Lens Recommendation

[TxHunter]

Looking for a lens that will allow fast shooting of sports photography, have the range for scenery at a distance, but yet have wide angle capabilities for reasonable close up pics.  I have a 70-200 F4/L IS, 55-250 F/4.0-5.6 L and the standard 18-55mm that comes with some ofthe older EOS models.

I find the 55-250 is not wide enough on the low end and soft on the longer zoom.    I would like a lens that can still shoot the sports photography and yet be capable of shooting close ups at wide angle. 

Any recommendations?

[hsbn]

None. There is no FAST super zoom lens. But there are some good super zoom lens, you can check out this article

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0013834/article/7-All-In-One-Lenses-That-Do-It-All

[cicopo]

Actually there are 2 & I have them both. The old 35-350 L and current 28-300 L IS can do it but not at night unless there's really good lighting. Unfortunately the 28-300 is both expensive & HEAVY, so it takes getting used to. You're probably better off considering a 2 body / 2 lens solution.

[TCampbell]

Part of the point of a camera that allows for interchangeable lenses is that you can put the lens on the camera which is optimized for what you need to shoot.

All lenses compromize in some way.  If it were not true, then the camera makers wouldn't need a removeable lens camera -- they could just fit one lens permanently onto the body and be done.  

Super-zooms (lenses that go from wide angle to fairly agressive zooms all in one lens) compromise perhaps more than any other lens on the optical quality and focal ratios.  They do well only in convenience.  If you HAD to pack for a trip and had room to take ONLY one lens then a super-zoom could be that lens.  But if you could bring more than one lens, then you would almost certainly get better performance by doing so.

Super-zooms compromise in optical quality to the point that you may as well just use a point & shoot camera -- you wont see the performance of DSLR capabiltities coming through when you use these lenses.

If the sports photography is daytime outdoor photography then you might look at the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L.  This really depends upon the sport.  For sports on large fields (e.g. soccer, football, etc.) then it's nice to get to a 300 or 400mm focal length.  For indoor sports (e.g. basketball) then a 70-200mm is probably a good choice and while the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II is not inexpensive, it's not "re-mortgage your house" expensive.   The EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x is over $10k.

Sports photography, and in particular indoor games or night-games under artificial lights, can be very demanding on the equipment because you need high shutter speeds and you have to shoot in very poor light.  This involves cranking up the ISO and using lenses that are very good at gathering a lot of light (lowest focal ratio you can possibly afford) while having strong zoom lenses or long prime lenses.  

[cicopo]

"Super-zooms compromise in optical quality to the point that you may as well just use a point & shoot camera -- you wont see the performance of DSLR capabiltities coming through when you use these lenses."

Sorry but I disagree BIG TIME. I get some pretty good shots from superzooms including consumer grade ones. DSLR's have very low shutter lag times, better AF systems & better view finders plus when shooting action they aren't usually held out in front watching the LCD so people are forced to use better technique.  Superzooms may not be perfect when compared to primes but they offer tremendous versatility and that's a big plus to a whole lot of amateur photographers.

[TxHunter]

Part of the problem with interchangeable lens for me anyway, is that I have ruined two sensors on DSLRs due to dust getting inside the body when the lens is being changed outside.  I don't change lens any longer on windy days - I guess what I will need when I leave the vehicle.   I have learned how to compensate/anticipate my pictures as I usually take in sports mode so I can get the before during and after play - I also shoot in areas of the field where the play is going to occur and I see what I can get on the pics.  95% of the time I use a monopod and during the daylight I have fast focus options and clear pics.  At night and under artificial lights, I get the first pic clear in a sequence and the rest are a crap shoot if they will be crisp as I move with the action.

I do shoot across long fields so the extra length is helpful.

[Skirball]

---

@TxHunter wrote:

Part of the problem with interchangeable lens for me anyway, is that I have ruined two sensors on DSLRs due to dust getting inside the body when the lens is being changed outside. 

---

Either you're doing something wrong, or you had really, really bad luck. I've changed my lenses while walking some of the dirtiest streets and markets in this world; never had a problem.

[TCampbell]

---

@TxHunter wrote:

Part of the problem with interchangeable lens for me anyway, is that I have ruined two sensors on DSLRs due to dust getting inside the body when the lens is being changed outside.  

---

I'm guessing that perhaps what was actually damaged may have been the shutter mechanism.  The sensor is actually hiding behind two filters (glass) which is hiding behind the curtain shutter mechanism.  Dust cannot actually reach the sensor through the front of the camera.  But if sand were to get inside and jam up the shutter mechanism... that could be a problem (but this is something that can be serviced and wouldn't be cause to pitch the camera in the bin -- not unless the camera was so old already that the cost of repair exceeded the value of the camera.)

My camera dangles from a sling-type strap (I use a Black Rapid strap) and this attaches to a swivel which is connected to the tripod bolt attachment point on the bottom of the camera.  When I change lenses I (a) point the camera body downward (things are less likely to fly up into the camera) and once the lens is removed, I flip the camera (remember mine swivels) so that the opening is facing my body -- and hanging at my side.  This means my body acts like a "cap" while I put the last lens away and pull the next lens out.  This works well enough that not only have I never had damage... I generally don't even get bits of dust inside that would need a typical cleaning.

[TxHunter]

Yes it was an older EOS20D - I was able to get it fixed/cleaned the first time, but the second time it was half the cost of buying a new body so I opted to get the newer body as I was able to get the 60D for $450 from a friend who just wanted the lens in the kit so it seemed like the best option.

When this started it was a very windy, dusty day and I started seeing the specs in the pics (especially against a blue backgorund) and then everythign started to stick.

[TCampbell]

---

@cicopo wrote:

"Super-zooms compromise in optical quality to the point that you may as well just use a point & shoot camera -- you wont see the performance of DSLR capabiltities coming through when you use these lenses."

Sorry but I disagree BIG TIME. I get some pretty good shots from superzooms including consumer grade ones. DSLR's have very low shutter lag times, better AF systems & better view finders plus when shooting action they aren't usually held out in front watching the LCD so people are forced to use better technique.  Superzooms may not be perfect when compared to primes but they offer tremendous versatility and that's a big plus to a whole lot of amateur photographers.

---

Most zoom lenses tend to offer a zoom range which provides about a 3x magnification factor from the wide end to the narrow end.  A 24-70mm for example... 24 X 3 = 72 -- so that's about a 3x zoom.  A 70-200... 70 X 3 = 210... again about a 3x zoom.  A 3x zoom range is not so ambitious as to create lots of other problems.

When light passes through any single lens element, it bends (which is the whole point) but each wavelength component of the light bends at a different amount.  That means if you only had a single lens element, all the various colors of light would not actually come to focus at the same distance behind the lens.  A lens focused perfectly for "green" light would not also be in focus for the "reds" or "blues".

To counter this, you can use two lens elements arranged as an achromatic doublet -- which helps re-converge the chromatic dispersion problem -- but it's not perfect.  You can use apochromatic triplets to do a better job... and keep going with techniques to make a better image.  

You can optimize this fairly well if you're just trying to create a single focal length.  If you're trying to cover lots of focal lengths, then it becomes a bit more complicated.   You can also control the issues better if the zoom doesn't try to be too ambitious about it's zoom range.  That's why I mentioned the 3x range.  Some slighlty more ambitous zooms may try to go to a 5x zoom range (e.g. a 55-250 would be an example).  

And THEN you get the super-zooms.  These lenses go well beyond a 3x or even 5x range.   A 10x or 11x would not be unheard of and the 28-300 is an example of a lens that exceeds a 10x range.

It's difficult to provide a 10x range and still maintain good optical quality.

Keep in mind that we don't use most of the pixels we shoot.   You'd really need to blow up an image to 100% size such that you can see every pixel.  

The chromatic dispersion is nearly non-existant along the central axis of a lens... and increases the farther away you are from the central axis (corners are worst).  The f-stop you are using also has a lot to do with things.  As the aperture gets smaller, the chromatic abberation problems are reduced and the image appears to get sharper... until you pass the point where diffraction comes into play (usually after you pass f/8 it starts going the other way).

If you go look at the MTF curve charts for the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM lens... and then go look at the MTF curve charts for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM ... the less-ambitious zoom is not just a little better... it's a LOT better.  And you'll find this comparison is pretty consistent.  You'll be hard-pressed to find an exception to it.  (you would need to a comparitively high-end super-zoom (like the Canon "L" series) and then compare it to a very low quality consumer-grade zoom to find an exception.)  The the greater the zoom range (when thought of as magnifciation factors) the more the lens is disadvantaged for being ambitious.

It's a fair generalization to say that super zooms... almost without regard to price tag (becuase the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM is not an inexpensive lens) generally cannot compete with their less-ambitous siblings.

This is NOT to say that super-zooms have no place.  They can be tremendously useful.  You have to consider how an image will be used after it's exposed.  If you're publishing them on the web then it's actually very hard to tell the difference between a good lens and a fantastic lens because we don't use most of the pixels we capture. The image is down-sampled to a reasonable web-size and nobody gets to scrutinize the fine-detail.  If the image is going to be printed on very large size and hung in a gallery... you probably want to be fussier about the optical quality of the lens.