OK, I got her the Rebel XSi, now which lens?

[lucyanna girl]

After much reading I finally purchased the Rebel XSi for DD's birthday next week. I took her several times to look and it was the one she kept going back to.

I am considering the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens for Canon EQS SLR Cameras to go with it. Is this the correct one? She plans to take pictures at football games, use it at Disney, etc.

Also, what exactly does a lens hood do and does she need one?


Is the Pro loop Strap a good choice?

Thanks.

Penny

[JR6ooo4]

this is a shot at 28 mm wide
http://MnMStudios.smugmug.com/photos/61829403_Jkhig-M.jpg

and this is the 70-300 IS at the 300 end (I think this is not cropped)
http://MnMStudios.smugmug.com/photos/61829428_gyHFD-M.jpg

also some football with the 70-300IS:
http://MnMStudios.smugmug.com/photos/80641246_pXnBk-M.jpg
http://MnMStudios.smugmug.com/photos/80642476_BDp8o-M.jpg

I like it.

Mikeeee

[lucyanna girl]

Great pictures. Thank you.

Penny

[boBQuincy]

I can't tell from your original post if you bought the Xsi with a lens or not. If not, a 70-300 is quite long for an only lens, or what many call your "walkaround" lens. The 18-55 kit lens, or something similar is better for general purpose use.

If you already got a walkaround lens then something longer is a good choice for a second lens. Canon's 55-250 is another option.

A lens hood reduces the chance of flare from a light source in the image and also provides protection for the front of the lens. It is a worthwhile investment, even though Canon should provide them with the lens!

[DVC Jen]

I would seriously consider the canon 28- 135 IS lens for a walk-around lens. I have a 70-300mm lens and RARELY use it. For me 70 just isn't wide enough and would frustrate me to no end.

Once she is used to the camera and really knows what she is taking photos of she will have a better idea if she really needs more of a telephoto lens. Then maybe the 70-300 or a 55-200 would make a nice Christmas gift.

[lucyanna girl]

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear in my first post.

The camera came with an 18 - 55mm lens. Do you think that will be adequate for night time football game pictures? She will be 17 next week and this is her BD gift. She has a BF who is a starter on their high school football team and wants to be able to take pictures of him and other friends who play. Disney and football are the reasons I thought she would need another lens.

What kind of strap do you use to hold your camera? There is one that came with it but I have read here about the Pro Strap. Would it be more comfortable for long periods of wear? Also, what is the best way to attach it to the camera? This child LOVES taking pictures. Of anything and everything.

I also think another battery pack would be needed. Also, a large memory card or two.

Sorry for all of the questions but I am stickily a point and shot girl myself.

Thanks,

Penny

[Anewman]

The camera came with an 18 - 55mm lens. Do you think that will be adequate for night time football game pictures?

Sorry but I dont really feel that any of the lenses mentioned in this thread would be adequate for night time Football.

If she has access to the sidelines the standard lens there is a 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma runs around $700 while the Canon version is over $1000

If budget is a concern she might be able to get away with the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8, but only when the action is near her sideline.

The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM that you mention has great reach but it does not allow in enough light when it comes to high school football.

[lucyanna girl]

I really hate to hear that. After just getting the camera I don't really want to spend another thousand on a lens right now.

Penny

[Code]

Unfortunately Anewman is right, especially in the case of high school football which generally won't be lit as brightly as college/pro.

[DizzyV6P]

I think the Canon 70-200 f/4L will do fine for HS football if you are really on a budget. Even with the lights on, hopefully it would bright enough. It really depends on your school. If you're on a budget, HS football under the lights using the XSi ISO of 800-1600 should give you plenty of decent shots. I've read on other forums where some places its hard to even get 70-200 f/2.8 at 1600 or 3200 to work, so it varies by the lighting.

The f/2.8 lenses are very useful for indoor sports such as basketball, volleyball, etc... Even then, depending on lighting, some pros use the Canon f/2L lenses. Many pros use the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS for indoor sports, concerts, etc... It costs $1500 but well worth it for pros. For most folks like us who don't do it for a living, it would be overkill unless you have a lot of disposable income. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a good secondary option if you really want the f/2.8.

Good Budget zooms with decent performance would be either the Canon 70-300 IS or the new Canon 50-250 IS. Those 2 give you the most bang for the buck but don't open enough for the lighting at night.

If you want super sharp shots and nice creamy bokeh, the Canon 70-200 L series are the only way to go. A used 70-200 f/4L like mine costs about $500 and has better IQ and faster AF than the other two Canon's I mentioned.

Here's a sample of the Canon 70-200 f/4L while at Disney's Animal Kingdom.

http://images39.fotki.com/v1225/photos/5/54353/6400543/IMG_5900-vi.jpg

Too bad it just costs too much to get that 70-200 f/2.8L. Even the Sigma's can be pricey at $800.
http://www.adorama.com/SG70200H2EOS.html?searchinfo=sigma%2070-200&item_no=6

Good luck with your search!

[DVC Jen]

OK - just a few questions. One thing about most of us here - we personally want to get the best lens we can get. And we will save and save to get it. But - for a 17 yr old girl - does she really need a 1000.00 lens to take photos of her boyfriend and his friends at a high school football game?

So - what is your price range? I am going to totally go against the grain - because I am also the Mom of 2 teenaged daughters so I do know where you are coming from.

Do you have a Wolf or Ritz camera any where close to you? When I purchased my first DSLR - the canon XTi it came with the kit lens and I also purchased the Quantaray 70-300mm lens. It was 149.00. No it is not THE BEST lens. No it is not very fast. But it works for what I wanted it to do and for my skill level at the time. I rarely use it anymore - but occassionally I will bring it out if I want that extra reach that I can't get from my 1000.00 canon L lens.

Here is a link to the lens I am talking about.

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/251666103.htm

If your daughter continues her interest in photography and really wants to pursue it - then you could invest in some really nice lenses for her. But to get her started - that one is really pretty decent. I have used it to photograph my youngest daughters dance competitions before. I had to set my ISO up really high and that resulted in some noise - but all in all - it worked... and at this point - for a 17 yr old - *I* feel she would be pretty happy with the Quantaray lens.

I also wanted to add - with this lens - it makes it a bit easier to get her an extra battery and extra memory cards - which are important when you are just starting out.

Photography is not an inexpensive hobby to get started in. At 17 - heck even at 40 - when one starts a new hobby how sure are any of us that it is something we are going to be wanting to do for a LONG time? That is another reason I think the Quantaray lens is a smart choice for you. Not saying your daughter will not be interested in photography - I sincerely hope she loves it and continues for a lifetime..... but do we ever really know for sure. Time will tell. :)

[Anewman]

I really hate to hear that. After just getting the camera I don't really want to spend another thousand on a lens right now.

Penny
Really Sorry

Did not mean to upset you, and you do have options.

It also depends on ones standards, I have seen kids from yearbook/newspaper staff on the sidelines shooting DSLRs with kit lenses and compact point and shoot cameras. They all seem to be satisfied with the results since they put them in the school paper and yearbook.

Options include

Shorter range F/2.8 lenses, start around $330
If standing on the sideline action on near side of the football should yield great photos, but anything run on the far side will be almost useless.

Primes, start at around $80
They let in more light than the fastest zooms, but again you will miss out on lots of action if not positioned perfectly

RENTALS
Borrowlenses.com rents the 70-200mm F2.8 lens @ $139 a month.

[lucyanna girl]

I am hoping to stay around 500 - 600 hundred max. It may not happen right away either.

DD seems to really love photography. Since she was around ten or eleven she has rarely went a day without a camera in her hand. She is also interested in sketching and has some talent. So, I feel photography will play some part in her future. Either as a much loved hobby or perhaps in her career choice.

Will her Canon XSi work with a lens that doesn't have image stabilization? I thought that is the weak spot in these cameras.

I don' have an unlimited budget, in fact I am stretching it pretty thin to buy the camera and accessories.

Do you feel she can get by fairly well with just the lens it came with?

Penny

[DizzyV6P]

I found that Quantaray lens quite useless. It had average IQ and was soft. It served as a great paper weight for about 2 years until a friend bought it from me for $80. if cost is a factor, at least get the Canon 50-250 for about $280

http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFS.html?searchinfo=canon%2050-250&item_no=1

[Experiment_626]

the Quantaray 70-300mm lens. It was 149.00. No it is not THE BEST lens. No it is not very fast. But it works for what I wanted it to do and for my skill level at the time. I rarely use it anymore - but occassionally I will bring it out if I want that extra reach that I can't get from my 1000.00 canon L lens.

Here is a link to the lens I am talking about.

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/251666103.htmI had the Nikon mount version of the same lens and enjoyed using it at the time, not having had any pro-level lenses myself. If she jacks the ISO really high, she should be able to get some usable images. It is indeed true that high school stadiums may be poorly lighted for photography, even more than you might imagine. I've shot on the sidelines at the home stadium of a major college football team, and even that was a challenge -- it wasn't as brightly-lit as it seemed. But this is a usable lens with practice, if you can deal with its very real shortcomings. It is better than nothing. The shots you'd get with it are better than the shots you'll get from a more expensive lens -- if you don't have the more expensive lens.

Photography is not an inexpensive hobby to get started in.Is there a worthwhile hobby that is inexpensive? I started to say maybe being a collector of dirt might be cheap, but even if you did that, you'd probably want to travel all over the world to collect global dirt ...

SSB

[boBQuincy]

ANewman made a good point, primes can be fast and not too expensive. They are also usually sharper and lighter than zooms.
Canon's 200 f/2.8 is about $700, their 135 f/2.8 maybe $400. IS is not necessary and might not help for football anyway (doesn't help for moving subjects). A monopod would probably help a lot.

[My2Girls66]

What an awesome birthday gift! Lucky girl!!
I wouldn't be afraid of that Canon 70-300mm IS to start her out with. I made due with an old 1980something Nikon 70-300mm lens until last week(a good 16-17 years I used it- it was used when I got it). I used it for kids hockey games(indoors), my girls soccer and softball games, I took it on vacations, all with good results.
Primes are nice but with the action moving all over the field, it would be a bit frustrating if the action was right in front of you and you had a 200mm on the camera and weren't able to zoom out to get the shot. I guess when you get used to zooming its hard not to be able to zoom- for me anyway.
I think the kit lens and a 70-300mm would be good to start. When she gets older and if she's still into photography, then she can invest in some nicer lenses. I have an 18yo DD- I had considered getting her a Nikon D60 for graduation but she doesn't take tons of photos and she uses my D50 when she wants to. I would have gotten her the Nikon equivalent of what you got your DD.

[lucyanna girl]

Thanks to all who have taken the time to answer my amateur questions. No one has hurt my feelings at all. I just appreciate you answering.

I want her to have a camera and accessories that will last her for several years. Not neccessarily all at once, she may be looking at a lot of Christmas and BD gifts. I am just trying to asemble the basics now. Sometimes I read and reserch too much. :confused3

Penny

[DVC Jen]

I found that Quantaray lens quite useless. It had average IQ and was soft. It served as a great paper weight for about 2 years until a friend bought it from me for $80. if cost is a factor, at least get the Canon 50-250 for about $280

http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFS.html?searchinfo=canon%2050-250&item_no=1

wow - sorry to hear that. maybe you got a really bad copy. I have gotten some very decent photos with mine. :confused3

[Anewman]

Will her Canon XSi work with a lens that doesn't have image stabilization? I thought that is the weak spot in these cameras.

...
Do you feel she can get by fairly well with just the lens it came with?

Penny
Yes the XSi will work with non-IS lenses, IMO it is not a weak spot even though other cameras have IS in body. I shoot mostly sports so IS is really of no use to me, and I would take a fast lens over a lens with IS any day.

Yes she can do very well with the kit lens, just some types of photography are a bit more demanding. Fast moving subjects with low light makes a very demanding combination.

If she has sideline access during Varsity night games even a $80 50mm prime can yield PRO LEVEL shots when they run towards her side of the field.

[Experiment_626]

wow - sorry to hear that. maybe you got a really bad copy. I have gotten some very decent photos with mine. :confused3As a low-end lens, it is probably more prone to variances between one sample and the next.

SSB

[jann1033]

if your budget is in the $600 get the canon 70-200 f4, (non is) is around that and i think has a rebate...it may not be great for football but that is only one thing she might use it for..it's around the same price as the 70-300 is but is really a sharp great lens she will probably use for yrs, no matter what body she upgrades to eventually. it's one of the best buys for canon lenses and gets consistently good reviews. it has better build quality than the 70-300 and it's sharp enough you could crop and have similar results to the 300mm ...plus it's f4 for the whole range( think the 70-300 is 5.6 at 300).

[lucyanna girl]

if your budget is in the $600 get the canon 70-200 f4, (non is) is around that and i think has a rebate...it may not be great for football but that is only one thing she might use it for..it's around the same price as the 70-300 is but is really a sharp great lens she will probably use for yrs, no matter what body she upgrades to eventually. it's one of the best buys for canon lenses and gets consistently good reviews. it has better build quality than the 70-300 and it's sharp enough you could crop and have similar results to the 300mm ...plus it's f4 for the whole range( think the 70-300 is 5.6 at 300).

Is this it? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000053HH5/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance



Penny

[11290]

I got my Xsi with the 18/55 and now use the 28/135 IS as my "walkaround" lens. Picked it up as a brand new, 40D take off for $280 shipped. I also got the Canon 55/250 IS, about $260, a couple of weeks ago and have used it for about 70 pictures so far.

I used the 55/250 last week at the Cincinnati Reds night game and had no trouble getting good results from about the 20th row all of the way to 2nd base using either 400 or 800 ISO and 1/250 shutter. A bit dark but came out great with a bit of PhotoShop post process.

High School football a bit of a different story. I obviously have not tried the Xsi yet but my experience from the past is that even though the field looks very bright and well lit it really is not that good. I had field access and really had to work hard with the pics to get "good" pictures. Light was scarce.

Not wanting to "wet on your charcoal" but my personal opinion and current experience is that the Xsi has a VERY STEEP learning curve associated with it. I've taken about 1,000 or so pics and my "keeper rate" has been very low so far.

My daughter has the Nikon D40 and if I didn't have so much tied up in my Xsi I might be making the switch to one of the Nikons.

I'm still working with the issues that I have with the Canon but it is beginning to wear me down quickly. The 9 point AF zones are a great feature but they do seem to have a mind of their own as to what they want to focus on. I am currently working with center point AF and trying to see if I like it better.

Also, many of my landscape images have come out much softer and less saturated than I like. Trying to work with the sharpness and picture styles to come up with settings that I am happy with. Indoors have been OK but I have been less than thrilled overall, and this coming from a confirmed Canon fanboy. I take way to many shots to have to spend a lot of time postprocessing in PhotoShop for pics that should be able to be handled by the camera that the Nikon D40 does well already. My kid (she's 26) has already started the "I told you so, dad".

[jann1033]

Is this it? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000053HH5/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance



Penny
that's the one however here it's free shipping as well, not the 15 it shows for adorama....(?)http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=itemlist&cat1=Cameras%20%26%20Lenses&cat2=Lenses%20%26%20Accessories&cat3=35mm%20%26%20Digital%20SLR%20Lenses&feature1=Canon&Startat=101

I got my Xsi with the 18/55 and now use the 28/135 IS as my "walkaround" lens. Picked it up as a brand new, 40D take off for $280 shipped. I also got the Canon 55/250 IS, about $260, a couple of weeks ago and have used it for about 70 pictures so far.

I used the 55/250 last week at the Cincinnati Reds night game and had no trouble getting good results from about the 20th row all of the way to 2nd base using either 400 or 800 ISO and 1/250 shutter. A bit dark but came out great with a bit of PhotoShop post process.

High School football a bit of a different story. I obviously have not tried the Xsi yet but my experience from the past is that even though the field looks very bright and well lit it really is not that good. I had field access and really had to work hard with the pics to get "good" pictures. Light was scarce.

Not wanting to "wet on your charcoal" but my personal opinion and current experience is that the Xsi has a VERY STEEP learning curve associated with it. I've taken about 1,000 or so pics and my "keeper rate" has been very low so far.

My daughter has the Nikon D40 and if I didn't have so much tied up in my Xsi I might be making the switch to one of the Nikons.

I'm still working with the issues that I have with the Canon but it is beginning to wear me down quickly. The 9 point AF zones are a great feature but they do seem to have a mind of their own as to what they want to focus on. I am currently working with center point AF and trying to see if I like it better.

Also, many of my landscape images have come out much softer and less saturated than I like. Trying to work with the sharpness and picture styles to come up with settings that I am happy with. Indoors have been OK but I have been less than thrilled overall, and this coming from a confirmed Canon fanboy. I take way to many shots to have to spend a lot of time postprocessing in PhotoShop for pics that should be able to be handled by the camera that the Nikon D40 does well already. My kid (she's 26) has already started the "I told you so, dad".

i am wondering how much this might have to do with the lenses you bought, simply cause from what i have read( so second hand rather than personal knowledge) the xsi has been getting really good reviews for IQ..but the lenses you bought are both "good" but not really fantastic quality consumer lenses...wondering how much they are affecting your overall outcome. i just know from my own experience i'd say "look to the lens" when something doesn't turn out to be as sharp as i want;)
and since the nikon 40 is a simpler camera to start with( i think most reviews i see compare the xsi and nikon 60 rather than the 40s) i don't doubt it's simpler to use, i thought that was the basic market of the 40, almost comparative to the bridge cameras but with interchangable lenses? ( ie small and easy to use )

[WillCAD]

My questions is - what will she be shooting with the camera?

Sure, she will want to take pics at the football game, but will she be taking pics of the game itself, or pics of her friends, the people in the stands, the other students having fun before, during, and after the game, and only shoot the game itself a few times? If so, the 18-55 kit lens will be enough, but she will need a Speedlight flash unit (which is a LOT cheaper than any of the second lenses discussed in this thread! $100-$200 depending on model).

My gut feeling is that she will probably be fine with a basic kit that she can add to herself over the years. A basic kit, IMHO, should include the following items:

*camera
*kit lens
*UV filter to protect the lens
*good cleaning kit (lens cloth, lens papers, liquid lens cleaner, and a super-soft brush for sensor cleaning, obtainable at any cosmetics shop)
*spare memory card

Additional accessories that other people could buy her for birthday or Xmas:
*Speedlight flash unit
*more memory cards (provide others with brand and capacity so all her cards are the same)
*spare battery (go to Stirlingtek.com)
*remote shutter release
*full-size tripod
*mini-tripod
*gear bag
*high-quality padded camera strap (better than the dental floss crap that comes with most Canon cameras)

Once she has the basics, let her enjoy them for a while. Shooting with the basic setup will help her to develop her skills to cover situations where the equipment she has is inadequate. She will then begin to want additional lenses and other accessories as she develops a feel for what the camera can and can't do.

IS is one of the best new innovations to come along in SLRs since auto-focus. But it might be better for someone new to SLRs to shoot with a non-IS lens first; kinda like a new driver learning how to drive a stick, then moving on to an automatic, because if they don't learn it when they start out, they never will, which will leave them with a critical gap in their skills.

When she opens that package on her birthday, she will be thrilled, whether the package contains two lenses or just the kit lens. Her photography will immediately improve from the equipment upgrade - unless she has so much new stuff that she's overwhelmed and doesn't know where to start.

So I say, leave it with the kit lens for now. Let HER decide that she needs a new lens later, after she's gotten a feel for the camera and its capabilities. And then SHE will decide which lens she needs or wants.

[Experiment_626]

I'll preface this reply by noting that I come from a background where getting the image was paramount. It is, without question, always preferable to get everything right at the moment of capture. That being said, there are times when you can't do that. With that in mind, it might be good to remember that there are lots of problem images which, in the past, would have simply been discarded that may now be resurrected.

A slight digression here ... I've been using Photoshop since version 2.5.1. I've fixed lots of bad photos with it. But at the most recent Photoshop World, I attended a session with Scott Kelby wherein he demonstrated his Seven-Point System for processing images. Photoshop per se plays a relatively minor role in this system; the star of the show is actually Adobe Camera Raw. ACR has gotten so powerful that what it can do is startling, and it is much more straightforward than Photoshop. Photoshop remains extremely powerful, but it is, frankly, old. It has been revised so many times that it has become something like an old house which has had multiple additions added over the years -- greater than it was and very useful, but everything doesn't quite fit and work together the way it might if it were designed new from the ground up. ACR can do many of the things Photoshop can do -- and it does many of them better, easier, and faster. Since I saw this presentation, it has radically changed my workflow, one I had built up over more than 10 years experience. I don't miss it. I spend a small fraction of the time (no more than literally two minutes 90 percent of the time with ACR compared to 10 or 15 minutes with Photoshop alone) I used to spend fooling around with images, and I get better results.

Now, the point of all that is that in certain situations, you can take what would have been unusable images and make them usable. Not as good as they would have been if you got them right at the time of capture, to be sure. But if we're talking about a once-in-a-lifetime shot (which can happen at any moment in a football game), would you/your daughter rather have an image that isn't so good but can be made presentable in ACR and Photoshop, or not have the image at all?

If I were still shooting football games (and I miss it, to be honest), I wouldn't do it the way I was back then. In those days (mid-'90s), I had a Nikon N6006 shooting Tri-X with a large Sunpak flash mounted on a bracket. I was shooting with a lens that wouldn't open wider than f5.6, so flash was a must. I will say that if the flash distracted anyone, it was never mentioned. Sure, I though many of the photos I got looked like they were taken underwater, but they were, to be honest, better than what anyone else in the area was getting. No one else at my paper -- or at our competitor's papers -- was shooting with AF at the time. Most everyone else might come away with one good image from a game if they were lucky (it should be noted that most of them were photographers out of necessity -- they weren't seriously interested in it beyond what they had to get for the paper). I could count on three or four usable images per game; when you're shooting for a newspaper publication, that's a big difference. If there were two games going in neighboring towns, I could shoot until halftime at one, and then leave and shoot the second half of the other.

If I were shooting under the same conditions today, I would set the camera to the widest aperture I could, boost the ISO to 1600 or maybe higher, and set the shutter speed to something fast enough to freeze the action in the majority of captures. I'd then rely on the "phenomenal cosmic power" of ACR and Photoshop to make the images viable. They would be noisy, and you wouldn't want to print them as posters, but they would work. So if you or she can't afford an expensive constant f2.8 telephoto right now, I think she could still get images she'd treasure, with a little post-processing work.

And I'll tell you a secret ... at some of those games I found myself shooting beside guys from larger papers. These were the guys carrying a couple of pro-level Nikon or Canon bodies, shooting with those same very expensive lenses. Even with that, they were still having a hard time -- those fields were just too poorly lit.

Just a little seven-course food for thought.

SSB

[handicap18]

Lots of good information and opinion's tossed around in this thread. All of it is valid. I like what Jen had to say. I've used a Quantaray lens in the past and got very good results with it.

Currently I'm using and upgraded version of it (Nikon's VR version). Its basically the same f/stop range. I've taken a bunch of pics of college level baseball that is played on a high school baseball/football field and I've gotten very good results at 300mm and f/5.6. I also have a 70-210mm f/4 lens and have gotten better results. I got my 70-210mm f/4 lens used for a very inexpensive price.

I completely understand your money issue, especially when dealing with a teenager. She's into photography so you got here a great camera. Now the accessories. With digital you have a lot more flexability than you did with film because you can change the film speed (ISO) on the fly with digital. Where as with film you had to make sure you had the right speed film, then had to use up the roll before switching to a different speed, yada yada yada.

Todays dSLR's have amazing high ISO performance and the newer the camera the better the high ISO performance is becoming. The XSi will go up to ISO 1600 which will allow her better performance at night. It doesn't mean she'll get great performance, but it will be pretty decent. Even paired with a 70-300mm inexpensive lens.

If she is into photography and has taken classes in high school then at this point she may have a pretty good understanding of shutter speed and aperture. If she wants to get "action" shots of the team then she would do ok with the basic telephoto zoom. The only thing I would suggest as an additional help with either the basic 70-300mm zoom or the even the 70-200mm f/4 (which is a great lens) is to get monopod. Hand holding a lens that long at the long end will very easily give you camera shake. Its not easy to hold a lens steady when its extended out all the way. This is one of the biggest reasons why people suggest a lens with Image Stabilization (IS). However, using a monopod is just as easy. I've done it both ways and love using the monopod with my non VR lenses (VR is Nikons version of IS). A good monopod can be had for $60 and is small and easy to carry around.

I would say other than that, let her develop her style and her techniques and see how much she really does get into it. Then as she gets older she can get into purchasing new lenses based on what fits her needs and style. The camera you got for her should give her great images for years to come.

Thats my $0.02. Hope it helps add to the discussion. If not then it was only $0.02. :)

[lucyanna girl]

I'm still reading, everyone is so knowledgeable.

I am going to look into some classes for her to take. We live in a very small town so I'm not sure what will be available.

Thanks,

Penny

[jann1033]

like handicaps monopod tip, esp for a longer non is lens...i got a really nice bogen, light weight for around $40 at amazon. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6CO i love it and it is so much easier to carry than a tripod if you are taking normal daytime photos
and while formal face to face classes are good,they can be hard to find(I live in small town as well) there are tons online as well, i know adorama has some you can take and pay monthly or yrly for. so she could just take what she needs..and if she's in college( forget if she is or not) she can always take some there

[DizzyV6P]

Based on "Experiment_626's" experience, you might just get the Canon 70-200 f/4L for that Amazon price. If you want used, a used one on the Canon forums run about $490-$500. Personally, you might as well get new. The IQ of the "L" lens will help tremondously when you are shooting at ISO 1600. It'll make for easier clean-up in post-processing as well (Photoshop, Bibble, Paintshop, etc...)

A monopod might help, but I think setting the shutterspeed to at least 1/500 will do wonders. :)

There is absolutely no question that a Canon "L" lens will outperform almost all third party lenses, especially a Quantaray brand which is arguably a Sigma consumer line. If you have a local store, I highly recommend going to one and trying out a few lenses. For me, switching from the Quantaray to the Canon "L" lens was like a night and day difference. IQ, Faster AF acquisition, etc...
Another thing is resale value. I tend to move through lenses as I get better. I sell off the older ones to help fund newer ones. Imagine my surprise when I tried to sell my Quantaray on ebay or even on the Canon forums....the prices were so low (around $50) that I just kept it. The Canon 70-200 will last you forever and if you wish to sell it, you'll get decent resell value. The same deal w/ the Sigma EX series, and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and 17-50 f/2.8. If you do a lot of reading on the Canon forums, you'll soon see which ones are the highly demanded lenses....and many are good values as well.
www.photography-on-the.net/forum is a good resource to check out lenses. I'd recommend posting your question there as well. There are many pro sports photographers on there that can give you much better insight than some of us on this board.

Good luck w/ your search.

[jann1033]

Based on "Experiment_626's" experience, you might just get the Canon 70-200 f/4L for that Amazon price. If you want used, a used one on the Canon forums run about $490-$500. Personally, you might as well get new. The IQ of the "L" lens will help tremondously when you are shooting at ISO 1600. It'll make for easier clean-up in post-processing as well (Photoshop, Bibble, Paintshop, etc...)

A monopod might help, but I think setting the shutterspeed to at least 1/500 will do wonders. :)

There is absolutely no question that a Canon "L" lens will outperform almost all third party lenses, especially a Quantaray brand which is arguably a Sigma consumer line. If you have a local store, I highly recommend going to one and trying out a few lenses. For me, switching from the Quantaray to the Canon "L" lens was like a night and day difference. IQ, Faster AF acquisition, etc...
Another thing is resale value. I tend to move through lenses as I get better. I sell off the older ones to help fund newer ones. Imagine my surprise when I tried to sell my Quantaray on ebay or even on the Canon forums....the prices were so low (around $50) that I just kept it. The Canon 70-200 will last you forever and if you wish to sell it, you'll get decent resell value. The same deal w/ the Sigma EX series, and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and 17-50 f/2.8. If you do a lot of reading on the Canon forums, you'll soon see which ones are the highly demanded lenses....and many are good values as well.
www.photography-on-the.net/forum is a good resource to check out lenses. I'd recommend posting your question there as well. There are many pro sports photographers on there that can give you much better insight than some of us on this board.

Good luck w/ your search.
i have a old 100-300 promaster excellent condition i couldn't even get 50 for:rotfl: just think how much i would get for a canon:lmao: ( hub bought it for me a few yrs back and paid a couple hundred, they saw him coming i think)
i also like fredmirand reviews http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/...you can see what the pros and cons are and then ignore all the "it's not L quality " comments about couple hundred dollar lenses :lmao: but get a decent perspective on what is being used. i try to stick with lenses over 8.8 or even better the 9s unless it's third party, then they usually don't get better than 8.9

[MonoManBlue]

you may also consider checking BH "used" selection. I've heard very good things about their used equipment.........


www.bhphotovideo.com