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

and this is the 70-300 IS at the 300 end (I think this is not cropped)

also some football with the 70-300IS:

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.

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 70-200&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 50-250&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.htm

I 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.

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 50-250&item_no=1

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

 

[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.