17 replies to this topic

[ImTheTypeOfGuy]

My wife has a canon rebel DSLR. I don't recall the model but it is about 10 MP and has the 35-100 and 50 -250 mm lenses. The camera is great except for indoor sports. So I am looking for a new camera aroune 18 MP and a new lens probably around 200 mm with a low f setting. Anyone now of a good site to buy from or of any good sales going on.

[jmwills]

Techbargains

[geek-accountant]

I do most of my camera & lens buying from one of three places - Adorama, B&H or Amazon. Not sure how they compare to the one mentioned above, but I have been happy with them. As for a lens, if you are shooting indoor sports you need at LEAST f/2.8. Depending on the gym, even that may be too slow without pushing the ISO to around 3200+. In the 200mm range, be prepared to spend around $1,000 for an off-brand (Sigma) lens and double that for a brand lens.

I shot a swim meet this past weekend and used the 70-200 f/2.8 and my 35mm f/1.8 lens and really appreciated the extra light from the 35mm.

[ImTheTypeOfGuy]

I do most of my camera & lens buying from one of three places - Adorama, B&H or Amazon. Not sure how they compare to the one mentioned above, but I have been happy with them. As for a lens, if you are shooting indoor sports you need at LEAST f/2.8. Depending on the gym, even that may be too slow without pushing the ISO to around 3200+. In the 200mm range, be prepared to spend around $1,000 for an off-brand (Sigma) lens and double that for a brand lens.

I shot a swim meet this past weekend and used the 70-200 f/2.8 and my 35mm f/1.8 lens and really appreciated the extra light from the 35mm.

I am looking at the Canon T3i, 60D, or 7D. Something in that class. I wish I could fine one without the video capture aspects as that is not needed at all.

As for the lense, is the brand lens worth the extra money? If yes, I want the brand lens. I usually over-buy so there are no regrets.

[geek-accountant]

As a general rule, the brand lenses are better. Sometimes by a wide margin. However, there are a few lenses made by the 3rd parties that come close to matching the quality or fill a spot the brands do not cover. For example, my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is a lens neither Canon or Nikon offer. My Tokina 12-24 is about the only Tokina I would buy as that lens comes very close to matching the Nikon version and in some cases is better. Same goes for my Tamron 90mm macro lens. But to find these gems to some research. In most cases, the 3rd parties can not match the brands.

I had a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 lens and thought it was great. Until I got the Nikon version. In every way, the Nikon was better and it was noticeable in the images. The question is if the difference is worth the price difference.

[Andne]

A guy I talk to on and off around here has a T2i with a Tamron lens on it. Not sure of the range of the lens, best guess is approx 18-135 f2.8. He uses it as a walk around lens on the weekends (I was talking to him in a bar where he was taking some pictures). Someone wanted a picture with him, so he gave me his camera to use and take the picture. I don't know about image quality, but compared to the lenses I have, both of which are Canon, his lens felt sluggish. I have a Canon 18-55mm (kit lens) and a 55-250mm EF-S lens, and I've used a 70-300mm EF USM lens in the past, and my first impression of his Tamron lens is that the autofocus was slow. It felt like it took longer for the camera to find the auto-focus point than it does on mine. I don't know if everyone has had the same experience, but unless it's a type of lens that Canon doesn't make, I don't think I'm too likely to buy a 3rd party lens. The one nice feature it had was a lock that you could flip when the lens was in it's shortest position that would keep it set there. I can see that being useful if you're doing a lot of walking about in crowds or rugged terrain with the camera and the lens on it.

Afaik, he really only uses it as a snapshot camera at the various bars and events around town, so I suspect image quality is of less of a concern to him, given that stuff is mostly intended for facebook and other online albums.

[ikon]

My BiL does a lot of sports shooting of his kids. He did not buy one of the T series Canons because the frame rate is too slow. He said, for sports, frame rate is one of his most important criteria. I think he bought a Canon 7D.

[geek-accountant]

Frame rate a focus speed are very important with sports. I don't know much about the Canon line, but if they are like Nikon, the low end cameras do not have as strong of a focus motor and depending on the lens, this could make a huge difference in focus speed.

[ikon]

Frame rate a focus speed are very important with sports. I don't know much about the Canon line, but if they are like Nikon, the low end cameras do not have as strong of a focus motor and depending on the lens, this could make a huge difference in focus speed.

An excellent point; doesn't help to have 8 fps is they're out of focus

Oh, BTW ITTOG, if you go for a high framerate camera, you also have to look at high speed media. If the media can't accept the image files fast enough, that won't help either.

[ImTheTypeOfGuy]

Assuming her current media works in the new camera I have that covered. When we bought it, they told me it could process up to 10 frames/second. So I figured it would probably do half that given this was four years ago.

[ikon]

I believe a lot of the higher framerate cameras still use CF cards, mainly because those cards can have higher throughput.

[JediTim]

A couple of big issues when purchasing online for photography equipment:
1. The Gray Market...equipment that while the same is not covered by a US Waranty. You will likely pay less for the same product but will have issues if their is a failure as the warranty will not be honored.
2. Prices that are too good to believe probably are...you can read the horror stories all over the internet about purchased that had follow-up calls from the vendor stating the equipment purchased did not included x, y or z and would cost more to get.

I agree with Geek-Accountant....stick with Adorana, B&H or Amazon...I have pruchased from B&H without issue.

[geek-accountant]

Tim, the Grey Market issue is a great idea of something we should cover in a future show.

[JediTim]

I agree...something people need to be aware of because the price is very tempting.

[ImTheTypeOfGuy]

So I am looking at a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. The only difference is image stabilization and the price. Is IS worth the price doubling? Doesn't the camera have IS already?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras for $1,259.95
or
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras for $2,545.89

[ikon]

Not in any way to discourage you, but I looked at the f2.8 of that lens and decided against it, and bought the f4 version instead. While it was cheaper, my main reason was because of the weight. The f2.8 is 59 ounces.... or 4 lbs, 11 oz. I just couldn't see myself lugging that around when the f4 is 26 ounces.

I am glad I got the L version; it helps at high zoom values. Just some food for thought.

[Andne]

Image Stabilization is not part of the camera on Canon, it's part of the lens. It usually is very useful, especially with high-zoom lenses. I have a 55-250 IS lens, it doesn't activate the image stabilization until you hold the button partially down to set the focus. It is very obvious to just me looking through the viewfinder that it's active, makes it a lot easier to even frame a picture when I'm up around the top end of the zoom range. It also allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds without getting any blur from camera jitter for a given focal length. If my memory is correct, the general rule is that shutter speed should be twice the focal length in order to avoid jitter. IS lens allow you to fudge that a little, though I can't remember exactly how much off the top of my head. However, they do not help at all with blur that is caused by the object that you are taking a picture of moving.

[ImTheTypeOfGuy]

Not in any way to discourage you, but I looked at the f2.8 of that lens and decided against it, and bought the f4 version instead. While it was cheaper, my main reason was because of the weight. The f2.8 is 59 ounces.... or 4 lbs, 11 oz. I just couldn't see myself lugging that around when the f4 is 26 ounces.

I am glad I got the L version; it helps at high zoom values. Just some food for thought.

I need the 2.8 because it is for indoor sports. If not for that, I would be looking at the f4 or others.

Image Stabilization is not part of the camera on Canon, it's part of the lens. It usually is very useful, especially with high-zoom lenses. I have a 55-250 IS lens, it doesn't activate the image stabilization until you hold the button partially down to set the focus. It is very obvious to just me looking through the viewfinder that it's active, makes it a lot easier to even frame a picture when I'm up around the top end of the zoom range. It also allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds without getting any blur from camera jitter for a given focal length. If my memory is correct, the general rule is that shutter speed should be twice the focal length in order to avoid jitter. IS lens allow you to fudge that a little, though I can't remember exactly how much off the top of my head. However, they do not help at all with blur that is caused by the object that you are taking a picture of moving.

Thanks for the info. I am not a camera person so everything you mentioned is a bit more than I know about camera's. But you did give me enough information to know that the IS is probably worth it.