Sorry BUt another new camera ?

[Freqflyer]

OK Last year I missed alot of oppourtunities to get pictures of my daughter. So I need to upgrade. This is what I will be using the camera for 1. general picures omething that I could continue to use a PnS for. 2. Vacation pictures which most likely involves some night pictures, But I tend o focus more on the kids than on things like fireworks or parades. 3. My daughters soccer games, need a fas action daylight lens usually right on the sidelines so a far reach is not necessary. 4. This is the hard one Cheerleading competitions usually in extreme darkness except for the competition mat and usually from a distance.

This will be a first dslr camera and I would like to stay under 1,000 for the camera and a len that will shoot 1-3. I hve until october to save for a good lens that will shoo #4. Currently looking t the canon xt the Nikon with either the 18-135 lens or the two lens package which is 18-55 and 55-200 and the Sony A100 wih an 18-70 lens.

Sorry this is a long post but I felt the more info I could povide the more input I might get. I have read the different reviews on the cameras but was looking for some more input. Plan on going to wolf camera this weekend. again thanks

 

[YEKCIM]

Nikon with either the 18-135 lens or the two lens package which is 18-55 and 55-200 and the Sony A100 wih an 18-70 lens.

The 18-135 lens is a teriffic lens, but might be a little on the short side for some of the activities you describe. If you go Nikon, you *could* get a refurb D50 for $400, an 18-135 for $300 and a 55-200VR for $250, or $950 total (online prices). There is also a D40/18-135 kit for about $720 online, so you'd still have room in your budget for a 55-200VR (be sure to get the VR; all indications are that it is very much superior to the non-VR version, and not much more money). You might also consider the very fast, very sharp 50mm f/1.8 D lens, at some point, *if* you get a D50 (about $120 online). This lens will NOT autofocus with the D40 (it will focus manually).

That's the perspective of a Nikon owner; others will no doubt weigh in with other options from other manufacturers.

~YEKCIM

 

[handicap18]

Which Nikon were you looking at? I'm guessing the D40 based on your projected price budget. That would work nicely, but could mess up plans for option #4. For that particular subject matter you'd want a long lens with a wide aperture. Prime lens options would be an 85mm f/1.8, 90mm f/2.8, 105mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2, 180mm f/2.8. Of those lenses only the 105mm f/2.8 has a focus motor in the lens to be able to auto focus with the D40. The 85mm and the 90mm (A Nikkor and a Tamron) are the least expensive but wont auto focus. For zoom lenses you'd have to look at proabably a 70-200 or 80-200mm f/2.8 lens. The one's with focus motors are $1700 and $1100 respectively. Nikon has an other one with no focus motor for about $800. Sigma makes one for about $800 that will AF with the D40.

I mention this for you to have the information to make a correct decision, not to scare you away or anything like that. If you can, look at the D80, no lens issues at all there. There are still some D50's floating around and it is a great camera also with no lens issues (by no issues I mean with auto focus lenses, manual focus lenses is a different story).

Canon's lens line up I'm not completely familar with, however the type of lens you would need wouldn't change.

Pentax also makes great camera's. Take a look at the k100D. I'm not completely familar with their lens lineup either. Sigma and Tamron both make lenses for Nikon, Canon and Pentax. They are typically much less expensive though the quality of the lenses in most cases are just as good.

one example is the 70-200mm f/2.8. Sigma's version for Nikon & Canon goes for about $850. Nikon & Canon's version starts around $1100. (though an older version of Nikon's can be found used for around $800, I would think the same for Canon).

Again, this is just for your information so you know what the road in the future holds. Go to Wolf and try out the camera's. See how they fit in your hands. That is the most important thing.

Keep asking questions. I hope the informatin helps.

btw,,, I have the 18-135mm lens and LOVE it. Excellent general purpose lens. Very sharp too.

 

[Anewman]

That's the perspective of a Nikon owner; others will no doubt weigh in with other options from other manufacturers.

~YEKCIM

Well from the perspective of this LIFETIME Canon owner, I say...

You will not find a better lens for that cheerleading comp at any price than this one.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12058-GREY/Canon_2518A003_Telephoto_EF_100mm_f_2_0.html

 

[KrazyPete]

Part of the reason I upgraded my camera last year was to get good competition cheerleading photos. I went with the D80 and the 18-135mm lens. I added a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for more reach. That second lens was all wrong for shooting fast motion indoors. I used the 18-135mm all season but I had to run my ISO to 1600 and underexpose by two stops. That means my photos have some grain to them and I had to correct the exposure on my computer in Adobe Lightroom.

As an example, If you are in the front row during the performance (typical parent watch area setup) and you are using the 18-135mm at full zoom your photo might include the full body of a flyer with the bases from shoulder up. If you wanted to be able to zoom all the way in on faces then you'd need a bigger lens.

The 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR ($250) or the 70-300mm VR ($500) might get you better results. But even if you get an extra 2 stops out of having VR they're a little slow for that light. As for me, I'm spending the summer saving up for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR ($1,600).

I wouldn't recommend a prime for cheerleading. You can't move around during the performance and there are too many composition possibilities to get locked into one length.

If you want to see my cheer photos from last season send me a PM and I'll give you a temporary password to my online gallery.

 

[photo_chick]

My sister has the Rebel XT and she shoots her DD's cheer competitions. She is now using the 70-200 f/2.8L. It's pricey but you do get what you pay for.

 

[handicap18]

I wouldn't recommend a prime for cheerleading. You can't move around during the performance and there are too many composition possibilities to get locked into one length.

Cheering is no different than any other indoor action event (ice hockey, basketball, volleyball, etc...)

These types of sporting events have been around a lot longer than zoom lenses. It is going to be VERY difficult to find a fast zoom lens that is affordable. Nikon's least expensive new lens that fits this bill is $1100 (80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S). Sigma has the 70-200mm f/2.8 as I mentioned for around $850. Canon's also runs over $1K. All other f/2.8 zoom lenses don't go beyond 70mm.

However with the prime lenses there are options galore compared to zooms. Especially in the used department. I got a used 90mm f/2.8 lens for $300 that is in like new condition (regular price $400). I've seen a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 lens for as low as $310 (regularly priced about $450). Nikon used 180mm f/2.8's run around $500 (new is over $700). Sigmas verion around $380.

When your using the 18-135mm at the long end, its widest aperture is f/5.6. That's the 2 full stops difference that you are compensating for by underexposing and getting all the extra grain (compared to the f/2.8 primes and zooms). Thrown in the 85mm f/1.8 and thats 3 1/3 stops difference. The 85mm goes for about $375. The Canon 100mm f/2 is 3 stops difference.

Prime lenses are more than good enough for indoor sports. A lot of people recommend them because of their fast aperture.

 

[KrazyPete]

You may have a point on the primes. I'm not saying that they aren't much more economical compared to a fast zoom lens. It's just that, I believe I would find them very limiting for shooting competition cheerleading.

I zoom in an out a lot. Sometimes I want pictures of the whole team, sometimes I want just one stunt group and sometimes just one individual. If I was using a prime I imagine I would do a lot of cropping in post instead of exposure correction. This might just be a matter of personal shooting style.

 

[Master Mason]

in the canon line the lens for situation 4 I would recommed would be the 70-200 f/2.8 I opted to save the 500 and not get the IS because IS won't stop motion, just fix camera shake, so you wouldn't get any benifit, because the slower shutter speeds it might allow would be negated by having blurry pics from the motion.

Sigma is also supposed to have out their OS version sometime soon, which is their image stabalized.

As for the rest

i would get
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371189-REG/Canon_0209B001_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XT.html $479

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/350973-REG/Sigma_548101_24_70mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html $429

and http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html $79

And save for the 70-200 f/2.8 of your choice

 

[Groucho]

If the night shots are focusing more on the family and kids, you might be more likely to use a flash for those. #1-3 sound pretty easy and could be accomplished with all sorts of cameras including PnS ones.

For the last, yeah, either a big, expensive zoom, or I think a fast prime may be better. It has the advantages of usually being faster, lighter, cheaper, and better optically. The only downsides are that you can't zoom with it, but you can usually get by with doing some cropping, especially if it's a pretty good prime, as the quality will be good enough.

Probably any DSLR will fit your needs just fine. The best bargain IMHO is the current deal on the Pentax K100D with 18-55mm and 50-200mm lens for around $700 after rebate, and it has image stabilization (which the Sony has but the C/N ones lack) so every lens will be stabilized. However, it has a relatively small buffer so you can't take as many photos in a row at full speed as the others - for that, you have to go to the competition or the Pentax K10D, which is $750 for the body alone (but is a whole different class of camera.)

 

[webshark3]

You can look for a "cheap" fast zoom from Tokina:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=237&sort=7&cat=40&page=1

About $470.

 

[Groucho]

I don't think that Tokina is available any more. Adorama lists a used one, but neither them nor B&H list them new. It's also not on Tokina's site, but I don't think that's the most current source of info. But not being on either of the "big two"'s site would lead me to believe that it's not available any more.

That doesn't mean that a used one might not be a bad option, though, as long as you're comfortable buying used.

 

[webshark3]

I know, I saw it pulled from the Tokina site also. But one thing I've learned from lens buying, is that sometimes you're better off buying the old classics used.

Obviously this Tokina doesn't hold it's value well (probably retailed over $900), but most do. And this one seems to hold up optically very well.

I'm suprised they pulled it from production. Given it's price point, it seemed to be very popular. Doesn't look like they filled in the gap either.