Lens Help!

[Gregormc]

hello!

I have recently bought a Canon 550D which came with a standard 18-55mm lens. I have been doing photography at college but i am still a rookie so sorry if i sound like an idiot here ha!
Being a sports fan and rugby player, which zoom lens would be best for getting great shots at games and for general photography?

Also which macro lenses are there for a good affordable price?
Baring in mind i am a student so i cant afford too much.
Any help would be much appreciated as i am desperate to get out and start taking better photos!
Thanks

[sk66]

No responses yet huh?
Probably because this has been covered a thousand times already. Try a search.

Here's an article on sports equipment/photography. Sports Photography: An Introduction

[ceremus]

What's the range of your budget, exactly? Decent telephoto lenses aren't very cheap, good telephoto lenses start at four figures.

On the most modest budget you could get a used 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. It's a discontinued lens, but it shows up frequently on the used market. It's acceptably sharp from about the 100-135mm range, once you start getting past the 200mm mark your image quality will start to get noticeably softer. Not to mention that generally you will want to shoot at about f/8 for your best IQ, so it's definitely a lens you want to use in good outdoor light as much as possible. Also keep in mind the lens is not stabilized, if you're not shooting from a tripod or monopod you'll want your shutter speeds to be up around 1/200-1/320 or greater, depending on how much you're zoomed in and how much you need to stop action (probably quite a bit for sports). You can often find the lens at the used sections at B&H or Adorama for around $200 or so.

For around $600 your options open up to the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 USM (not the 75-300) or the 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS version). Which of these you should take will depend on your needs. The 70-200 f/4 is an extremely sharp lens with a constant aperture of f/4, not good enough for low light or indoors but good for daylight or partly cloudy. With no IS you'll need a mono/tripod if your shutter speeds get very long, though again you'll want faster speeds for shooting sports. There is a version of this lens with IS that goes for about $1000.

If you need more reach than 200mm you can opt for the 70-300. The IQ isn't as good as the L lens, but acceptable for most, and it does have an effective IS system which is one of its best features.

There are other zoom lenses that are well liked for outdoor sports such as the 70-300L, the 100-400L, or even the 70-200L 2.8 IS, but these start at $1500.

[inkista]

As exotic footnotes to the list above, if you're desperately hankering for a 200mm f/2.8 L, but you can't scratch together four figures, there are two $800 options you could consider.

"The Magic Drainpipe" is the precursor to the 70-200Ls. The EF 80-200 f/2.8L has no IS, no USM, but is optically about the same. If you can find one.

And the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II is a prime, which sucks for sports, but is also f/2.8, and is smaller, lighter, and black which makes it ninja stealthy compared to the white 70-200s. It also has a precursor, the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM (Mark I) which is optically identical, but also includes a built-in hood. It goes in the neighborhood of $500-600, used. If you can find one.

The problem with going used is you have to know how to evaluate whether the lens is in good condition or not. I'd recommend going through the used departments of B&H or Adorama, or using keh.com. All three are known to have decent grading scales, good return policies, and good reputations when it comes to used gear. It'll be more expensive, but far less chance of getting stuck with a bad lens due to a misleading or incomplete description from eBay or Craig's List.

As for macro lenses, both of the Canon choices are in the neighborhood of $400-$500: the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro (shorter working distance, smaller, crop-body only, and a little bit sharper), EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (not to be confused with the L version; more general-purpose working distance, larger, full-frame and crop). You could also look at the Tamron 90 f/2.8, which has a good reputation. But generally speaking, you're not going to find anything much under $400.

[Tanya Kurnik]

I just got the Canon 100mm. I did compare this one and the Tamron 90mm. Not to much of a difference. I just want to stick with Canon brand. Thats just me. Here is my first photo using the 100mm.