topic Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Recommendations for new lens not zoom

footballmama — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 00:22:46 GMT

In charge of taking pictures for the upcoming golf fundraiser for my sons football team.

I will be roving on the green as well in charge of individual pics as golfers enter.

I currently have a canon Rebel T7. I also have a 75-300 mm lens (which I have been using mostly)

Is there a good one for portraits that anyone would recommend?

I was looking at the 135/mm.

Thank you.

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

stevet1 — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 00:37:40 GMT

football mama,

The 135 has a good reputation.

A suggestion might be to go online and do some searches for sample photos taken with the 50mm, The 85mm and the 135mm and see which ones you think you might be comfortable with. I personally prefer the 85, but that's just me.

Steve Thomas

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

footballmama — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 00:47:53 GMT

this is such a great idea.

what do you like about the 85 versus the 135?

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

zakslm — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 04:12:48 GMT

footballmama,

I also own a T7 along with both fixed focal length and zoom lenses including 4 of the lenses mentioned below. Since the T7 is an APS-C (crop sensor) camera and the equivalent focal length for a full frame or 35mm film camera is 1.6X the focal length of the lens on your camera, my comments references the full frame equivalents of the fixed focal length lenses.

I’m wondering why you’re not considering a zoom? In fact, the 18-55mm kit lens would be what I would considering if I was limited to 1 lens for the types of pics you described. However, the choice is yours.
Have you considered an EF-S 24MM f2.8 STM “pancake” lens (38mm equivalent)? It’s very sharp and I think it would be very good for groups (foursomes) where have to get everyone in the shot from head to toe at the first tee. When and if stopped down one or two stops from f2.8, the background should be in focus showing the golf course and surroundings. It would be what I would use for the “grin and grab” shots of 2 or more people head to toe or waist up, etc. I think the focal length enables you to get close to the subject but still maintain a comfortable working distance where you don’t have to shout to get your subject’s attention or impart instructions. Its ok for head and shoulders shots and can produce good results but the working distance to the subject for those type of shots may be uncomfortable for you or the subject(s).
An EF 50mm f1.8 lens (80mm equivalent) is great for head and shoulders shots or situations or where you have some room to work or can establish some distance between yourself and the subject. It would be good for small groups if you have the working distance to use it. There are a few different 50mm f1.8’s available and maybe 4 other EF 50mm lenses in the Canon lineup as well. I own the EF 50mm f1.8 STM and used to own the EF 50 f1.8 II (nifty-fifty) when I shot film. Both are really sharp lenses and produce excellent results.
An EF 85mm f1.8 USM lens (136mm equivalent) is a classic “portrait” lens and a very a nice short telephoto lens too. It’s very sharp and quite frankly is my favorite lens. However, with a crop sensor camera, the greater working distance between you and subject(s) may be challenging in tight spaces. I’m not sure that it would be ideal for small groups or for foursomes on the first tee because of the greater required working distance, but it may work and may be ideal for the "roving" shots you mentioned. Canon also has an EF 100mm f2.0 USM and I’ve read that its characteristics are similar to the 85mm f1.8 but I have not used that lens.
I am not familiar with the 135mm lens (216mm equivalent) so the only comment I would offer is that the 135mm focal length is covered by your 75-300mm zoom although its probably safe to say that the 135mm will perform noticeably better than the 75-300.

Hope the above helps.

Good luck!

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

stevet1 — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 05:13:10 GMT

footballmama,

As Zakslm mentioned, your T7 is a crop sensor camera. That means you have to factor in a 1.6 magnification, or zooming power, or whatever you want to call it.

An 85mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 136mm lens.

For the kind of work you are talking about, I personally feel a 135mm lens is overkill, because a 135mm lens turns into the equivalent of a 216mm lens; and because it's a fixed lens, you can't zoom in or out. You would have to stand quite a ways back to get your shot, and in some tight quarters, you might not have that option.

I do not have the 85, but from what I've seen, the optics are terrific, and as Zak describes, fits the bill as a "short telephoto"

If I could throw a suggestion into the mix, try taking a look at the Canon18-135mm IS USM lens. IS stands for image stabilized, and USM stands for ultrasonic motor, which drives your autofocusing. It's whisper quiet. The optics are superb.

I was lucky enough to be gifted one, and it stays on my camera 90-95% of the time. Being 18 to 135mm, it covers a wide range of every day shooting conditions.

Just a thought.

Steve Thomas

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

footballmama — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:37:34 GMT

Wow thank you so much

ideally I would also like to use whatever lens I get for this for the season too. The one I have now does a great job but am looking for a sharper picture quality

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

footballmama — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:37:59 GMT

Would the 18-135 be good for on the field action shots too?

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

jrhoffman75 — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:37:40 GMT

@footballmama wrote:

Wow thank you so much

ideally I would also like to use whatever lens I get for this for the season too. The one I have now does a great job but am looking for a sharper picture quality

Do you know if your sharpness problem is lens related or technique related (I.e. potential camera shake)? The 75-300 is not one of Canon's best lenses, but central area, where you would likely be framing typical golf subjects, is good. What are you viewing your images with? Can you post an out of camera image on Dropbox or similar site for examination?

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

shadowsports — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:02:45 GMT

Greetings,

Great advice going on here. What seems to be standing out is you have a crop body camera and are looking for good FL coverage for an upcoming golf event. However, you also want something to that provides year around usefulness.

I would recommend a zoom. Its more difficult to do portraits on the crop body camera. If you go with a shorter focal length, you have to get closer to "fill the frame". I'm not saying it isn't possible, but you will be doing this with your legs. If you are beyond the edge of a green or have to contend with people, this might become challenging.

I liked the EF-S 18-135 recommendation. I owned this lens and found it to be extremely versatile. Edge to edge sharpness was above average, especially when stopped down.

f/3.5 f/4.0 f/4.5 f/5.0 f/5.6
18mm 24mm 35mm 50mm 76mm

Looking at the table above, you can see that you get an acceptable level of subject / background separation and decent (shallow) depth of field between 24-50mm. You will likely use somewhere between 24-40mm FL for full body 1-4 person full body portraits.

Course perspective can be achieved 18-35mm. A zoom up to 135 will also give you the ability to capture a golfer's concentration and facial expression when he/she is putting.

Prime lenses are great, but I'm making this recommendation to minimize lens changes and keep you from running around.

I also want to mention what zakslm said in point 5. At some point, I would consider upgrading your 75-300. It is not one of Canon's best endeavors. It lacks IS and is an entry level optic. It does take pictures, but is not known for its IQ or clarity. The EF-S 18-135, 55-250 and EF 70-300 USM II will all outperform it.

Good luck at the golf event, and have fun.

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

shadowsports — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:36:17 GMT

Please forgive my oversight.

Apologies. I didn't refresh my screen and seem to have missed the football requirement. Unless game play is directly in front of you and you are on the sidelines, your existing set up is not going to be great for individual players. If the game is at night, you are not going to be happy. Shooting from the sidelines can also get you run over. Please be careful.

My post above for the golf fundraiser remains true. Football and soccer are different stories. For these you are going to need a lens with a much longer focal length. Also something with better low light performance if you will shoot at night. You are looking at two vastly different shooting scenarios. Golf vs football. We have a resident sports photography expert. I'm going to ask him to join the discussion.

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

footballmama — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:53:50 GMT

I messed up!

The lens I use mostly is my 55-250 which i use for football and I am mostly right on the sidelines

(I did almost get run over on Thanksgiving!)

I was looking for something sharper that would capture both individual photos and photos of the golfers. I didnt want to be switching lenses during everything too much either.

I wish I could afford the 70-200 but I am limited to things in the $400-$700 range.

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

jrhoffman75 — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:39:13 GMT

@footballmama wrote:

I messed up!

The lens I use mostly is my 55-250 which i use for football and I am mostly right on the sidelines

(I did almost get run over on Thanksgiving!)

I was looking for something sharper that would capture both individual photos and photos of the golfers. I didnt want to be switching lenses during everything too much either.

I wish I could afford the 70-200 but I am limited to things in the $400-$700 range.

Here is an image that I captured using the 55-250mm lens with a Rebel T5i. One is the complete image and the other is zoomed in to 100% of the tool belt region. No special processing. I consider that to be sharp enough for a quality 13x19 print (at least). Can you post images that you feel need to be sharper? You need to be shooting with a shutter speed of 1/500 second or sharper to minimize camera shake at 250mm.

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

Tronhard — Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:35:51 GMT

If you are prepared to consider a zoom lens to replace your current 75-300 (which IMHO is one of Canon's worst optics), then I would recommend the EF 70-300mm lens, of which there are several variants. You might want to check out the following article I wrote on them:
70-300 Canon Lenses In-Depth Analysis - Canon Community

Although sports are not my specialty, I have used it in that context and would agree with my colleague (and likely your experience) that a wide focal range, coupled with great optical performance, will give you the best results. For portrait 70mm will work fine, and the superior performance of the the lens throughout its focal range (particularly the L version) will let you shoot wide open for faster shutter speeds and to create a shallow depth of field to isolate your subjects from background clutter. I would recommend the EF 70-300 MkII f/4-5.6 IS USM or the L version - both of which should be within budget second-hand or refurbished. They have excellent optics, good construction and a significantly longer reach compared to your 55-250. Two of the more applicable characteristics are the fast focus and effective image stabilization to improve hand-held performance. Like most Canon EF or EF-S lenses, they are no longer manufactured, but doubtless there are units in good condition on the market.

The big difference here is quality - all versions of the 70-300 are better than the 75-300. I had all three versions of the 70-300 and only recently sold the last of them as I have moved to the RF platform and did so with some reluctance.
Some sample shots of people, taken indoors will hopefully demonstrate the flexibility of the unit = first the MkII version:
60D, EF 70-300MkII@ 300mm, f/7.1, 1/200sec, ISO-1600 60D, EF 70-300MkII@ 225mm, f/5.6, 1/50sec, ISO-160060D, EF 70-300MkII@ 300mm, f/5.6, 1/100sec, ISO-1600

And the L version:
EOS R6II, EF70-300L@277mm, f/5.6, 1/320sec, ISO-640 EOS R6II, EF70-300L@236mm, f/8 1/500sec, ISO-640
EOS 5DsR EF 70-300L@300mm, f/6.3, 1/40sec ISO-200 EOS 5DsR EF 70-300L@300mm, f/6.3, 1/40sec ISO-200
It should be noted that the last image (just a casual shot of some fellow photographers) was taken on the rather unforgiving EOS 5DsR, a Full-Frame 52MP camera that shows any flaw in lens or technique and I felt confident in using this lens with it. The second image taken with the L version is heavily cropped to show how much one can do so if necessary. The original was massively downsized to post here but still shows the sharpness of the lens.

Finally, a comment from a professional photographer on the L version which has similar performance characteristics to the MkII unit.

and...
If you can afford the L version, this review by Justin Abbott: these days it should be just within your budget.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Long Term Review (youtube.com)

A benefit of the MkII and L versions is that you can, if you so desire, at some stage update your camera to a Full-Frame or Mirrorless (via the EF-RF adapter) and use it with confidence that it will still render excellent results.

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

stevet1 — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:48:48 GMT

footballmama,

As Rick suggested, your lens requirements for a football game are going to be different than shots on the putting green. For football, you're probably going to want something with more "reach", and Trevor's suggestion of the 70-300 makes more sense..

If the football players get close enough to you, the 18-135 would do fine. If you want to freeze the action, shutter speeds are a function of the camera, not of the lens, and your T7 is capable of speeds up to 1/4000th's of a second.

Like you, I own a 55-250 too, and after using the 18-135, I'm finding the 55-250 to be a little soft. I think the 18-135 is sharper.

Steve Thomas

Re: Recommendations for new lens not zoom

wq9nsc — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:56:19 GMT

Like others have noted, a zoom lens is much more versatile and would be the most useful for the situations you listed.

I haven't looked at used lens prices lately but maybe check the bigger dealers (which do include some warranty) to see if there is any way that a used EF 70-200 f2.8 would fit your budget. The 70-200 f2.8 accounts for the majority of photos I take across all sports, it is just a great and versatile lens. Although it is now purely in a secondary role to my current version 70-200 2.8, I still have the 70-200 f2.8 Non-IS version I bought with my first 1 series Canon back in 2005 and it still produces the same incredible quality that it did when I bought it and that thing has traveled tens of thousands of miles with me flying, hiking, boating, etc.

In terms of primes, I have several but I very seldom use them for sports. Canon's EF 85 f1.8 is a great lens for low light and I have used it in some poorly lit facilities over the years. In terms of price/performance ratio, I would put the EF 85 f1.8 and EF 400 f5.6 as the two EF lenses that performed well above what they should given the relatively modest cost.

I have used my EF 135 f2 and EF 200 f2 primes in a couple of really badly illuminated sports venues over the years but that has been so rare as to call it insignificant in terms of sports usage. For sports (and most applications), a quality zoom lens is an excellent choice.

For portraits, a Canon (or my preference Sigma) 50mm f1.4 is perfect on the APS C sensor but those lenses will be less useful for general sports use.

So my STRONG encouragement is to see if there is any way you can locate a used 70-200 f2.8that will fit close enough to your price point. It will do a great job for golf and you will love it for football and with the APS C body you are using it has reasonable reach. I shoot football and soccer with a 70-200 f2.8 on one 1DX III body and a 400 f2.8 on the other 1DX III for night events or that body gets a 200-400 f4 for day events. But regardless of what is on the second body, roughly 80-85 percent of game photos come from the body wearing the 70-200 f2.8.

Realistically, I am not sure that given your current lens if there is anything new in your stated price range that is really going to "up your game" for most sports photos.

The 70-200 f2.8 is simply incredible and it works its magic whether you are shooting in an easy setting like well illuminated golf or softball but continues to do amazing stuff when the weather is horrible like this football game I shot in 40 degree pouring rain 🙂

Rodger