is the 70-200 f/2.8 (should be around $1000-$1200).

If you want reach and speed at a much cheaper price, there's the 200mm f/2.8 Prime. You can't zoom but if you plant yourself where your not too close or too far, you'll be good.
>> Anonymous
A wide aperture lens and high ISO are your friends for sport.
>> Anonymous
>local sports
>website
Go to KEH.com and get the original EF 70-210 f/4. It's a great lens and it's cheap. Don't waste your money.
>I've already got a speedlite for getting that flash out there.
Unless it's got a better beamer on it, or it's a potato masher, no, you don't.

Forget the flash unless it's for fill at a day game, just crank the ISO. It's the web, it's local sports, nobody cares.
Welcome to the real photojournalism.
>> Anonymous
im going to help you because I weep for the poor newspaper that was stupid enough to hire you.

don't "think" about upgrading to the 70-300, the 70-300 in and of itself is a piece of shit for sports.

think about grabbing a 70-200 2.8, non-IS. It will run you about a grand, less used. buy used. this is not me being a gear elitist, this is what you physically need to properly shoot sports.

IS is not needed at all for sports and will not help you in the least. It is actually physically impossible for image stabilization to compensate for subject motion. Its meant to compensate for camera motion, which won't be a factor anyways because any shutter speed that will stop subject motion will easily stop camera motion. get it?

The Canon XT is a piece of shit for sports. I shot sports with an xt when it was first out, trust me on this.

Grab a used 20D, at the least. A 40D is the most you could ever realistically need. The 1Ds are nice, but if you're just doing part time shit you don't need one.

If you're doing basketball look at a 580ex. You need one. You absolutely need one. Shoot M at 2.8/250/iso1600, leave flash on ttl. You can bring it down all the way to 400 but only if the lighting is great. Normal gym lighting needs 1600.

But thats just gear. That's the least of your problems.

Don't just randomly fire away. Get faces, get the ball, and get it all in frame. Make sure you're focused dead on before taking the shot. Your keeper rate will be shit when you first start out - like 50 out of 400. This helps that. Shoot vertical 75% of the time. Get under the net. Don't shoot them running towards you, the af system can't keep up. Get them when they're stopped, shooting, or running sideways towards the net. Get the crowd, cheerleaders, that stuff too. Good luck
>> Anonymous
>>287095
You can't shoot basketball at 1.8. It moves too fast. Combined with the noise reduction seen at 1600+, your photos will be blurry and shitty.
>> Anonymous
>>287797
Good advice, but the newspaper is probably getting what they pay for. Most papers pay atrociously small $$$ to try to take advantage of people who are willing to bite the bullet and use all their own equipment for peanuts. (usually not even enough to cover the opportunity cost of the photographer)
>> Anonymous
>>287803
if hes serious about this, hes just wasting money if hes buying inferior equipment. because when he does find out that he made the wrong decision, hes going to sell that 70-300 (at a loss) and have to bite the bullet for a 2.8 zoom regardless.
>> Anonymous
And again, this is not a gear fag thing. If I could shoot sports with a 50 1.8 I would. If I could get basketball with my 18-70 I would. Sports is the most gear-restricted area of photography and to get anything close to decent you need at least 2,000 worth of shit, bare minimum.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>287797
>IS is not needed at all for sports and will not help you in the least. It is actually physically impossible for image stabilization to compensate for subject motion
Again, think panning. If you've got the skillz to do it right, IS helps a lot for panning.

>The Canon XT is a piece of shit for sports. I shot sports with an xt when it was first out, trust me on this. Grab a used 20D, at the least
How so? 5fps vs 3fps, 9-point AF vs 7-point? Helpful, but I don't think they're *that* critical. I've shot sports with an XTi before with no problems.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.8Serial Number1120716803Lens Size70.00 - 300.00 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:05:30 23:23:34Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating500Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length165.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height682RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardColor Matrix129Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeSmallFocus ModeAI ServoDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed236
>> Anonymous
>>287825
I've shot sports fulltime going on 5 years now. I've never panned. Panning in basketball, in particular, is impossible.

Buying a $1600 lens over a $1000 lens because of the possibility to take ONE SHOT, which you'll never ever need to shoot sports, is stupid.

>How so?
The AF is slow, the tracking is shit, and its impossible to make quick critical adjustments.

Basketball in particular because of the nature of the game means you have to distinguish between 10 people, at 2.8, while they're running full speed directly at you. The XT cannot handle this. The XT can handle things like.. focusing on a pitcher during a baseball game. Something stationary. It will not handle moving action at all. Even if you do get some shots, your keeper rate will be around 5-10%.
>> Anonymous
The XT AF system is shitty. The quality of an AF system isn't determined by how many points its sporting. I'm a Canon user (I own an XT) but try using a Nikon equivalent and you'll see whats up.
>> Anonymous
You could also consider the 135mm f/2.0
>> Anonymous
Who cares how fast the AF is?
Prefocus if it's a problem.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>287942
You've never shot sports.

>>287892
You're either full of shit or have more money than brains.
>> Anonymous
>>287942
I've covered basketball, soccer, softball, and football with manual focus lenses for years.
Obviously, trying to use shitty AF won't work, so don't. OP, sell the XT and get a D2H, they're cheap.