lens for sports

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

i wanna shoot some sports photo.I'm considering focal lengths in the range of 70-300.I've read from one of the threads that the 75-300 isn't sharp at 200-300mm unless at smaller aperture.But actually how bad is it?How about tamron 70-300 or 80-210? i can't afford those wonderful lenses such the 70-200 L or 300/2.8. so,is there anyone who can offer suggestions to me?

-- albert chris (a@b.com), February 23, 2002

Answers

Canon's 75-300's (all of them) do get a bit soft at the long end, but not that soft. Most people with these lenses like them. Nothing else in the same price range is substantially better, if as good. Sigma's APO version is a little bit sharper, but it's also more money.

Canon's recently discontinued 100-300 f/5.6L is substantially better, but even at cloes out discounts it was twice the price of the EF 75- 300. The Canon 100-300 USM is about the same optically but much better mechanically.

The bottom line is, nothing is better in this catagory for the same money. Spend more - get more. If you're on a tight budget, you won't find anything better.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), February 24, 2002.


I agree with Jim. I'd also back him up on the fact that the Canon 100-300 USM is a much better lens than the Canon 75-300. It is much faster at focusing with its ring type USM motor (rather than the much slower micro-motor in the USM 75-300), you get full time manual focusing, a distance scale window and infra-red markers. It will cost a little more than the 75-300 but the extra cost will be worth it.

-- canonlover (canoneosd60@aol.com), February 24, 2002.

In my youth, as a highly paid and world respected newspaper photographer (ahem), I often used a Nikon with a Nikkor 300/4.5 prime lens to shoot daytime college football games. The lens was bigger, heavier and not nearly as sharp as a current EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM zoom I still own. The results from that old Nikkor was good enough for newspapers and wire services at the time. Unless you intend to shoot for huge display photos (16x20 or more), you would probably be satisfied with any of the Canon 75/100-300 zooms.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), February 24, 2002.

Thanks.But i've missed one lens,80-200 f/4.5-5.6,is it soft at the long end? i think lens with lower zoom ratio may be better.

-- albert chris (a@b.com), February 25, 2002.

The 80-200/4.5-5.6 is a low budget lens with plastic lens mount and cheap built. I have never used this lens but when looking at some test results I wouldn't buy this lens. May be nice for some point and shoot photographers but if you want some larger printouts this lens will not be sharp enough.

Here is a review on photodo: http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF80-200_45-46II- 105.shtml

-- Martin (uboot67@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.



Albert,

Check out this lens, EF70-210/3.5-4.5, it doesn't have the reach of the 100-300's but it is sharp, contrasty and "faster" and the AF really rips.http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/70-210.

I have this lens myself, bought it a couple of years ago. It makes a real good portrait lens at aprox. 100-150 mm, just leaves the background blurred and enough contrast and sharpness to render the model without blemishes. (not too sharp). It cannot rival the EF85/1.8 in sharpness, but it has of course a better reach for candid shots. The 85 is outstanding for portraits, especially as F2.8.

I just browsed EBay and found the following link http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1334028623

The lens has been discontinued since early 90-ties. I bought my 70- 210 used for 1500.- SEK (swedish kronor) which translates to approx. 150 $US Hope You can find a lens, because it is truly a "big bang for the buck", at least in my opininon. I used to own a 28-80/3.5- 5.6MKII, which I sold shortly after aquiring a 50/1.8, extremely big difference in picture quality even at 4x6. The 70-210 is something in between those two lenses, but closer to the 50 than the 28-80, and it is mush better built then bothe of them.

// Patrik

-- Patrik Kall (patrik.kall@rolls-royce.com), February 25, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ