Zoom lenses

[boBQuincy]

Canon's 55-200 meets most of your requirements. It can deliver sharp images at 1 or 2 stops from wide open, probably as good or better than most in the $200 price range.

 

[bostran1]

Thanks for the comments. I was a little leary of spending "too little" on a crummy lens. I have the 70-300 non-USM right now as a loaner so I'm going to play around with that. I also saw the 50-200 and that looks too be much better suited for long-term use.

Does anyone know what the advantages of the USM lenses are?

 

[minie_meese]

i have the Canon 70-200 f4.0 L series lense and just love it. I need to balance weight with function and and with price, for me this lens was the best compromise. I love the clarity of my photos and the color saturation is outstanding. It is fast enough so I don't need a tripod for most daylight situations and it is very sturdy. I have not no. It is a bit long but is pretty light compared with the 2.8 or the 2.8 IS versions. I tried my sister's Canon EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 (not sure if it was USM or not). It took goog photos in really good lighting conditions but it is way too slow for my liking and I could see the distortion at wide open exposure. If you can only spend $200 or so, the Canon lenses are going to give acceptable results most of the time.

I purchased my 70-200 used mail order at bh photo in NY City. I think I paid around $500. They are a pleasure to deal with and office 90 days to pay with interest through bill me later.

 

[Magix]

I have an old Canon 75-300 (non USM) that I use as my primary lens. I've used it with 3 different cameras over the years (Rebel G, Elan 7E and now my 10D). I always use it handheld (don't even own a tripod) and I get great, sharp shots with it. I'm typically zoomed in all or nearly all the way. Check my website (in my sig) for shots. All were done with that lens, none are cropped.

 

[boBQuincy]

I have a 70-200 f/4L and a 55-200 (series I), and no, you won't confuse the images from the two but for the price the 55-200 holds up well.

The differences show up in build quality, sharpness wide open, focusing speed and of course price. The 55-200 is a consumer grade lens, with plastic construction (not plastic lens elements), but when stopped down to f/8 the image quality is not bad. Of course a camera support helps a lot at long focal lengths.

 

[woj68]

Here's my $.02...

I like to shoot sports, so when it came time to look at a quality zoom I bought the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM and I'm glad I did. It has yet to disappoint.

It doesn't come cheap, however. This lens will run you about $1200 brand new. But that's because you're paying for the wider aperture. The Canon 70-200 f/4.0 USM might be the better suited for you if the 2.8 is out of your price range. You can pick one up for just under $600 new.

I don't own the 75-300mm but I'm sure it's a fine lens in its own right. But if it's tack sharp images you're after, you won't get it with this lens (no flames please) . Review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-III-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Good luck with whichever decision you choose!

Here are some sample images taken with my 70-200mm f/2.8 this year.

 

[bostran1]

Thank you so much for the responses. Unfortunately, I do realize that getting a good zoom is going to cost me. But I want the reach and the best I can get for the money. That said...

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC Telephoto Zoom Lens? From what I gather, its a little more solid construction and the front end does not rotate so once I decide to get polarizers, etc. it would be easier to use. Besides, it comes with a lenshood I believe. Any ideas on this one for a Digital Rebel XT?

 

[tyedye]

I currently have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20. I am looking to upgrade that because I like to take pics of my kids' sporting events. I usually use a monopod when taking pics of swimming and soccer which does help, and the 12x optical zoom gets me close enough. What I'm having problem with is by the time I press the shutter and it takes the picture, the action I wanted is now gone or the picture is blurry (out of focus).

Another parent has a Canon dSLR and telephoto (but I don't know what model, I think XT) and they seem to get plenty of decent pictures. I seem to only get decent pictures when I can focus on one place and then snap the photo when the child gets there and hope and pray it's an action shot if you know what I mean.

I see that Panasonic as well as Canon and others now have newer super zoom camera's out but I kinda think I may still have the same problem and that a dSLR might be a better option for me. Now I'll be the first to admit that I'm a novice at photography knowledge and basically only use the point and shoot option on my camera. I do occasionally select a different shooting scene (such as sports for soccer, or night for nighttime pics) but other than that, I pretty much use auto.

Any input or info you have is appreciated. TIA.

 

[ukcatfan]

I currently have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20. I am looking to upgrade that because I like to take pics of my kids' sporting events. I usually use a monopod when taking pics of swimming and soccer which does help, and the 12x optical zoom gets me close enough. What I'm having problem with is by the time I press the shutter and it takes the picture, the action I wanted is now gone or the picture is blurry (out of focus).

Another parent has a Canon dSLR and telephoto (but I don't know what model, I think XT) and they seem to get plenty of decent pictures. I seem to only get decent pictures when I can focus on one place and then snap the photo when the child gets there and hope and pray it's an action shot if you know what I mean.

I see that Panasonic as well as Canon and others now have newer super zoom camera's out but I kinda think I may still have the same problem and that a dSLR might be a better option for me. Now I'll be the first to admit that I'm a novice at photography knowledge and basically only use the point and shoot option on my camera. I do occasionally select a different shooting scene (such as sports for soccer, or night for nighttime pics) but other than that, I pretty much use auto.

Any input or info you have is appreciated. TIA.

It sounds to me like you have two different things going on here, but the good news is that you might not actually have to buy a new camera. I cannot guarantee that, but it is a possibility. The blur is likely coming from the action being faster than the shutter speed can handle. You need to venture into shutter priority mode to guarantee that the shutter speed is maintained. As long as the aperture and ISO speed used result in a shot you like, then half of the problem is solved. If the image is too noisy for your taste then you might be looking at a DSLR. There is always noise reduction software to consider though. BTW... in case you do not know, the higher ISO speeds allow faster shutter speeds, but have the side effect of increase image noise (grainy appearance).

The other thing going on is that the shutter lag is causing you to miss shots. A DSLR could help a little here, but I believe technique would help more. Even DSLR users often pre-focus on the area that they expect the action to take place. That would be easier for the swimming than the soccer though. If you have a burst mode, that would also help. If you have one, it probably is something like 2-3 shots a second. With this you start taking the shots a second or so before you think the action will be at your spot and you then just keep the shutter button down while the camera keeps taking multiple shots.

Now that all that is said, a DSLR will improve the situation no matter what, but only if used correctly and with the right lens. Also, a DSLR naturally has a much smaller depth of field, so the room for focus error is extremely decreased. Plus, you would need to get a decent telephoto lens, which could make the DSLR option cost more than you realize. How much is your estimated budget for the purchase?

Kevin

 

[handicap18]

the dSLR will have a much better/faster shutter lag (time it takes the camera to take the picture after your press the shutter) and also give faster focusing (even faster with higher end dSLR's and higher end lenses). You can also get better image quality at higher ISO's (aka film speed). Higher ISO's will get you faster shutter speeds which will help in stopping the action.

dSLR's aren't for everyone. They are more expensive (generally) and bigger/bulkier than PnS camera's. You can use them in full AUTO mode, but to get the most out of them one should take the time to learn at least what shutter priority and aperture prioity can do along with what ISO does and how these setting's effect the final image. The auto focus systems and meter's in these dSLR's are very good. You wont find as many people using full manual.

Go to a camera store and ask to look at some dSLR's. Hold it in your hands. Ask to try different lenses (the kit lens as well as a zoom like the 70-300mm). See how it is to switch lenses and how each lens effects the camera in your hands. Also see if one of the other parents can let you try the camera before one of the meets/games. Then go from there.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

ukcatfan beat me to most of what I was going to say, but I'll add this:

Does your Lumix DMC-FZ20 have an option for Continuous AF (Auto-Focus)?

My Canon S3 does, and it helps a lot with action shots because the camera is always focusing on whatever the lens is pointing at (yeah, it does use up batteries a little faster, but so what). It speeds up the AF when you actually press (or half-press) the shutter because the camera's focus is already "near" where you want it to be.

Generally speaking, you can get better performance out of any superzom P&S by taking more control over the settings and getting away from Auto mode.

It's still not going to be as good as a DSLR, especially in the difficult-to-shoot areas (low-light, especially) but, as ukcatfan points out, the cost of a DSLR doesn't stop with the camera; there's "the right lens for the job" which can lead to serious spending!

 

[tyedye]

Thanks for all the info/input. The FZ20 does have a continuous auto focus and I played with that a bit. I found that it was better to not use it as it seemed slow to focus that way. It seemed it was quicker to focus when ready to take the picture.

It also has a burst mode and over the summer I took pics of the swim team and so did another parent (he had a pentex dSLR) and he would get about 5 pics of the start before the swimmer entered the water and I would get about 2 maybe 3 when taking the exact same picture.

I know there are probably many features of this camera I don't use which may help, so I will try and experiment with them over the weekend and see what happens. If buying a new camera I was estimating around $1K for the camera and a telephoto, maybe a bit more. I read the review on steves digicam for the Canon Rebel XTi and it was very highly rated.

The FZ20 is 3 years old and certainly the technology has improved over that time which is why maybe I could also benefit from another large optical zoom (which are cheaper than dSLR) than go the dSLR route. The newer large optical zoom camera's may fill my needs but at the same time I don't want to be needing another camera in 3 years.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I know there are probably many features of this camera I don't use which may help, so I will try and experiment with them over the weekend and see what happens. If buying a new camera I was estimating around $1K for the camera and a telephoto, maybe a bit more. I read the review on steves digicam for the Canon Rebel XTi and it was very highly rated.

If you have $1,000 to spend, a DSLR is the way to go!

 

[ukcatfan]

If you end up getting a DSLR and you have $1,000, then you should also consider the Pentax K10D, Sony Alpha, and the various Nikons in that range. I have a Pentax K100D, but its only shortcoming is a smaller burst mode, so it might not be for you. The K10D has a much better burst mode. Any DSLR is going to do well, so it should come down more to how it feels in your hands and if the system offers the lenses that you want for the right price.

The DSLRs typically have a faster burst rate, so that explains why the other guy got 5 shots to your 2-3.

Before you go an invest that much money, it is without a doubt a good idea to see if what you have will work. I would not look at another bridge camera as it will likely have the same limitations.

Kevin

 

[seashoreCM]

You will probably have to go to an SLR (or dSLR) to have a lens fast enough for indoor sporting events.

Having to zoom reduces the ability of the camera to take fast motion because the maximum f-stop is smaller the higher the zoom is. In turn the shutter speed has to be slower (more blur) and/or the ISO has to be higher (more graininess) to get the same correct exposure. If the lens is faster to begin with, so much the better.

Also, dSLR's generally have larger image sensors than typical digital point and shoots which in most cases translates to less graininess at higher ISO's.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr'/digicam.htm

 

[Groucho]

Every DSLR is highly rated; they're all terrific.

For swimming, manual focus might help since you can easily predict where they'll be - to do manual focus effectively, you need either a DSLR or a PnS with a focus ring, and only Fuji makes those (like the very cool S6000.)

For soccer, you probably will want to stick with autofocus and continuous focus may work better.

You may also want to try zooming out a little, rather than going for max zoom. Zooming out and then cropping your photo later may give you a sharper photo, it's easier for the camera to focus when you're zoomed out a little, and hand shake will be less noticable.

 

[tyedye]

The FZ20 does have manual focus but I haven't used it much. I really don't think I could focus manually fast enough to take pictures of my kids playing soccer. I don't have to be able to take professionally looking pictures, I just want to capture more action shots than I currently am. I have been quite pleased with this camera and it has taken some really good pictures and every now and then I get a decent swimming or soccer picture, but for those it just seems like I delete way more than I keep. At least I'm not paying for the film regardless whether I want to keep the picture or not, so digital has been the better of the 2 for me.

I just read where they are releasing an 18x optical zoom 10 mp next month but for the $400 that that would cost, I'm afraid I'll run into the same problems a year or so down the road and that I should put that money into a dSLR. When I read many dSLR reviews, it seems like the Canon XTi may be the right fit, as it does many things well including the action pictures. Any thoughts?

 

[ukcatfan]

When I read many dSLR reviews, it seems like the Canon XTi may be the right fit, as it does many things well including the action pictures. Any thoughts?

Many DSLRs will fit the bill. I would put more weight on how it feels in your hands, how you like the button/menu layout, and if the system lens lineup matches your needs. I often recommend my Pentax K100D due to it likely being the most bang for the buck right now, but it does not have a large buffer, so it might not be the best for your sports needs. I personally do not like the feel of the Rebel even though my hands are not very large. Many people with larger hands do not like the Rebel feel as it is on the small side of DSLRs. The D40 is probably the smallest, but I have never taken the time to hold one.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

The FZ20 does have manual focus but I haven't used it much.

Yeah, my old Minolta Z5 (12x zoom 5mp IS point-n-shoot) had manual focus too, but it was just two buttons you pressed to change the focus. It was clunky enough to be almost unusable outside of maybe macro photography. A proper focus ring like on an SLR lens or that the Fuji S6000 uses makes all the difference.

I just read where they are releasing an 18x optical zoom 10 mp next month but for the $400 that that would cost, I'm afraid I'll run into the same problems a year or so down the road and that I should put that money into a dSLR.

I would agree with that - I can't see the sense in spending $400 for any point-n-shoot unless you just can't stomach the idea of a DSLR. The K100D just dipped below $400 with lens, and offers a huge amount more functionality. If you're after low-light ability, you'll probably continue to be disappointed with every point-n-shoot out there and will be ready to buy another before long.

 

[seashoreCM]

It is my opinion that zooming out (and then enlarging and cropping the picture) reduces blur due to hand shaking only if the shutter speed becomes greater which it usually does. There may be other benefits with or other benefits without zooming out in terms of focusing depth of field or amount of megapixels or lens quality.