Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 For Sports Photography? Would the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens be a good choice for those conditions?
602764
Actually, I'm merely guessing on the focal length from your inquiry about the 17-55mm. Your choice will depend on how much reach you actually need. Some suggestions: At $80, the Canon 50mm f1.8 is very inexpensive with pretty good optics and a wide aperture. Focusing may be too slow for your needs but its so cheap it might be worth a try. The Canon 50mm f1.4 adds fast USM focusing and somewhat better optics. The Canon 85mm f1.8 is a good choice if you need more reach. The Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM get pretty good ratings and is a good choice if you're fairly close or need a wider view.
2034642
I would not use my 85mm for sporting events, I would use my AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED. And use the sports mode on the dial. I am not a pro though.
2011961
I hvae had my Canon 24-105mm f/4 L lens for about three years now, and it's the best and most versatile lens I have ever owned. it was recommended to me independently by two photographer friends, one in the UK, the other in the USA. I have travelled extensively with it to Eastern & Wetsren Europe, using it as my only lens (leaving my 70-300mm and 10-22mm Canon lenses behind to save on weight). Using a high ISO and high shutter speed, the lens is so good that I don't really need a telephoto lens, as cropping considerably to blow up a photo still gives great clarity. The macro part of the lens is excellent. A 17-40mm lens would be very restricting as a general walkabout lens, and I've always reckoned 105mm as being a good focal length for portraits. I do a lot of street people shots where speed is of the essence, and it's a very fast & responsive lens. The zoom is very smooth and responsive. It's not cheap, but to me it's been worth every penny. I use it on my Canon 7D.
848892
Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and... » Read More Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. « Show Less
182304
For under $200, I like Tom's suggestion of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Its pretty good for the money - about $155 new - and offers image stabilization to help avoid camera shake blur.
1294151
I had problems steadying the camera and this lens. It worked great on a tripod but my application was taking pictures at high school football games and marching band competions. I ended up returning it and purchasing the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. The image stabilization on the zoom lens made a big difference for me.
1028371
This is a great lens, but sports is not really it's thing. Out it might do alright. Sigma has always been the winner for sports, either the 50-150 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8. Don't just take my word for it. Look at the Pentax forums website under the tab lens database. Real helpful reviews.
501122
Thanks for the feedback. I ended up getting the Canon 17-55/2.8IS. It was more expensive, but I had come across some extra money. I've had that lens for several month now and it's awesome. The zoom range is excellent, it's great having f2.8 through the whole range, and the IS adds probably at least 3 stops. It's very sharp when I do my part, especially when it's stopped down a couple clicks. I would still love to get a lens like I described in my OP, but I'm looking at a wide angle zoom and a better telephoto lens before that one.
1547554
It's possible there is some question what you mean by "close action (sports) photos". If you mean you are personally very close to the action, then yes, this may be a good lens. If however, you are not close to the action, and wish to "bring the action closer" with the lens, you need as Mazda3 said below, a longer telephoto lens, 300mm or 400mm.The 17-55mm lens is a good primary lens. It zooms from a "wide angle" (for landscapes, architecture, etc) to moderate telephoto (somewhat magnified approx 1.8x normal).
523657
I have been using the 24-70 2.8 for a while now on my 7D and I find that the range is not optimal for outdoors. I can get some great shots at 70 mm, but at 24 mm the shots just are not wide enough - close but not there. Upgrading (or downgrading) to the 17-55 2.8 IS USM this week. I think it will be a way better lens for a cropped sensor camera. It will allow me to get some landscape shots that I was just not able to achieve with the 24-70.Side note: tried the 24-70 2.8 on my friend's 5D MII and it was awesome - It would be my lens of choice if I had a full frame camera.
224454
this camera is GREAT for any and everything!! i've taken some great sports pictures with the lens it came with, but i'm sure it would be even better with a special lens. also, it really depends on the amount of light; if there's lots of light, no problem!! it's trickier the less light there is. the camera is amazing. i couldn't be happier with it in any way!! good luck!!
1796747
Any lens with a Canon mount will work with the camera. What you want is a good zoom lens with a good range. A lens from 18 mm to 200 mm is a very good all around lens that will work for both the ball game and indoors also. But, more than the lens, it is the camera that must be set correctly. For the ball game, you need to use the sports mode which causes the camera to have a high shutter speed to capture the action. Indoors you want to boost your ISO a bit for the lack of light. If you use the camera's flash do NOT use the lens hood since it will block some light and give you a dark half circle on the bottom of the picture. Any lens with a Canon mount will work with the camera. What you want is a good zoom lens with a good range. A lens from 18 mm to 200 mm is a very good all around lens that will work for both the ball game and indoors also. But, more than the lens, it is the camera that must be set correctly. For the ball game, you need to use the sports mode which causes the camera to have a high shutter speed to capture the action. Indoors you want to boost your ISO a bit for the lack of light. If you use the camera's flash do NOT use the lens hood since it will block some light and give you a dark half... » Read More Any lens with a Canon mount will work with the camera. What you want is a good zoom lens with a good range. A lens from 18 mm to 200 mm is a very good all around lens that will work for both the ball game and indoors also. But, more than the lens, it is the camera that must be set correctly. For the ball game, you need to use the sports mode which causes the camera to have a high shutter speed to capture the action. Indoors you want to boost your ISO a bit for the lack of light. If you use the camera's flash do NOT use the lens hood since it will block some light and give you a dark half circle on the bottom of the picture. « Show Less
1429332
For travel, I like carrying the Canon 15-85mm IS USM. But I also own the 70-200 f/4L IS USM and use it for performances, etc. The 70-200's image quality was very eye opening for me. This lens will show you exactly what your camera is capable of and you will not be able to go back to cheap lenses afterwards.
2240582
I've been using the 17-85mm IS USM with my cameras for several years - love it. I have not used this lens, but you can find the 17-85 used for several hundred dollars cheaper than the 17-40L and it is a more versatile lens.
2064344
Thanks for your reply. I need a good lens to photograph swim meets and football, both for children. Maybe I should consider the 70-300. I want sharp pictures.
552637
I have the canon 17-85mm lens and it works great. You could also get the 40mm pancake or if you have a bit more of a buget, get the 24-105 mm canon lens, it is a sweet lens with a sharp image.
394706
Hello. Unfortunately, neither of these will be very good for soccer. It is not a question of zoom, so much as response time. These types of cameras have to clear the sensor before they capture a shot, so none of them are going to be great for sports. They can work ok, but you're likely to miss "the moment". If that is acceptible, try the SX200 (or one of the new Lumix models with the super fast auto focus might be a bit better). But for best results shooting sports, you'd want something that didn't have to clear the sensor, like a DSLR (Canon Rebel, Nikon D40, etc.) Or if you want a small hybrid, you could consider the Lumix GF1, but they aren't cheap. Hello. Unfortunately, neither of these will be very good for soccer. It is not a question of zoom, so much as response time. These types of cameras have to clear the sensor before they capture a shot, so none of them are going to be great for sports. They can work ok, but you're likely to miss "the moment". If that is acceptible, try the SX200 (or one of the new Lumix models with the super fast auto focus might be a bit better). But for best results shooting sports, you'd want something that didn't have to clear the sensor, like a DSLR (Canon Rebel, Nikon D40, etc.) Or if you want... » Read More Hello. Unfortunately, neither of these will be very good for soccer. It is not a question of zoom, so much as response time. These types of cameras have to clear the sensor before they capture a shot, so none of them are going to be great for sports. They can work ok, but you're likely to miss "the moment". If that is acceptible, try the SX200 (or one of the new Lumix models with the super fast auto focus might be a bit better). But for best results shooting sports, you'd want something that didn't have to clear the sensor, like a DSLR (Canon Rebel, Nikon D40, etc.) Or if you want a small hybrid, you could consider the Lumix GF1, but they aren't cheap. « Show Less