d-slr and lens for action shots

[gibson]

This past summer I purchased a canon s3 and love it's versatility. I've managed to learn quite a bit from it's full manual controls as well. However, my friends and I do a lot of outdoor action shots. We do a lot of mountain biking and skiing shots for instance. However, I find the S3 doesn't do too great here. Earlier today we went biking, mind you it's in a fairly thick forest so lighting isn't too great, but I could not get a decent shot without blur. I had ISO @ 400, too noisy on the s3, aperture @ 2.7, and i couldn't push shutter speed over 1/150 without ruining the exposure. SO, I've been looking into getting a canon 350d body, not the xti because I'm poor, and was wondering what a good, decently priced, lens would be. Most of my shots are no more than 70ft or so. I will probably need a little zoom though if i just can't get a shot standing close. IS wouldn't be bad but i can always stand against a tree or something. I'd also like the same lens to be able to take casual photos of family and such. I'd sell my s3 for a couple lenses if i didn't like taking it everwhere because it's pretty damn handy and small. But, with an 350d body being around $600 now, staying under $1000 shouldn't be too hard?

if anyone has an alternative idea throw it out there because I am definately open for anything. If someone made it possible to get these shots with an s3 please do tell.

[coldrain]

When you cant go over 1/150th sec, I am assuming you were at the tele end of the lens. Tele lenses with larger aperture are quite expensive, and so are tele lenses with IS.

Hard to know what to tell you when you do nt give an idea of the reach you need. The S3 IS goes from about 38mm to about 420mm.

[Shosta]

When you cant go over 1/150th sec, I am assuming you were at the tele end of the lens. Tele lenses with larger aperture are quite expensive, and so are tele lenses with IS.
I think he said that because of the fast moving objects in his photos. (skiing shots and mountain biking)
Regards
Shosta

[ktixx]

I'd sell my s3 for a couple lenses if i didn't like taking it everwhere because it's pretty damn handy and small. But, with an 350d body being around $600 now, staying under $1000 shouldn't be too hard?

Unfortunatley, there is no way you are going to sell your S3 and get a "couple" of lenses...
Staying under $1,000 will not be hard but you are going to have to sacrifice and slowly build your kit. Most photographers will spend 4+ times the amount of the body on lenses, but again - you can build it up slowly.

If I were you, and your main concern is getting low light shots, I would suggest the following:
Canon XT ---- $610 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=371188&is=REG&addedTroughType=search)
Sigma 24-70 -- $429 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=350973&is=REG&addedTroughType=search)
Canon 2X TC - $279 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=220457&is=GREY&addedTroughType=search)
Total -------- $1,318

This will give you an effecive focal length from 38.4 - 224mm and an aperture of f/2.8. Plus this is a great lens for people photography. It is certainly a much larger setup then you are used to, but if you are like me, you would rather drag the equipment and get the shot then have to rely on a lesser camera.

As an added note - While IS is very helpful, it will do nothing for motion blur on action shots.
Hope this helps:
Ken

[timmciglobal]

The TC cuts light by 2 stops thus giving you F5.6 not F2.8 with it on.

The cheapest long F2.8 lens is probably a sigma 70-200 F2.8 at around 650 used.

Tim

[gibson]

Thanks for all the suggestions. It's all pretty much where I was leaning towards in terms of a low light lens. I wasn't thinking of IS to get rid of motion blur but rather helping me get a steady shot. More often than not im sitting on a tree branch or trying not to slip down the side of a mountain. I was looking at the Sigma 17-70 though at photozone. Has anyone had experience with this compared to the 24-70? It's cheaper but if it's a lesser lens then i'll just get the 24-70. Either way, you guys know more about this than I so chime in with whatever you think is best. thanks.

[CptOfGondor]

The TC cuts light by 2 stops thus giving you F5.6 not F2.8 with it on.

The cheapest long F2.8 lens is probably a sigma 70-200 F2.8 at around 650 used.

Tim

Isn't it two clicks off the aperture ring? so more like f4 or something after the TC light loss?

[coldrain]

No, f4 is a not a full stop. So f5.6.

[CptOfGondor]

wait, if 5.6 is one stop..isn't the Aperture even smaller cuz its two stops right?

[Christian]

If you've no problem buying used I suggest checking out KEH.com, they've got XTs' starting at $525. I've never used them myself but I've always heard great things about them. Also they have a few 80-200 2.8L lenses starting at $725, a little over budget but it's great glass(maybe get the Drebel to save some, starting at $379). And no, I don't work for them, lol.

[ktixx]

The TC cuts light by 2 stops thus giving you F5.6 not F2.8 with it on.

The cheapest long F2.8 lens is probably a sigma 70-200 F2.8 at around 650 used.

Tim

Regardless, he will still have a 140mm lens for only $280, plus the TC can always come in handy when he decides to purchase a Tele Lens.

[gibson]

so is the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and the TC the best option then?

[gibson]

I was looking at the Sigma 24-70 and I came across one named the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF and the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens. The macro version is the only one available on Sigma's website but I was wondering if there's a difference between these two lenses other than price. THanks.

[timmciglobal]

TC's really arn't meant for wide lenses and a 2X is going to degrade quality quite a bit and the 24-70 from sigma known to be soft wide open so you'd realistically have to shoot @ F8 > which defeats the purpose...

I think more realistic choice might be a 70-200 sigma F2.8 or a 50-150 F2.8 sigma

Tim

[gibson]

I probably won't be using the TC anyway. I like the focal range of the 24-70 f/2.8 for a first lens because it's pretty versatile and i do shoot a lot of low light shots. Once I get more money I will most likely purchase something in the 70-200 range. Then after that probably 10-22 or 15 prime. Right now, I just need the best option to get started. The fixed f/2.8 is really key for the shooting I'm doing now also. Although, moving to slr will help a lot so I can finally get a usuable photo above ISO 400. Other than that, any other responses to my last post about the two Sigma lenses listed? Thanks again.

[cwphoto]

No, f4 is a not a full stop. So f5.6.

Hang-on, f/2.8 ---> f/4 is one full stop last time I checked.:confused:

[Severum]

ok, let me try my hand at this.

I am in the same boat as you and there is one lens that looks amazing for the price. It actually compares very well to the Canon 17-40L F4. That lens is the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. Retail is $450 and it's optics are very good. This will be great for mountain biking and the slopes. Actually I think you will leave it on and hardly use a zoom. That said the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is a great lens for the money. If I were you, I would get a zoom like the Tamron and save your coin for a nice tele.

You will need the ultra wide as the XT/350d has a 1.6 zoom factor built into the sensor. This make s the lens a 28-80 effectively.

[Severum]

To hit on the wide angle thing again, if you are shooting in the woods coming off a steep roller or tough rock move up close, then you will want a nice wide angle. Sometimes the trees force you to get close. The stock lens just does not cut it in anyway in even somewhat dark woods. Email me and I can send you to some pics of the XTi with the stock lens capturing mtbing. I can then send you to some pics of a setup like I am describing.