I am not a professional photographer and can't afford a huge range of lenses. I happily make do 99% of the time with my 24mm and 40mm f/2.8 lenses and zoom with my feet when necessary. :)
However, my oldest is starting field band. And I imagine I am not going to be allowed to follow her and her friends around the field to take good photos. (Nor would I want to!)
So. Given that she's my oldest and my other two are likely to be involved in field band (or sports, or both) and then there will be graduation ceremonies and who-knows-what else, I'm going to treat myself to a new, longer lens. I think I'll want a zoom lens so I don't have to fumble with changing lenses in the freezing cold at band shows. But I have no idea what to look for.
Assuming I could be right up against the fence, which is a running track-width away from a standard US football field, how long a zoom do I need? I have a crop sensor camera, a Canon SL1. I am happy to try a non-Canon lens, or rent first, or buy used...ideally I'd keep the price under $500, but I will stretch that if it's unrealistic.
It will not be as sharp as the f/2.8 primes, but no long zoom will. It does a decent job overall. I think it does as good a job as the newer 16-300's from Tamron, and I think Sigma has a new one too. The 18-250 at less than half the price, and half the weight...
If you really want to go long, the older Sigma 150-500, used, will fit your budget, but it is very heavy, it is a full frame lens, and does not handle well I find. It will overwhelm your SL-1 I think, in size, length and weight. But it will give you noticeably sharper shots at 250-400mm than any of the "super zooms" for APS-C cameras. But at close to 4 pounds, is it really worth the bulk and weight? My arms get tired hand-held quickly.
Here's a random listing from eBay. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sigma-DG-150-500mm-1-5-6-3-APO-HSM-For-Canon-With-Case-/191935632012?hash=item2cb041528c:g:kPIAAOSwENxXlU1u
I should mention that all these lenses are "Image Stabilized." Sigma does a very good job in this area, and even the 150-500, as heavy as it is, can shoot "steady" hand held at 350mm at 1/150 second shutter with minimum effort.
@frankhymus@chapjohn This looks like a great option! I think I can live with not tack sharp as long as the images are reasonably sharp (and I know that shutter speed & avoiding camera shake are critical to sharpness as well.) I shoot RAW, and I'm not a pixel peeper - my camera's not that high-end. :)
I am a little concerned about the f/6.3 at the long end...but it's probably a good starting point and then if I desperately feel like I need a faster long lens some number of years down the road I could get a long prime at whatever length I use most and mess around with changing lenses. Right?
@byrdlip That's a good point. I'm hoping to travel light (as light as you can with younger siblings, stadium blankets, lots of layers and a camera kit) but I do have a monopod kicking around somewhere which will at least help!
@byrdlip Well, yes, but remember that Image Stabilization technology can significantly help here. The rule-of-thumb for "safe" hand-held shutter speeds is 1/(full-frame-equivalent-focal length-in-mm). At say 400mm, this amounts to 1/600 shutter on a cropped-sensor APS-C camera. Say the lens gives you 2 stops of "hand-held-safety" that gets to 1/150 second shutter as a "safe" hand-held shutter speed.
Let's not forget what current technology can do for us.
@sarahsthreads For sure, one would like as wide an f/stop as possible. It's a trade-off. f/2.8 at, for instance 250mm for the Sigma lens, the lens would have to be 3 times as wide!
For a reference, have you ever watched sporting events and the professional photographers? To get close to f/2.8, the lenses have to be three or four times bigger! And three or four times (conservatively) expensive, heavy and long!
@frankhymus I know, though a free lunch would be nice! I've seen the lenses that require an extra tripod all their own. No thanks - I got my tiny SL1 body as a trade-off between being able to change lenses and not wanting to carry so much weight. It does *most* of what I want it to do, and I can live without the rest.
I'm absolutely not a professional photographer and don't even aspire to be one. I just want to take (relatively) great pictures of my kids and their friends. :)
I have been using the Tamron 16-300mm lens for over two years now and I really like it's versatility. If I remember correctly there is a nice review of the lens on dpreview, unfortunately I don't have the link available but I'm sure that you could find it through a Google search.
@salza Not a bad lens at all. Indeed, probably the best of the current "super zooms." The new Sigma equivalent is a good one too. I have tried them both on rental. But at US$1,000 (both of them) and with significant "heft," perhaps not what Sarah was looking for.
@kwiksilver@salza That does look like an interesting lens, too. @frankhymus Am I not looking at the right ones? Both the Tamron 16-300 & the Sigma 18-300 seem to retail around $500?
@tigerdreamer I don't know if they practice in uniform ever or not, but I bet they'd still frown on parents being on the field, even if it's only practice. (Plus I really don't want to get run down by kids wielding large instruments and spinning flags.) But it's a good thought! :)
@sarahsthreads
$600, I just checked. Thought they were more, sorry. But still about twice what I think you can get a 18-250 for. The 18-250 is not as ambitious as the others, perhaps why I have always been impressed with it, doesn't try to do too much and so the optics are not as "difficult.". I have rented them all for at least a few days from time to time, still looking for the perfect "super zoom.' Which of course doesn't exist. :(
@frankhymus Thanks for all of your advice! I agree, the perfect one doesn't exist yet. :)
So I'm sort of heading back to the drawing board. I took a look at the pictures I took last year when I went to the home band show, and this is 1/250s, ISO 1600, f/2.8. That's all the light there is, and I suspect our field/lighting is one of the better ones of the area schools:
If I get a lens that is 2-3 stops slower than that, I can't really go much higher in the ISO department, so then I'm stuck with too slow a shutter speed to freeze action.
This was my 40mm lens cropped slightly for composition reasons. I'm considering either the Canon 100mm f/2 or 85mm f/1.8, and just dealing with changing lenses. I'm worried the 100mm will be too short for individual shots, and too long for anything else. The 85mm will definitely be too short for individual shots, but could be the right length to get, say, the brass section or the drum line. And then I can switch out to my 24mm if I want to grab the whole group. Any thoughts? They both seem to get good reviews...
A long telephoto, like 200mm, zoom or otherwise at f/2.8 will be heavy and expensive. I don't know the 100mm Canon lens you mention, nor the 85mm. They are both older lenses, and from the specs at amazon are NOT image stabilized. But they are spec'ed with a USM, so AF should be OK for you. Not as fast as newer lenses, but should be adequate. You may have issues with camera shake? If you are finding a shutter speed longer than 1/150 it will be an issue unless you are very careful with your hand-held shooting technique. The rule of thumb for "safe" hand-holding is 1/(crop factor vs FF * focal length), and with your canon, that crop factor is 1.6,
But to give you some idea how "difficult" shooting in conditions like this, have you ever been at night sporting events and seen the professional photographers and their absolutely HUGE lenses? Those are typically 300mm primes at f/2.8 (or faster) and such lenses do cost (tens of) thousands of dollars. Now the action of the band is certainly not as fast as, say, a football game, but pros use these lenses, not to show off how great their equipment is, or to impress the amateurs, they are trying to solve the problem of low light, fast action and the need for "close in" one-on-one detail. You might also notice they often have a "mono-pod" (a one leg support that is "sot of" portable) usually anchored to the lens tripod mount.. You indeed might try one too, on the camera tripod mount. Especially with a non IS lens, this could help you beat that "safe hand held shutter parameter"
Anyway, good luck whatever you decide will work for you. I would try the 85 f/1.8. The extra half-stop might make the difference between ISO1600 and having to jack that up to 2400. You can always sell it again on eBay if it does prove to be what you want...
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Here's a new one at amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-250mm-f3-5-6-3-Digital-Cameras/dp/B008B48AAE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470084849&sr=8-1&keywords=sigma+18+250+canon
Here's a refurbished from Sigma also at amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-250mm-f3-5-6-3-Certified-Refurbished/dp/B0148Z03SG/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1470084849&sr=8-3&keywords=sigma+18+250+canon
It will not be as sharp as the f/2.8 primes, but no long zoom will. It does a decent job overall. I think it does as good a job as the newer 16-300's from Tamron, and I think Sigma has a new one too. The 18-250 at less than half the price, and half the weight...
If you really want to go long, the older Sigma 150-500, used, will fit your budget, but it is very heavy, it is a full frame lens, and does not handle well I find. It will overwhelm your SL-1 I think, in size, length and weight. But it will give you noticeably sharper shots at 250-400mm than any of the "super zooms" for APS-C cameras. But at close to 4 pounds, is it really worth the bulk and weight? My arms get tired hand-held quickly.
Here's a random listing from eBay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sigma-DG-150-500mm-1-5-6-3-APO-HSM-For-Canon-With-Case-/191935632012?hash=item2cb041528c:g:kPIAAOSwENxXlU1u
I should mention that all these lenses are "Image Stabilized." Sigma does a very good job in this area, and even the 150-500, as heavy as it is, can shoot "steady" hand held at 350mm at 1/150 second shutter with minimum effort.
I am a little concerned about the f/6.3 at the long end...but it's probably a good starting point and then if I desperately feel like I need a faster long lens some number of years down the road I could get a long prime at whatever length I use most and mess around with changing lenses. Right?
And I definitely don't want a 4 pound lens. ;)
Let's not forget what current technology can do for us.
For a reference, have you ever watched sporting events and the professional photographers? To get close to f/2.8, the lenses have to be three or four times bigger! And three or four times (conservatively) expensive, heavy and long!
There is never a free lunch.
I'm absolutely not a professional photographer and don't even aspire to be one. I just want to take (relatively) great pictures of my kids and their friends. :)
Thanks for all the input so far!
$600, I just checked. Thought they were more, sorry. But still about twice what I think you can get a 18-250 for. The 18-250 is not as ambitious as the others, perhaps why I have always been impressed with it, doesn't try to do too much and so the optics are not as "difficult.". I have rented them all for at least a few days from time to time, still looking for the perfect "super zoom.' Which of course doesn't exist. :(
So I'm sort of heading back to the drawing board. I took a look at the pictures I took last year when I went to the home band show, and this is 1/250s, ISO 1600, f/2.8. That's all the light there is, and I suspect our field/lighting is one of the better ones of the area schools:
If I get a lens that is 2-3 stops slower than that, I can't really go much higher in the ISO department, so then I'm stuck with too slow a shutter speed to freeze action.
This was my 40mm lens cropped slightly for composition reasons. I'm considering either the Canon 100mm f/2 or 85mm f/1.8, and just dealing with changing lenses. I'm worried the 100mm will be too short for individual shots, and too long for anything else. The 85mm will definitely be too short for individual shots, but could be the right length to get, say, the brass section or the drum line. And then I can switch out to my 24mm if I want to grab the whole group. Any thoughts? They both seem to get good reviews...
But you might find the 85mm is very versatile apart from your night-band use. Here's amazon.com and the reviews, albeit 8-10 years old, are very favorable. That's the one I'd go with if these are your two choices.
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU/ref=sr_1_1?s=apparel&ie=UTF8&qid=1470433832&sr=8-1&keywords=Canon+f%2F1.8+85mm
But to give you some idea how "difficult" shooting in conditions like this, have you ever been at night sporting events and seen the professional photographers and their absolutely HUGE lenses? Those are typically 300mm primes at f/2.8 (or faster) and such lenses do cost (tens of) thousands of dollars. Now the action of the band is certainly not as fast as, say, a football game, but pros use these lenses, not to show off how great their equipment is, or to impress the amateurs, they are trying to solve the problem of low light, fast action and the need for "close in" one-on-one detail. You might also notice they often have a "mono-pod" (a one leg support that is "sot of" portable) usually anchored to the lens tripod mount.. You indeed might try one too, on the camera tripod mount. Especially with a non IS lens, this could help you beat that "safe hand held shutter parameter"
Anyway, good luck whatever you decide will work for you. I would try the 85 f/1.8. The extra half-stop might make the difference between ISO1600 and having to jack that up to 2400. You can always sell it again on eBay if it does prove to be what you want...