xsi or 40d

[cashgone1]

I'm new to photography and looking to purchase. Mainly going to be shooting my kids soccer and lacrosse games. Need some advise on whether to get xsi or 40d. The other decision is what lens to go with to get the most bang for the buck.

[inkista]

Sports? 40D. Higher frame rate in the bursts, better AF system.

As for lens... if you don't mind putting up with a lower keeper rate, and only being able to shoot outdoor sports, maybe the EF 70-300 IS USM? It's pushing it, though, given the small max. aperture (f/4-5.6).

[cashgone1]

Thanks,I'm leaning towards 40D because of feel in my hands. Any thoughts on 50d with the kit lens 28 -135 as compared to the 40D with 70 -300. Pros and cons???

[OsmosisStudios]

The 40D does slightly better with high-iso noise, but I believe the 50D framerate is faster.

When it comes to lenses, though, you've listed two very different lenses. The 28-135 is a mid-range zoom whereas the 70-300 is a telephoto. Neither is particularly suited to sports. The 70-200 f/2.8 is better.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by cashgone1

Thanks,I'm leaning towards 40D because of feel in my hands. Any thoughts on 50d with the kit lens 28 -135 as compared to the 40D with 70 -300. Pros and cons???

50D's a good camera, but more expensive than the 40D, without a huge performance gain. The features that were added may or may not make any difference to you: AF microadjust and better LCD being the main two. The high iso performance--well it depends on who you talk to. For most folks, the 40D is "just as good."

As Os says, the 28-135 is a walkaround zoom lens, the 70-300 is a telephoto zoom. Two different uses. My gut feeling is the 28-135 isn't enough reach for sports, and isn't wide enough on a crop body at the wide end to be particularly desirable. The 28-135 was designed for full-frame/film cameras. The crop-body analog is the EF-S 17-85 (which has since been replaced by the EF-S 15-85). If you do want that kind of reach on your walkaround, the EF-S 18-135 might be more useful.

The reason a 70-200 f/2.8 lens would be better for sports is that the larger maximum aperture lets you use faster shutter speeds--which you'll probably need to "freeze the action" with sports.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

The 40D does slightly better with high-iso noise, but I believe the 50D framerate is faster.

Nope. Actually, the 40D is a hair faster at 6.5 fps vs. the 50D's 6.3 fps. You may be thinking of the 7D, which does 8fps.

[cashgone1]

70-200 f2.8 sounds like the way to go but budget being an issue,if I get only one to start,do i get 70-300 while I save towards 70-200 f 2.8.IS USM(could be awhile,its nice to have goals and dreams) or 28-135 ,so I have a little bit of both and sacrifice longer range? Thanks for info. It's a lot to take in.

[inkista]

Here two pieces of information to guide you.

The Canon focal length comparison. Just to get a feel for focal lengths.

And a lens primer that goes over the basics of lens features and why you might want them.

What you probably want is both a walkaround and a telephoto zoom. The reason you want a wide-to-normal walkaround zoom is so that you can do the typical vacation snapshot thing: landscapes and portraits. A telephoto zoom can often give too tight a framing to be comfortably used for either.

If you really don't want to spend the cash on the 70-300 IS USM as a temp lens (It is about $600, after all), there's always the $250 EF-S 55-250 IS. It doesn't have USM, so will be slower on the autofocus, it's not as sharp as the 70-300 or have as much reach, but it's less than half the price and it's still stabilized. Usually, the dual-lens kit of the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS is what a lot of folks get with the camera to start out.

The other alternative if the 70-300 IS USM doesn't appeal to you, and you're into image quality above all else, then maybe compromising on the EF 70-200 f/4L USM is another way to go (especially as it costs roughly the same as the 70-300 IS USM). Even more restricted in use, there is also the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM prime lens (i.e., it doesn't zoom and has a fixed focal length). But neither of these lenses is stabilized, and the 70-300 and 55-250 are. With longer lenses, stabilization is something you want, because the rule of thumb for eliminating camera shake blur from handholding is to use a shutter speed of 1/focal_length or faster. With a 300mm lens, that means 1/300s. With a 200mm lens, 1/200s. With sports or fast action, you may be over these shutter speeds anyway to freeze the action, but if there's something that's moving more slowly, having stabilization ease this restriction by two or three stops can make a big difference in usability.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by inkista

As Os says, the 28-135 is a walkaround zoom lens, the 70-300 is a telephoto zoom. Two different uses. My gut feeling is the 28-135 isn't enough reach for sports, and isn't wide enough on a crop body at the wide end to be particularly desirable.

Well, she said it's for her kid's soccer and lacrosse games. I'm guessing she can get on or near the sidelines, and 135 turns into just a little over 200mm on a crop sensor. That's probably going to be enough, unless she wants to get action headshots or something.

As anyone who's been paying attention knows, I love to suggest the 70-200 f/4L and for $650 I think it might fit the bill, especially considering the 40D/50D can do ISO 400 easily.

Cashgone1 be very careful if you're looking at the 70-300mm Canon lenses. There's a 75-300 that sounds similar for much less but it's a very poor quality lens. The 70-300 IS USM is not a bad lens, but for your purposes I don't think you'll miss the extra 100mm and the 70-200 f/4L will return vastly better photos.

[cashgone1]

Thanks,looks like I have some more reading to do. I like the idea of the 2 lenses.Good place to start for now. I will let you know what I decide.

[cashgone1]

70-200 f4 or 70-300 4-5.6 and I'm a he not a she. thanks again.