What Lens

[Chris Parks]

I need a lens for my Canon Rebel sports camera. The prime aim of the lens will be to take photos of superkarts on the track racing and as they aren't the biggest thing to take a photo of I need a fairly big lens. In the old days we used straight tele lenses but these days things seem to have changed. suggestions would be appreciated as the whole lens thing is baffling to me. It was so easy in the old days of Spotmatics etc.

[Master Splinter]

How big is your wallet?

Roughly, you start at the Canon L series lenses, that cost serious money ($1,500 - $10,000+), then the EF series ($500 - $5,000), then the EF-S series ($400 - $1,500). In between those, you can slot the lenses from other makers such as Tamron and Sigma.

Price is a rough guide to quality, with the 'other makers' lenses generally fitting in between - better than the cheap Canon lenses, but not as good as the really expensive ones.

Cheapest way to get into it is to hunt up one of the EF series Canon 75-300mm zoom lenses on ebay for about $120 secondhand (they are the cheap tele zooms that come with so many of the body plus lens kits). They are not the fastest lens (f4.5 is as fast as they go) but if you are outside, this isn't going to be too much of a problem.

There are a number of obsessive-compulsive/e-peen lens comparison sites which can be a fun way to desktop research what's available.

[BobL]

First question is what lens do you currently have because if you already have a 200mm lens and you think the carts are too small then we have to think again.

Some suggestions:

If you are going to buy an expensive less (eg $1500+), before buying you could consider hiring to make sure it is what you are after.

Unless you go for used, then I reckon something like the 50 - 200 mm or 70 - 300 mm Sigmas would work just fine and they are relatively cheap ($220!).

If you can afford $500 then I would go for the 18-200 mm Sigma so you basically never have to change lenses when you are at the track.

[Chris Parks]

My past experience says 300mm is nowhere big enough and harking back to days gone by I used a 400mm straight tele lens. I wonder if I should use a 300mm zoom and put a converter behind it. I have been told in the past IIRC that unless I use a Canon converter I will lose camera functions, is this correct? BTW I have no long lenses at all only the stock 55 to whatever zoom it came with.

[Big Shed]

Chris, I don't know whether your past experience with a 300mm lens was on a 35mm camera, if you put a 300mm lens on a digital camera such as the Canon Rebel, it is actually a 450mm equivalent to 35mm. This is because of the different format.

[Chris Parks]

Thanks Fred, I did not realise that. My past experience stopped at film SLR's and I have not picked up a camera since recently getting this one as a gift from my daughter. I might pick up a 300mm zoom and see what happens, the hard part is paying the prices they ask for lenses these days, absolutely eye watering and wallet emptying from what I can see. It was always expensive for lenses but it seems to have grown out of proportion to the camera body.

[rsser]

Yes.

But assuming your shutter opening needs to be at least 1/125th and prob. 1/250th you are going to need a wide aperture (ching ching) or crank the ISO up bigtime and live with the grain.

ADDED: an alternative would be to go for one of the superzoom cameras like a Panasonic Lumix. I use an old one that's f2.8 thoughout and something like 10x zoom (no idea what that is in DSLR equiv.). I can spot a moving object, use the power zoom to zoom in on it and then shoot. It has full manual controls so shutter priority can be selected.

[BobL]

Chris, I don't know whether your past experience with a 300mm lens was on a 35mm camera, if you put a 300mm lens on a digital camera such as the Canon Rebel, it is actually a 450mm equivalent to 35mm. This is because of the different format.

It's actually 480 mm.

[BobL]

Thanks Fred, I did not realise that. My past experience stopped at film SLR's and I have not picked up a camera since recently getting this one as a gift from my daughter. I might pick up a 300mm zoom and see what happens, the hard part is paying the prices they ask for lenses these days, absolutely eye watering and wallet emptying from what I can see. It was always expensive for lenses but it seems to have grown out of proportion to the camera body.

I don't know where you were buying lenses from in the past but $300 for a lens today is cheap, dirt cheap. I paid about this in 1978 for a 70-230 mm Sigma zoom lens.

[Chris Parks]

I don't know where you were buying lenses from in the past but $300 for a lens today is cheap, dirt cheap. I paid about this in 1978 for a 70-230 mm Sigma zoom lens.

I was young and single so maybe that is the difference.

[rsser]

LOL.

I just picked up a 55-300 (film equiv.) Pentax zoom for $300 on the 'net. Comes in a plain brown box. Have no great hopes of it's quality but then I'm not a pro and really it will just be for snaps of birds.

Well, actually I did research it. photozone.de Wonderful resource and it rated OK for what it is.

[BobL]

I was young and single so maybe that is the difference.

That'll explain it!

I bought a Minolta 301 with a 50 mm F1.4 lens in 1974. In those days they cost ~$300 in Australia which according to the RBS inflation website translates to $2042 today.

Today you can buy a Canon 1000D with 18-55 mm Zoom on-line for ~$700.

The difference will be that my Minolta 301 still works, whereas the 1000D is unlikely to be functional 36 years from now, and even if it did the computer hardware around will probably not support it.

If you want longevity (ie a camera that should last for more shutter presses) you have to pay about the same amount of money. My last camera (50D with a 100 mm F2.8 macro lens on it) cost $2,627 - but it too will inevitably suffer the same support problems.

What should last for 36 years or more are the lenses whereas the body is semi-disposable.

[Chris Parks]

That'll explain it!

I bought a Minolta 301 with a 50 mm F1.4 lens in 1974. In those days they cost ~$300 in Australia which according to the RBS inflation website translates to $2042 today.

Today you can buy a Canon 1000D with 18-55 mm Zoom on-line for ~$700.

The difference will be that my Minolta 301 still works, whereas the 1000D is unlikely to be functional 36 years from now, and even if it did the computer hardware around will probably not support it.

If you want longevity (ie a camera that should last for more shutter presses) you have to pay about the same amount of money. My last camera (50D with a 100 mm F2.8 macro lens on it) cost $2,627 - but it too will inevitably suffer the same support problems.

What should last for 36 years or more are the lenses whereas the body is semi-disposable.

I bought a Pentax Spotmatic 2 in 1971 for $179 IIRC. The only reason I chose that over a Minolta 101 was the screw lens system instead of Minolta's bayonet. This camera I have now is my re-entry into photography after not picking up a camera for over 20 years and the technology is hard to get my head around. Put the film in, set the ASA and line the needle in the veiw finder in the middle and shoot, life was easy. Now I have a 100 page book to read and a mind that is not as agile as it once was. I guess I just have to make the time to get out there and use it.

[BobL]

I bought a Pentax Spotmatic 2 in 1971 for $179 IIRC. The only reason I chose that over a Minolta 101 was the screw lens system instead of Minolta's bayonet. This camera I have now is my re-entry into photography after not picking up a camera for over 20 years and the technology is hard to get my head around. Put the film in, set the ASA and line the needle in the veiw finder in the middle and shoot, life was easy. Now I have a 100 page book to read and a mind that is not as agile as it once was. I guess I just have to make the time to get out there and use it.

We had the spotmatics at school where I taught photography and then at work in the lab. Great cameras (and I still use my DSLRs in spot mode for most photography).

The learning curve is steep but DSLRs have many, many advantages over the older ones. The ability to take many pictures at no real cost is the biggest advantage, others are the instant ISO boost, burst shooting, auto bracketing and the autofocus calibration. I also like the digital processing side but if you think a 100 page camera manual is a PITA then stay away from the manual for something like Photoshop!

I've been shooting digitally since about 1996 and fairly seriously since 1999. Having lots of pics is nice but managing them is a bit of a nightmare. Every month or so I make 2 DVDs of that month's pics and take one to work and leave one at home. I can generally find a specific picture pretty quickly as long as I can remember what year it was taken.

[mark david]

Hi there arent any real short cuts here and you get what you pay for.
The teleconverter option is not great as if you are starting with f5.6 lens you immediately lose 2 stops and any a.f function
I use a Sigma 120-300 at f2.8 its very fast and with a 1.4 converter plus the crop factor on canon c sensors is equivalent to 670mm of focal length in old money.
It's not a cheap lens at around $ 4000 but well worth it if you can afford it.
I also use a Sigma 300-800 but you need good light for anything sport related.