Canon Rebel EOS T3 Camera with18-55mm lens, What other zoom lenses are available?

[CThomas]

I currently have a Canon Rebel EOS T3 Camera with the standard 18mm-55mm lens.  I am interested in getting an additional zoom lens to take action shots of my daughters basketball games and tennis matches.  What are my options for zoom lenses with the Canon Rebel T3 if any?  Please help!! I am new to photography and any help will be appriciated!!

[jrhoffman75]

Any Canon EF or EF-S lens will fit your T3. (Not EF-M.)

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/groups/lenses/ef/ef/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykss...

Since you are just starting out, and you are in daylight situations, I would suggets the 55-250 STM zoom lens. Inexpensive, good reports from users, and good zoom range.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-s-55-...

[CThomas]

Thank you John

[ebiggs1]

"... action shots of my daughters basketball games and tennis matches."

Your kit lens and the suggestion above of the 55-250mm are too slow (too small aperture) for any indoor basketball game I ever attended.  Either may work for an outdoor tennis match, however.

You need to get a lens with an aperture of f2.8 or more.  And constant aperture is better and much advisable. A good, at a fairly reasonable price, choice is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens in favor of your current kit lens.

The Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens could be a choice for the outdoor tennis matches but it will not do well in a gym.

A larger factor to what lens and camera you have is where you are while you are shooting.  Are you limited to the bleachers?  Or, much better, are you allowed to roam around the side lines?  If you can change your position you can benefit from faster prime lenses and do the 'zooming' with your feet!  Canon has some nice, not too expensive prime lenses with fast apertures like the 50mm f1.8.  A 35mm f2 and a 85mm f1.8.

Questions you need to ask, ...

How much light.

Shooting location.

How much quality do you want?

Do you post process? <--- very important

[jrhoffman75]

ebiggs1 provides very good points and things for you to consider.

What are your venues and intended purpose? Are you shooting the overall field, or trying to zoom in on your child? When I am photographing my grandchildrens' sports I have never found anything shorther than 70mm useful. I can't get close enough indoors or out. What are the limitations you are finding with your current lens?

What are your intended uses? DIgital picture frame, Facebook, or 13x19 wall prints? Depending on your end use, digital noise may not be that big an issue to you (because you're not enlarging much), and increasing the ISO can overcome a small aperture. You can experiment with that with your current lens - increase ISO to 1600 or 3200 and see if you are happy with your images.

What is your budget? My first recommendation to you would have been the 70-200mm f/4, but that's a $700 lens. An f/2.8 long zoom would be over $1000.

[TCampbell]

If money is no object... then THE lens for indoor basketball is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II.

But that's about $2k for the lens.  It's a preferred lens for indoor sports because the focal length range works well for games such as basketball (for outdoor games such as football or soccer the athletes might be a bit small if they are on the far end of the field and you'd want to be at the sidelines and able to move back and forther -- getting as much of a workout as the players.  But for INDOOR sports, it's a great lens.)    The other reason it's a great lens for indoor sports is because it has an f/2.8 focal ratio and that means it collects a lot of light.  Most budget firendly lenses are going to be variable zooms with a wide open aperture of either f/5.6 or even f/6.3 (if it's a 3rd party zoom).  An f/2.8 lens literally collects FOUR times more light than an f/5.6 lens.  That means you can shoot with faster shutter speeds or at lower ISO levels (which means less image "noise").

There are third party 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses and they cost less.  

Tamron makes one at $1400 ($1500 but it's on special for $1400)

Sigma makes one at $1200.

Tamron makes another one at just under $800 BUT it doesn't have image stabilization.  Even if the shutter speed should be fast enough for hand-held shots without image stabilization... locking focus is easier when the lens has image stabilization.  So I'd strongly prefer a lens with image stabilization.

None of the 3rd party lenses are as good as the Canon -- they aren't just charging a premium because they're Canon... it really is a better lens.  

Canon also makes a 70-200mm f/4L and you can get it both with and without image stabilization.  It's considerably less expensive than the f/2.8 version, but f/4 is only double the light (as compared to f/5.6 lenses) where as f/2.8 is four times more light.

If you go with an entry-level zoom such as the 55-250 or 70-300mm you wont have nearly as much light and the focus motors wont be nearly as fast as the Canon USM focusing motors on the L series lenses.