Which camera lens for indoor sports

[Malpaso]

Last Christmas, I got the g/f a Canon EOS Rebel XT. The lens that came with it is an 18-55mm. A good deal of the pictures she takes are of her daughter's indoor gymnastics meets and dance competitions. More often than not, the seats are pretty far from the action. She also takes outdoor stills at the beach, in the mountains, etc.

I started looking around for a good lens, and had zoomed in (no pun intended) on the Canon EF 75-300 series, either the III or IS. Then I started reading reviews that said they're not good for indoor sports, and they degrade at 300mm.

Looking in that price range (or slightly higher) is there a decent lens for those purposes, or am I going to have to go much higher in price? Is 300mm necessary or is 200mm sufficient?

 

[PurpleDrazi]

As I understand things, the lighting in gymnastics events aren't that great. So, in addition to something long, she'll want something fast. Be sure to also consider the max aperture of the lens.

I would recommend looking at this forum
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/

Francis

 

[Bogie]

I shoot a lot of sports (2nd job) I use a 70-200 IS for most of my work indoors outdoors I will use that lens with a 1.4 converter or a 300 IS depending on the sport.

 

[Echo63]

for cruddy lighting (indoor sports)
you really need a lens with a fast maximum aperture
i would suggest the Canon and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lenses (the sigma is half the price of the canon one
the Canon 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 lenses will also work very well indoors.

i dont know if this is allowed, but try joining the canon digital photography forums - www.photography-on-the.net
very similar to CPF, lots of advice, lots of canon addicts, and most people are helpful and friendly

 

[Mike V]

Depends on how long you need/want to go.

Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS

or the

Canon 135mm f2.0 which can be used with great success with the Canon 1.4x Extender Mk II.

 

[GhostReaction]

I shoot with a Sigma 70-200 for indoor street soccer game. Works great and I love the photos produced but a voice in the back of my head still says I need a magic white pipe 70-200L IS.

Most of the time I find that 200mm is sufficient for zooming in during a game.

Since the Sigma has no IS, I used a monopod most of the time.

 

[Echo63]

I shoot with a Sigma 70-200 for indoor street soccer game. Works great and I love the photos produced but a voice in the back of my head still says I need a magic white pipe 70-200L IS.

Most of the time I find that 200mm is sufficient for zooming in during a game.

Since the Sigma has no IS, I used a monopod most of the time.

there isnt that much difference between the sigma 70-200f2.8 and the canon L
the major difference is price and the image stabilising
i use a sigma 70-200 2.8 on my 1d and have shot half a day using a mates 70-200 IS L, there isnt any difference in photos, providing you do your bit, the image stabilising will allow you to ditch your monopod for most applications though

 

[geepondy]

To the original poster, keep in mind that unfortunately many of the lens suggested thus far will cost more then the XT body did to begin with. I had access to a Canon 70-200f4L which is about a six hundred dollar lens and considered on of the "bargain" L lens. When zoomed out, particularly on most DSL's with the crop factor making the equivalent long end even longer, I had a really tough time keeping it steady in all but good outdoor lighting. I would think IS would be a must in this situation although I too read of not so great image quality of the Canon 70-300 IS EF series..

Off subject from original post, but I've had decent luck with some long range indoor shots with my (now sells for $350) Canon S3IS.

 

[Mike V]

I wish I had back all the money I've wasted on cheap lenses.

Buy it once and buy the best.

Not only can you keep a good lens for life, but ever time you press the shutter you get the value of the lens.

Digital bodies are more or less disposable. You will be replacing your body in a few years.

 

[Bright Scouter]

I have the same body as you, but I have the 17-85 IS lens as my main lens. I love that lens. For outdoor sports, I use the 70-300 IS you talked about and it has been great. The IS is something I would personally not give up anymore. So for me, having said that, the only choices are the lens I have, or the L series glass in what ever focal length you feel you need. When I looked at them, they were too expensive for what I would get out of them. But even if I wanted to spend the money, which I could have, they were way too BIG and HEAVY for me to use them day to day. Those are lenses where you put the lens on the tripod/monopod and the body hangs off it. I use this camera as my main camera on vacations and is just part of my life. There is no way I would want to use the bigger L glass for every day pictures.

If you did go to L glass, and I will readily admit it IS much better, I would get the 70-200 2.8 IS. It is fast AND has the IS. But for me, since I don't sell my pictures, I just decided it wasn't worth it. When I show my pictures to friends, family, and at work, people still say WOW! I don't think any of them would notice the difference if I had spent the money on the L glass.

Good luck.

 

[yybug]

70-200 F/4L IS for about 1k
or 70-200 F/2.8L IS for >1.5k

 

[Bravo25]

I primarily use 2 lenses on either a30D or a 5D. Mostly the 70-200 2.8L IS USM, and secondly the 24-70 2.8L. Cost is a factor though as those 2 lenses cost about $3500.00. You may do well with 70-200 4.0 IS if you can set your ISO up to about 800, and if all the lights are on. If you are not doing large prints you may even crank it up to 3200, and get decent results. However since I don't own that body I have no idea what the noise factor on the images would be. If you can rent, or borrow one it may just save you some bucks over getting the faster lens. However if you can swing the cost get the faster 2.8.