Thread: Camera Suggestions

So I'm currently in the market for a DSLR. I have no lenses whatsoever, so I'm starting from scratch. I've done the research and its led me to realize that its a 50/50 tossup between Canon and Nikon. While I do like the Nikon D200, its a little out of my price range and I've kind of settled on a Canon 20D because its been discontinued and replaced and has dropped in price a bunch (unless someone can strongly say against the Canon 20D in favor of the Nikon D80 with the possibility of an eventual upgrade to the D200)

The thing I'm looking at now is lenses. I'm going to be primarily shooting sports (mostly ultimate frisbee) so I figure I need something quick with a decent amount of zoom. I'm wondering if anyone has experience shooting sports like ultimate or soccer and can guide me as to what lenses would be good for this as far as focal length is concerned.

The four that I'm kinda looking at listed by price would be:

75-300 F/4-5.6
70-300 F/4-5.6 with IS
70-200 F/4 or F/2.8
100-400 F 4.5-5.6

Those are the ones I researched for the Canon, however I assume that Nikon has similar, comparable lenses as far as focal lengths.

Do I need image stabilization for sports? Is it worth getting in case I plan to do stills also, despite the drastic price increase?


Any help is greatly appreciated.

Nothing wrong with the 20D, good solid camera. My experience is that the D200 has better low light focusing ability than the 30D. So I would assume the same would be true for the 20D as well. Don't know if that is a factor for you. Also, the D200 has dedicated buttons and switches for changing auto focus types(continuous/single), AF points, as well as metering types. Canon makes you go through a menu to do most of that. So the D200 will be more easily reconfigured on the fly.

Originally Posted by PearlJam09

The four that I'm kinda looking at listed by price would be:

75-300 F/4-5.6
70-300 F/4-5.6 with IS
70-200 F/4 or F/2.8
100-400 F 4.5-5.6

Those are the ones I researched for the Canon, however I assume that Nikon has similar, comparable lenses as far as focal lengths.

Canon has Nikon beat, hands down, for variety of lenses as well as price. Nikon has no 70-300 equivalent, nor 100-400, or 70-200 F/4.

BTW, I would drop the 75-300 from your list. Both the picture and build quality will be noticeably higher on the other lenses you listed, with the 70-300 IS(I'm assuming it's the DO lens?) coming in last(of the three).

Edit: Just for context, Most of my friends who have DSLRs have Canons. So I get to play with a variety of cameras/lens. I'm firmly in the Nikon/Fuji camp for my needs, but if I were shooting sports I would most likely be shooting with a Canon.

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Edit: Just for context, Most of my friends who have DSLRs have Canons. So I get to play with a variety of cameras/lens. I'm firmly in the Nikon/Fuji camp for my needs, but if I were shooting sports I would most likely be shooting with a Canon.

I agree.

I have about $15,000 in Nikon gear. But I shoot mostly sports/action now.

I just ended-up in the Nikon camp because that is where I started many, many years ago when Nikon was king.

However, if I was to start all over again tomorrow, shooting sports, I would go with a Canon system, no questions asked.

Don't get me wrong. For sure, it's more about the photographer than the camera. I get really good results with my Nikon stuff. But really, for sports/action, Canon is definitely better, for the most part. Not completely, just mostly.

Both systems will create equally great images. But for sports/action, a Canon system will probably make it just a little easier, and a little less expensive.

Originally Posted by PearlJam09

I'm going to be primarily shooting sports (mostly ultimate frisbee)

75-300 F/4-5.6
70-300 F/4-5.6 with IS
70-200 F/4 or F/2.8
100-400 F 4.5-5.6

Do I need image stabilization for sports? Is it worth getting in case I plan to do stills also, despite the drastic price increase?

No need for IS for sports. Yes it is worth it for stills.

If you are primarily shooting sports, I would choose (in order):

70-200 2.8 L (and buy a 2x TC)
Sigma 2.8 EX HSM and a 2x
70-200 4 L(and buy a 1.4x TC)
70-300 IS (very very sharp for prosumer lens)

100-400 is sweet but there are better sports lenses for the money

Originally Posted by PearlJam09

The thing I'm looking at now is lenses. I'm going to be primarily shooting sports (mostly ultimate frisbee) so I figure I need something quick with a decent amount of zoom. I'm wondering if anyone has experience shooting sports like ultimate or soccer and can guide me as to what lenses would be good for this as far as focal length is concerned.

Really, for sports/action, you only need three lenses, all should be f/2.8. Don't bother with anything slower than f/2.8.

A wide zoom, 17-55.

A mid zoom, 70-200.

And a super-tele, something like a 400 prime.

Get the 70-200 first. Then the wide. And someday, maybe the 400.

Don't waste your money on anything else. Trust me, I've been through all of this.

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Canon has Nikon beat, hands down, for variety of lenses as well as price. Nikon has no 70-300 equivalent, nor 100-400, or 70-200 F/4.

I wouldn't go that far! Who the hell shoots with a 70-200 f/4 anyway?

Originally Posted by AstroPax

I wouldn't go that far!

I'm speaking only to the variety of mid priced, mid range zooms.

Need a light travel zoom with IS? 70-300 DO
Shooting on a tripod and don't need f/2.8? 70-200 f/4
Need best quality/weight be damned? 70-200 IS f/2.8
Need a little extra reach and portability? 100-400

To compete, Nikon has the 70-200 VR f/2.8 and...?
Granted, Nikon does have the 80-400 VR f/4.5-5.6, but that is that's a lot of unnecessary overlap with the 70-200 f/2.8, and the AF on the 80-400 struggles.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Nikon. But Canon is eating their lunch in the lens department.

I shoot a variety of sports with the following lenses:

Canon 400 F/5.6
Canon 70-200 F/2.8 (and 1.4 TC)

Remember you are talking about field sports. Seriously, if you are mostly going to shoot ultimate frisbee/soccer, go as LONG as you can afford! Primes are the way to go.

I'll mount the 400 F/5.6 on my 20D for college football and soccer and keep it there. On my back-up cam (5D), I'll have my 70-200 F/2.8 & 1.4 TC, which maybe gets used 15% of the time, if that. You'll almost always want longer in field. I've shot for Real SL (ML Soccer) and all the guys are shooting 400 2.8 w/ TC's. The F/5.6 doesn't break the bank ($1100), and produces absolutely stunning pics in sharpness, color, and contrast (oh, and even bokeh). I imagine most of your games are played during the day, so plenty of light. If not, the 20D rocks in terms of noise so crank it up to keep the shutter speed above 1/500 and you'll get a lot of keepers. You will almost always be at the long end of any of the lenses you mention and stay there, trust me, so keep it simple and buy prime.

Pic 1-3: All 400mm on 20D (cropped 30%) I'm roughly 30-40 yards away for most of these shots (Again, much closer than field sports):







The 70-200 is a great lens and a workhorse for sports, but you'll always be cropping a lot to get tight, in your face, action shots.

In terms of IS, you don't need it to stop the action in sports, but it has come in handy for panning action shots.

Example (24-105 F/4 IS):



Conclusion:
Used 20D w/400 F/5.6 = $1800. That's a $$$ set-up for field action!!! Next, pick-up a 70-200 2.8, and you're set.

Not to be ignorant, but obviously I'm just getting into this, so some terms I don't know. Whats TC mean? What's it do for me.

I'm thinking that the 70-200 F/2.8 might be a touch out of my price range, but that a used 20D and a 70-200 F/4 would suit my needs for now and is fairly economical. (can probably find camera for 7-800 and lens goes new for about 600, haven't searched for used yet, but I bet there are some out there somewhere). It's also lighter, from what I've read and will be better for hand held and walking around the field, and I can always throw it on a monopod if I need to.

I don't think going with prime is a good idea because in Ultimate, I'd be <3 yards from the sideline and action could be anywhere from 2 yards to 60 yards away and it can change quickly, which is why I was primarily looking at zoom instead of primes.

If anyone wants to add, I'd love to hear more suggestions. Thanks.

Originally Posted by PearlJam09

Not to be ignorant, but obviously I'm just getting into this, so some terms I don't know. Whats TC mean? What's it do for me.

TC=Tele-converter=an optical module that fits between the lens and camera body.

A 1.4x tele-converter will turn a 70-200/2.8 lens into a 98-280/4.0 lens. Likewise, a 2x tele-converter will turn a 70-200/2.8 into a 140-400/5.6. Before you rush to add one to your list, note that you lose 1 stop, off of max. aperture, for the 1.4x and 2 stops for the 2.0x. You also lose optical quality because you are adding another 4-7 elements in the optical train.

I wouldn't consider a 2x, but a 1.4x might be an OK stopgap when used with either a 70-200/2.8 or a 300/2.8. I wouldn't bother using one on any lens slower than f/2.8, especially trying to shoot action.

I wouldnt worry about the body so much at this stage in the game. Spend 90&#37; of your budget on good glass, and then upgrade the body as dlsr's get cheaper and cheaper. The glass wont go down much in value, while the bodies loose there value almost over night.

If you got good glass even the dreble will take good pics

NO. He needs a 20D or better (20D is just fine. I use one)

Sports=Framerate matters=Body kinda matters

Get a used 20D used if you are on a budget.

If you cannot afford a Canon 70-200 2.8 ($1100) get a Sigma 70-200 2.8 ($890) if you can't afford that, get a Sigma 50-150 2.8 ($680 not sure you can TC it). You want 2.8 glass on a 20D. The AF sensor is sluggish and less accurate for anything slower than 2.8.

If you cannot afford those, then consider the 70-200 f/4 or the 70-300 IS.

And a 70-200 2.8 with a 2x TC on it is a 400mm 5.6... no its not as good as a 400mm 5.6 prime, but it it only costs $250 instead of $1100 and is a whole lot smaller and lighter.

I put this together from bhphoto.com:

$710 Canon 20D USED
$890 Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX HSM
$210 Sigma EX 2x TC
$ 75 Canon 50mm f/1.8 MkII
$ 70 Sandisk Ultra III 4GB CF card
$ 40 Hoya 77mm HMC UV0 filter
------------------------------------------
$1995

If you wanted to spend an extra $200, drop the 50mm and get the Canon 70-200 and 2X instead of the Sigmas.

Originally Posted by mtbakerskier

I wouldnt worry about the body so much at this stage in the game. Spend 90% of your budget on good glass, and then upgrade the body as dlsr's get cheaper and cheaper. The glass wont go down much in value, while the bodies loose there value almost over night.

If you got good glass even the dreble will take good pics

I realize that, but if I'm shooting sports, I think I'd probably want something that has a decent continuous mode (Canon 20D used vs Digital Rebel XTi). I think I'm still going to end up with the 70-200 f/4 due to price and size. As much as I'd like to go up, this is only gonna be a secondary hobby to me, so investing a ton into it, at least at this point isn't what I want to do. Plus if lenses hold their value and I want to upgrade, I could always sell what I've got to move up I think.

Originally Posted by PearlJam09

I think I'm still going to end up with the 70-200 f/4 due to price and size. As much as I'd like to go up, this is only gonna be a secondary hobby to me, so investing a ton into it, at least at this point isn't what I want to do. Plus if lenses hold their value and I want to upgrade, I could always sell what I've got to move up I think.

OK but don't get the 70-200 f/4 when there is 2.8 glass in close reach! The f/4 lens cannot be 2x'd and it is pointless to 1.4x it (even if you can). Who wants a 100-280mm f/5.6 anways? Sigma 50-150 2.8 is physically smaller and only $100 more than the canon f/4. Remember if you are a 35mm shooter, then you get a free 1.6x effect on the 20D. That makes the 50-150 an 80-240mm in 35mm equivelent fl

If the $2000 setup I proposed above is too much, then get this:

$710 Canon 20D USED
$679 Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 EX HSM DC
$ 70 Sandisk Ultra II 4GB CF card
$ 30 Hoya 67mm HMC UV0 filter
------------------------------------------
$1489

How about this setup:

30D used: 950
Canon 70-200 F/4: 560
4Gig CF: 70
Filter 30
_____________________

1610

Since glass holds its value longer, and the camera is slightly newer, the camera will last for a while without having to upgrade for newer features and the glass can be resold for 85&#37; or so and that can be used to upgrade to the 2.8 later on if the F/4 isn't cutting it.

I find it hard to believe you can't find a used 70-200 2.8 canon lens out there for the price of the f4 you quoted. Sure it's only a hobby and you can always upgrade later, but you might as well do it right the first time around and you can always sell if you don't like the lens. I'd spend less on the 20D and more on the lens. The 20D is a totally adequate camera for what you want to do anyways.

20D $710
70-200 2.8 $1100 (new? my 80-200 2.8 was $500 used)
4G CF $70
Filter $30
Total $1910

FWIW my Nikon 80-200 2.8 is the lens I use most often on my D200.

Originally Posted by PearlJam09

I realize that, but if I'm shooting sports, I think I'd probably want something that has a decent continuous mode (Canon 20D used vs Digital Rebel XTi). I think I'm still going to end up with the 70-200 f/4 due to price and size. As much as I'd like to go up, this is only gonna be a secondary hobby to me, so investing a ton into it, at least at this point isn't what I want to do. Plus if lenses hold their value and I want to upgrade, I could always sell what I've got to move up I think.

Get the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 before you EVER consider the Canon F4

If you want to take pictures of fast moving subjects and you want to use a 20D/30D to do it, you want to use the center AF cross sensor and 2.8 glass. End of story.

You are better off with the 2.8 and a 20D than the 4 and a 30D... all the 30D is is a slightly larger frame buffer and tigher spot meter... whoopty do!

It is worth paying another 15-30&#37; more for the good glass.

70-200 2.8 > 50-150 2.8 >> 70-200 4

if you are so concerned about size, get the 50-150 2.8... it is smaller than the 70-200 4

(a 50-150 on a 20D is almost exactly the same as a 70-200 on a 1DmkII)

Pearl
What about the Ef 80-200mm f/2.8. It was the lens that was replaced by the 70-200mm 2.8. I've seen them sell used for little more than a 70-200 f/4. May be a good option.

I agree with the others. For snow and good sunlight f4 is fine, but iffy light and other contitions I find a lot of my shots are in the 2.8-4 range. I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Macro and love it. Maybe you could find a deal on a used non-Macro version of it?

get a used 20D, don't bother with a 30D now that the rebates are over. this one is a no brainer. regarding the 70-200 lenses:

F4: half the size, half the weight. not sure about non IS versions but F4 IS is sharper than F2.8 IS at all apertures. F4 is plenty fast if you're shooting outdoors during the day, even if its completely overcast. the difference in weight is noticable.

F2.8: you will get faster and more accurate autofocus with an F2.8 lens on a 20D, and trust me, you'll want any improvement you can get. just remember the biggest reason why people pay thousands of dollars for a 1D camera is because of its autofocus speed and accuracy. if you're shooting sports, its what makes or breaks most of your shots. your viewfinder will also be brighter and you'll get better bokeh and smaller depth of field when shooter at F2.8. if you're shooting at night under lights, or any kind of indoor sports you will need F2.8 or better, F4 literally will not cut it. i took pictures at my nephews hockey game a few weeks ago at a municipal rink. at F2.8 iso 3200 the best shutter speed i could get was 1/400 and even then several shots were underexposed. also with the F2.8 you can use a $200 2x teleconverter to make it a 140-400mm F5.6 lens. a 2x teleconverter on the F4 makes it an F8 and you lose your autofocus capability which makes it pointless.

by the way this panning shot is awesome, i've tried to get shots like this a couple of times but never with much success, any tips?

ktrials that is a really good shot you have!

grapdrink i got good at panning by going to a busy street corner and shooting panning shots of cars a lot

Originally Posted by grapedrink

but F4 IS is sharper than F2.8 IS at all apertures.

Wana bet? The F2.8 version, stoped down is NOTICEABLY SHARPER at F4 than the F4 version is wide open at F4!

Originally Posted by mtbakerskier

Wana bet? The F2.8 version, stoped down is NOTICEABLY SHARPER at F4 than the F4 version is wide open at F4!

are you talking about the newer IS versions? every review i've read says tthe opposite, example:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._4is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...28is/index.htm