I've recently purchased an XTi w/ the 18-55 kit lens and need to buy a telephoto lens. I'm a complete novice to photography, so forgive my lack of knowledge. I need a lens that that can capture my children's sports (both indoor and outdoor) as well as wildlife, particularly birds. I'd prefer to purchase a single lens, and am willing to pay more if I can find one that can adapt well to all of these subject/settings. But, if that is not possible, then I'd consider two less expensive lenses.

I am currently considering the 55-250 f/4-5.6, the 70-300mm F/4-5.6, or the 70-200 f/4L. The price of the last two are comparable, but I'll be honest that I'm not really sure what the differences are between those two. Also, are the more expensive lenses so much better than the first considering my intended use and the cost?

if you're not really all that concerned about getting the best image quality, you should be alright with the basic zoom lenses. You mentioned sports and wildlife, but is there anything you want to shoot that is closer? If so, these lenses won't be an all-around lens because 70mm is still quite close. the canon 70-200 f/4 is a fine lens, and the 4-5.6 is as well. But if you're going to be shooting sports, especially indoor, you may want to look into a 70-200 f/2.8. If that's out of your budget, then the 70-200 f/4 will work, just know it won't be as usable when the light starts going down or you're shooting inside. That goes for the other zooms as well, f/5.6 isn't a very big aperture.

For what you're after, yes, the more expensive lenses are better. The reason is aperture.

With aperture, the smaller the f/ number, the wider the lens opens. The wider the lens opens, the faster you can get the shutter speed and still have a well-lit photo. And fast shutter speeds are essential for the action shots typical of sporting events.

It's the indoor sports that will prove most challenging for you. By photographic standards, indoors means low-light, which in turn means longer exposures. But you still want fast shutter speeds to capture the action. You have three choices: Use a flash, which has limited range and creates it's own problems with shadows and such; Use a higher ISO, which makes the sensor more sensitive to light, but introduces noise into the image, or use a larger aperture (a smaller f/ number). An experienced photographer will generally use a mix of these to get the shot they want, depending on the conditions.

Let's look at the last two lenses you mentioned. The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 means that at the 70mm end, the largest aperture possible is f/4, but at the 300mm end, that will shrink to f/5.6. The 70-200mm f/4L has an edge in that the maximum aperture doesn't change as you zoom in. Plus, that "L" means it's made with "luxury' glass, the highest grade glass that Canon uses in it's lenses. This is one of the first lenses I bought for my XT, and I think you would find it adequate for everything you want to do EXCEPT the indoor sports. This lens struggles in low-light situations (though it would be marginally better at the zoom end than either of the other two you mention.

I'd recommend you take a serious look at the Canon EF 70~200mm f/2.8L IS. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is exactly twice the shutter speed. The "IS" designation means that this is an image stabilization lens. Read up on this and do some research, because while IS lenses give you more stability at slower shutter speeds, it tends to be quirky when trying to pan the lens (move with the action). Still there are situations where this is a very useful feature.

Wether or not twice the shutter speed and stabilization are worth the extra price, only you can decide that. I can tell you this: The 70-200 f/4L was the first lens I bought for my XT. The Canon EF 70~200mm f/2.8L IS was the third. Sold the other one, at a loss of course.

Hope this helps some.

- Joe U.

I've recently purchased an XTi w/ the 18-55 kit lens and need to buy a telephoto lens. I'm a complete novice to photography, so forgive my lack of knowledge. I need a lens that that can capture my children's sports (both indoor and outdoor) as well as wildlife, particularly birds. I'd prefer to purchase a single lens, and am willing to pay more if I can find one that can adapt well to all of these subject/settings. But, if that is not possible, then I'd consider two less expensive lenses.

I am currently considering the 55-250 f/4-5.6, the 70-300mm F/4-5.6, or the 70-200 f/4L. The price of the last two are comparable, but I'll be honest that I'm not really sure what the differences are between those two. Also, are the more expensive lenses so much better than the first considering my intended use and the cost?

You are really looking at two different types of photography that has two types of lens needs.

Sports - outdoors = 70-200 f2.8 Get the IS version if you want but IS is pretty much worthless for sports. IS will not stop action. It is only useful for handshake at slow shutter speeds. Sports needs high shutter speeds. Now if your kids are driving in the Indy 500 or some road race then the IS can be useful for panning, but otherwise IS has no use in sports photography.

Sports - indoors = If the location has enough light then the 70-200 f2.8 can work. I prefer faster glass for indoor sports so I use primes in the 1.4 to 1.8 range for the most part. By pushing the ISO up with the 70-200 f2.8 you can get the minimum of 1/250th shutter speed needed to stop human action.

Wildlife - not the zoo kind but real outdoors stuff = Recommended minimum is 400mm. 500 or above is even better. Plus fast glass for those low light situation. Often just after sunrise or before sunset is when you can find a lot of animals that you will not easily find during the day. Birds for the most part are going to be easier to find.

The only lens like you are wanting that I know of with any reported decent quality would be Sigma's "Bigma" 50-500mm f4-5.6 lens. It's only going to be able to fill two of the three requirement you have as it will never work indoors for sports. Plus you will need good light outdoors. It's heavy at 4.1 pounds but it gets rave reviews. If you choose to look at this lens you could always pick up a 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f.18 lens for indoor sports.

The other alternative that might work is getting the 70-200 f2.8 and a good quality 1.4XTC. I prefer the Canon EF 1.4XTC II but it is almost $300. The Kenko DG300 1.4X TC is rated very high by a lot of photographers. I have used it and the one I had was good. With a 1.4 TC you turn the 70-200 f2.8 into a 98 - 280 f4 lens. Not that far from 300mm and the image quality from a 70-200 f2.8 with a quality 1.4X TC is virtually unchanged.

Now if you want a really good, fast lens for sport and wildlife take a look at the Canon 400mm f2.8 USM IS.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186152-USA/Canon_2533A002_Telephoto_EF_400mm_f_2_8L.html
Ok, I just had to throw this one in for laughs. :D

This is one heck of a lens on the sideline for football, soccer, for baseball, softball and track and field. I love this lens. It is also why I have the Canon EF 1.4TC II. It gives me close to a 600mm lens at f4 and outstanding image quality when shooting wildlife. It was my choice because I mainly shoot sports and my wife would kill me (no really she would kill me) if I also came home with the 600mm.

Thanks to everybody for your thoughtful responses. It has really given me something to consider. I discussed the price of the 70-200mm f/2.8 with my husband, and lets just say he was less than thrilled with that price range. I probably should have started out by telling him that I needed the Canon 400mm f2.8 USM IS lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a down-right steal compared to that beauty. :p

Thanks to everybody for your thoughtful responses. It has really given me something to consider. I discussed the price of the 70-200mm f/2.8 with my husband, and lets just say he was less than thrilled with that price range. I probably should have started out by telling him that I needed the Canon 400mm f2.8 USM IS lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a down-right steal compared to that beauty. :p

Is you husband a golfer by chance? If so then every time he has go by a new dozen balls, (about $50.00 per dozen these days) or pays a green fee (starts at about $45.00 in my area) you take the same amount of "hobby" money and put it in a cookie jar. You will have the 70-200 f2.8 in no time. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :thumbsup:

Oh yeah, and when he comes home from the course ask him what he has to show for it.:D :D

My husband golfs, but does so rarely. If I used that approach, it would take a few years before I'd be able to save up for the 70-200mm f/2.8! We've been putting off purchasing an LG front loading washing machine and dryer. When I compare the price of the lens with the dryer, even I have trouble justifying the expense. Crisp, clear photos and memories that will last a lifetime vs. cleaner laundry that finishes faster and reduces my water and electricity bill. . . What to do? :D

My husband golfs, but does so rarely. If I used that approach, it would take a few years before I'd be able to save up for the 70-200mm f/2.8! We've been putting off purchasing an LG front loading washing machine and dryer. When I compare the price of the lens with the dryer, even I have trouble justifying the expense. Crisp, clear photos and memories that will last a lifetime vs. cleaner laundry that finishes faster and reduces my water and electricity bill. . . What to do? :D


Well, you could have your husband do what I did last year during an ice storm here. I slipped on the ice and broke my ankle in two places. While I was laid up the washer quit working. I was in no condition to look at it. The repairman was honest about it and told her it was not worth repairing.

My wife came home with the LG front loading washer and dryer that does the steam cleaning as well. What could I say??? I was stuck in the recliner with a cast on my leg.

So, next really cold day, pour some water on the front step, let it freeze, send the husband out to get the paper, call the ambulance, go buy the washer and dryer and order the lens from B&H. By the time he gets up and around he will have forgot all about it. You will have to cater to his needs for a few weeks but just keep in mind that you will be using that golf money he will not be using for the next several months. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Devious plan! I'm going to have to tinker with it a bit since we live in California and we haven't had a freeze like that in over a year. But I'm sure I could think of something. :devil: