DSLR camera lens assistance needed

2009-09-22 03:20:34

#1

Ultrafunkula: Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...; +1,975|6734|6 6 4 oh, I forget

So.

I have a Canon EOS1000D and I need a tube for it to shoot photos from the stands in hockey games. What models n' such would you guys recommed? Any other thing that would be of assistance? I have a monopad for the cam and the basic 18-55mm lens that was included. Mind that I just bought the thing a couple months ago, ergo I don't know much about cameras yet.

Someone said in ee chat to me yesterday that IS is quite a must since tha pace is fastfastfast, so I guess that would be a good thing.

I'm thinking on buying one from ebay so if it's not allowed to post links here, feel free to PM them to me.

2009-09-22 08:23:05

#2

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|6981|Sydney, Australia

Umm, I've gotta be awake in 4.5 hours for uni (fml), so I won't take the time to recommend anything specific.. However, I'll link you to a good resource for lenses that you can use with the Canon EOS system.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ - scroll down for a list of all the lenses, and comprehensive reviews and comparisons.

The other major factors in this decision would be:
- Budget??
- Future plans with photographic equipment (tho I doubt you would be planning on replacing the current lens, or significantly upgrading the camera body?
- Do you want to go exclusively with Canon, or are you also willing to use 3rd party lenses (like Sigma or Tamron)

Also, since I don't really "know" (ice?) hockey... how far would you be shooting from (feet/meters?) and how big would you want the people in the frame? Ummm... and it may seem a bit random, but generally how well lit are these venues?

Well, I'm off to sleep now. Once you've answered the questions, I'll write out some more. I'd expect an answer within say 12 hours from now.

2009-09-22 08:39:03

#3

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6366|eXtreme to the maX

Need to ask youself a few questions
How good a quality do the pics need to be? A wide lens and cropping later is much easier to shoot - especially sport - but obviously you lose quality.

IS Is generally reckoned to be worth 2 f stops or so - check the reviews for your camera.
If you're going to be doing fast pans to capture action I think some or all of the benefit of IS is negated - so you'd be better off buying a brighter lens - it'll give you a faster exposure which for sport would be more useful than IS I would have thought.

Suggestion for now, get a fairly wide range zoom eg 70-200 for 35mm - not sure what the equivalent is for your camera.
I reckon for hockey you shouldn't need more than 200 unless you want face closeups, but zoom lenses are so wide now maybe 70-300 wouldn't be bad.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-22 08:39:39)

Fuck Israel

2009-09-22 09:41:00

#4

DefCon-17: Maple Syrup Faggot; +362|6416|Vancouver | Canada

I have a Nikon....but I agree with Dilbert.

I'd go with a 70-300mm, and try to get the fastest one available.

2009-09-22 10:42:50

#5

Ultrafunkula: Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...; +1,975|6734|6 6 4 oh, I forget

Okei then.

-Budget is, well. I dunno what a proper 70-300mm would cost so let's go with max 300€ for the moment.
-Future plans are just hobby, so I think I'll stick to this one for several years since it took me plenty of years to even buy this one
-3rd party lenses will do very fine.
-Hockey then. N.Y. Rangers can help you with that one. Distance would be max 50m.
-Pic quality as good as it can for that budget. Mind you that the price can be lower (aka used lenses from ebay for starters before I go pro )
-The camera has 2.5fps if I remember correctly but I don't necessarily need to shoot like John Rambo.

Good morning to you by the time you read this (Good evening to Dilbert). I'll be reading your answer in about 10h from now at work

Last edited by Ultrafunkula (2009-09-22 10:43:24)

2009-09-22 20:45:49

#6

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6757

Good Morning to your Face!
i've found for sports focal length > aperture, but not by much.

so, @ 50m + action + varying light conditions = 18 - 200mm IS lense.
great walk-around, up tight for sports, quality glass, and

it's what my wife is currently using on her Canon XS (1000d). bee you tee ful captures, quick enuf for sports, set it and for get it, check out the reviews (minty's a goldmine for urls. quickly save any he posts, and go back later, you will not regret, and even mite learn sumthin).

2009-09-22 21:21:10

#7

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6366|eXtreme to the maX

This would do the trick, and is the second lens in the standard kit.
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens.
http://www.canon.com.au/products/camera … 456ii.aspx

Or have a trawl through these.
http://www.canon.com.au/products/camera … enses.html

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - This might be a second choice if you don't want to keep changing lenses.
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6
EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Bear in mind:
IS chews through batteries
Its another gizmo to go wrong
I think IS lenses are that bit more fragile than standard (could be wrong)

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-22 21:49:29)

Fuck Israel

2009-09-22 22:56:02

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6861|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
This would do the trick, and is the second lens in the standard kit.
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens.
http://www.canon.com.au/products/camera … 456ii.aspx

Or have a trawl through these.
http://www.canon.com.au/products/camera … enses.html

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - This might be a second choice if you don't want to keep changing lenses.
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6
EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Bear in mind:
IS chews through batteries
Its another gizmo to go wrong
I think IS lenses are that bit more fragile than standard (could be wrong)

Never had a problem with any of my IS lenses. I do use a battery grip though.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-23 02:43:34

#9

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6366|eXtreme to the maX

And this lens would be
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-23 02:44:17)

Fuck Israel

2009-09-23 02:54:52

#10

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|6981|Sydney, Australia

Dilbert_X wrote:
And this lens would be
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

I've got the non-IS version..

...it is

2009-09-23 06:17:53

#11

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|6981|Sydney, Australia

Honestly, it's been about a year and a half since I've done research on lenses. So much has changed in that time, so I'll just offer a few comments for thought.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Bear in mind:
I think IS lenses are that bit more fragile than standard (could be wrong)

IS lenses are more complex than non-IS lenses, due to the additional group of lenses in the IS unit. That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean there is a drop in quality. The newer generation of IS, as seen on the other kit lens (EF-S 55-250mm), looks pretty good.

Now... in terms of being more realistic in your shooting expectations, the 1000D won't reaally be that good for sports photography. From The Digital Picture:

1000D Page wrote:
The other big reason the XS is not a great sports photography camera is its comparatively somewhat-slow 7-point AF system. While perfectly adequate for most non-action scenarios, the XS struggles to keep up with action that is rapidly approaching or receding at a relatively close distance - such as a person running. A soccer match I shot with the Canon EOS Rebel XS / 1000D and the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens produced mostly shots focused slightly behind the direction of the motion.

One thing to note with this is that they used a 300mm f/2.8L lens, and at a soccer match, thus the auto-focus system would have had a LOT of light to play with. In trying to shoot hockey, you would be looking at using f/5.6 (given the choice of lenses, at the max zoom that's the usual maximum aperture). This means that the auto-focus system now has 1/4 of the light to focus. Then considering that hockey is indoors, there will be even less light.. and then considering the difference between the consumer lens autofocus abilities, like the 75-300mm (its the telephoto that came with my first DSLR), vs. that of an L series lens (eg. the 300mm f/2.8L used in the example)..

... I'm just sayin, good luck.

2009-09-23 10:57:47

#12

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6861|132 and Bush

I'd also research what other photographers are shooting with as well... in similar circumstances.

(EF75-300mm f/4-5.6)

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/3922185164_cf40fd6859.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9120916@N0 … 397132@N00
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timshahan/ … 397132@N00
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fischer-ph … 397132@N00

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-23 16:22:20

#13

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6366|eXtreme to the maX

That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean there is a drop in quality.

Its not quality, you have mobile lenses inside being moved around by little motors, more so than the AF part.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-23 17:41:12

#14

DefCon-17: Maple Syrup Faggot; +362|6416|Vancouver | Canada

burnzz wrote:
Good Morning to your Face!
i've found for sports focal length > aperture, but not by much.

Depends on the sport.

If it's possible, I'd prefer getting close with a f1.8 50mm.

2009-09-23 17:43:29

#15

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6757

DefCon-17 wrote:
Depends on the sport.

If it's possible, I'd prefer getting close with a f1.8 50mm.

DOF issue - he said hockey, i'm assuming he'll be in the stands.

2009-09-23 18:04:19

#16

DefCon-17: Maple Syrup Faggot; +362|6416|Vancouver | Canada

burnzz wrote:
DefCon-17 wrote:
Depends on the sport.

If it's possible, I'd prefer getting close with a f1.8 50mm.
DOF issue - he said hockey, i'm assuming he'll be in the stands.

And you said sports.

2009-09-23 19:18:29

#17

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6861|132 and Bush

You could always rent before you buy..

http://www.google.com/search?q=rent+cam … =firefox-a

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-23 21:13:59

#18

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|6981|Sydney, Australia

Dilbert_X wrote:
That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean there is a drop in quality.
Its not quality, you have mobile lenses inside being moved around by little motors, more so than the AF part.

.. ><

Ok.. I'll use the 70-200 f/2.8L as an example, because I have first hand experience with it. There have been instances involving the IS version, where the image quality is slightly softer than that of the non-IS version. While it is barely noticeable in real world conditions, is it due to the additional lens elements in the IS unit. The IS version has 23 lens elements in 18 groups, while the non-IS version has 18 lens elements in 14 groups (figures from www.photozone.de , another brilliant review site). Obviously, more pieces of glass give a greater chance that something can go wrong.

2009-09-23 21:30:34

#19

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6366|eXtreme to the maX

I was more concerned about the fragility than image quality.
AF lenses are fairly solidly mounted, IS lenses more mobile as they have to move around very quickly for the IS function.

'In Nikon and Canon's implementation, it works by using a floating lens element that is moved orthogonally to the optical axis of the lens using electromagnets.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

Sounds relatively fragile to me. Just something to think about.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-23 22:15:35

#20

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|6981|Sydney, Australia

Dilbert_X wrote:
I was more concerned about the fragility than image quality.
AF lenses are fairly solidly mounted, IS lenses more mobile as they have to move around very quickly for the IS function.

'In Nikon and Canon's implementation, it works by using a floating lens element that is moved orthogonally to the optical axis of the lens using electromagnets.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

Sounds relatively fragile to me. Just something to think about.

My 24-105mm f/4L IS is solid as fuck

2009-09-24 00:43:29

#21

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6366|eXtreme to the maX

Drop it and we'll see.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-24 00:51:15

#22

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6757

Dilbert_X wrote:
Drop it off at my house and we'll see.

fix't. if this cannot be accomplished PM me - i'll drop by and then you can drop by.
your lense in my bag ;-)

2009-09-24 00:58:35

#23

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6861|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
Drop it and we'll see.

I haven't dropped mine but I've come around corners and have smacked the crap out of it before . It survived and still works without issue.

Now I turn the lens inwards when it's on my shoulder.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-24 05:12:57

#24

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6366|eXtreme to the maX

This is getting out of hand - just making the point that extra moving parts = potential for issues.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-24 10:08:08

#25

Ultrafunkula: Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...; +1,975|6734|6 6 4 oh, I forget

Okei. I was recommended this one

CANON EF 70-300 mm IS USM 4-5,6

Was told that this one would spare me of several errors.

Some German is selling it on ebay for the current offer of 358€. I found one in Aussieland for half of that but it would get caught in the ever so picky customs. Even my goddamn t-shirthell order got stuck and our shirts went up 10€ each back in the day

Last edited by Ultrafunkula (2009-09-24 10:24:12)

BF2S Forums DSLR camera lens assistance needed

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

1000D Page wrote:

burnzz wrote:

DefCon-17 wrote:

burnzz wrote:

DefCon-17 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer