Effective for Sports Photography? I am interested in a lens to take long distance photos of my kids playing football and baseball from the stands with my Canon Rebel XTi. Any insight whether this lens is a good choice? Other suggestions? Effective for Sports Photography? I am interested in a lens to take long distance photos of my kids playing football and baseball from the stands with my Canon Rebel XTi. Any insight whether this... » Read More Effective for Sports Photography? I am interested in a lens to take long distance photos of my kids playing football and baseball from the stands with my Canon Rebel XTi. Any insight whether this lens is a good choice? Other suggestions? « Show Less
425466
If you have a Canon Rebel, my first choice would be a 70-300 IS. That will allow you great sports shots without having to carry a tripod. It also has a panning button which allows you to follow your kids as they run and have a clear shot. This one could be good too and it allows wider shots as well.
1647405
One thing to keep in mind if using this lens is that it does not have image stabilization (IS). So if your shooting quick action shots; such as soccer, you may want to use a mono or tripod.
1808311
With decent light or upping the ISO setting on the camera to 800 or 1600 you will get good results for the price. Also set the camera to sport mode and that will keep the shutter speed fast.On the Rebel XTi this also has a 1.6 multiplier so the lens works effectivly as a 160 - 480 zoom.I have one from the days I used an EOS 10 (film camera) and it works great on the XTi.
98305
I do not know about sports, but have taken wildlife moving and it has done well. Best reviews and info can be found here: http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/lenses/pentax_smc_da_55-300_4-5p8/user-reviews
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.
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).
2060161
I have not tried it on a sports event yet but it will probably struggle in keeping with the fast action. Auto focus is 'adequate' and not pro-level. I will update this answer when i have the chance to use/test it for that. I can tell you in a moving (freeway speeds)car, shooting at mountains, trees or landscapes, it is fast and accurate.
2057617
I've used the Tamron 18-270 for about 3 or 4 years on my Canon XTi and I love it! I can't compare it to a Nikon kit lens. It seems as sharp as my Canon kit lens though. If you can only carry one lens with you, this is the one. I now shoot with a Canon 6D with a 24-105mm Canon lens and it is noticeably sharper than the Tamron, but that may be because the 6D has a full-frame sensor. The Tamron will not fit my full-frame 6D so I can't compare the two lenses on the same camera body.
2256203
I don't use it for that but I see professional photographers using it when I watch events on TV. As the other commenter, waverider, stated, the lens struggles as light diminishes. That's why the majority of sports photographers use fix focal length lenses because they have fewer glass elements allowing for more light. The lens you are considering, 100-400, is my go-to lens. That was an unexpected surprise. My brilliant 70-200 stays in the bag. The 100-400 even takes fantastic flower shots from a near distance. They pop!
282216
Mike, I did buy this lens and used it on my Nikon D70 and Nikon D200. I used the lens to take pictures of birds mostly. For me personally, the lens would be too heavy/bulky for sporting events. It does take great pictures.
1270623
Hi, before buying this 55-200 I would rent the lens and try. After checking if this is enough for softball games, I would decide what to buy.You might be able to find similar prices for the 100-300mm as well.
1380191
I use this lens with my Canon 3Ti. I had been using the 70-300 mm but wanted to capture more detail on birds. If you can get close, the detail on the 300 mm L lens is much sharper than on the zoom. You lose versatility when you go to the fixed focal length, but your photos will be much sharper. I do love my 300 mm L lens even though it's heavier.
424364
Jeryl, the Xsi's 9 point focusing system and 17% faster shooting speeds (over twice as fast for RAW) should prove very useful for sports shooters. I have to warn you though that you're eventually going to want a "fast" (i.e., wide aperture) telephoto for dimly lit games and these can be more expensive than the camera itself.
1547553
I don't take a lot of sports photos but I find that on my 40D it focuses quickly and produces sharp images. With the wide aperture, you should be able to use a faster shutter speed, which would help stop the action. So I would think this would be a good lens for sports if you were close. If not, then your 70-200 mm would be better.
623354
Since this lens only provides for manual focus, it would be nearly impossible to use this successfully in any sports/action situation. The lack of autofocus capability is what makes this lens as inexpensive as it is. This lens is most appropriate for night sky photography due to its good optics and fast (f/2.0) lens.
380971
Neither. It's more like 3 or 4 with a max of 7 in a row if you are doing DNG files. It does list out its specs on their website. It's not good for sports unless your extremely good with manual focussing, and capable of getting close to the subject--think wrestling or ping pong, not football, baseball or soccer, etc... Either way, for sports or spray and pray photography, there are much better cameras for less than this. This is a nice camera for good lighting situations like daylight street, outdoor family events, landscape, and vacations, but definitely not a top pick for rapid fire situations (IMO). Neither. It's more like 3 or 4 with a max of 7 in a row if you are doing DNG files. It does list out its specs on their website. It's not good for sports unless your extremely good with manual focussing, and capable of getting close to the subject--think wrestling or ping pong, not football, baseball or soccer, etc... Either way, for sports or spray and pray photography, there are much better cameras for less than this. This is a nice camera for good lighting situations like daylight street, outdoor family events, landscape, and vacations, but definitely not a top pick for rapid fire... » Read More Neither. It's more like 3 or 4 with a max of 7 in a row if you are doing DNG files. It does list out its specs on their website. It's not good for sports unless your extremely good with manual focussing, and capable of getting close to the subject--think wrestling or ping pong, not football, baseball or soccer, etc... Either way, for sports or spray and pray photography, there are much better cameras for less than this. This is a nice camera for good lighting situations like daylight street, outdoor family events, landscape, and vacations, but definitely not a top pick for rapid fire situations (IMO). « Show Less
542246
I've found that this lens is more valuable as a wide-angle lens on a full frame camera. On a crop camera, it feels more like a portrait lens. That being said, it's an amazing lens. I'd like to add that Sigma has released a very worthy and cost effective alternative, which you may want to consider. I happen to own the Canon version, but I've read great reviews of the Sigma.