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

[Experiment_626]

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

As 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/t...t_shr?_encoding=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/t...t_shr?_encoding=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?...Digital SLR Lenses&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 just think how much i would get for a canon ( 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 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