September 5th, 2008, 05:18 PM #1
Recommend a good telephoto lens for shooting hockey games?
I'm a budding photographer; I've got a Canon Digital Rebel XT 8 MP, with a 28-135mm IS USM lens that's served me quite well.
I'd like to start doing some sports photography--maybe shoot some pics at Toyota, Staples....maybe even at Culver Ice Center, where I play hockey. I think I'll probably need a good quality Canon-compatible telephoto lens, though...probably something reasonably fast, that's not going to break the bank.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Likewise, what are the rules about bringing those sorts of cameras into Staples?
September 5th, 2008, 06:21 PM #2
Simply put, you can't without a press pass. Nothing over 4 inches I believe.
Originally Posted by AutomaticBzooty
September 5th, 2008, 08:13 PM #3
No commercial or flash photography of any kind is permitted. Camcorders or any other audio/visual equipment is prohibited unless authorized by team/promoter or performer. Specifically, the use of the following equipment is not permitted:
Lenses greater than three-and-one-half inches in length
Telephoto or zoom lenses of any kind
Interchangeable lenses of any kind
Monopods or tripods
Flash equipment of any kind
September 6th, 2008, 08:06 AM #4
How much money do you want to spend? Hope it is a lot, because you're going to need a very high quality lens to shoot hockey, especially at places like Culver, where the lighting is crap. TSC is better, but still not great.
September 6th, 2008, 08:45 AM #5
I would recommend something in the 70-200 range. If you can afford to get a 2.8 then that is the way to go, Image Stabilization would help also.
September 6th, 2008, 09:22 AM #6
I would agree with Mike, the 70-200mm is going to be a good fit on the XT sensor size. There are 4 varieties of the 70-200mm from Canon, two f/2.8 and two f/4.0 (both available with or without Image Stabilization). The f/4.0 non IS is going to be the cheapest, while the f/2.8 IS is going to be the most expensive (and heaviest). You are definitely going to want the f/2.8 for hockey, but if you needed to to save cash, you could get away with the non-IS version for hockey because you will be shooting at high shutter speeds where the IS isn't going to be helping you.
September 7th, 2008, 10:55 AM #7
Thanks for the tips, everyone.
Why the 70-200, though? Why not the 70-300? I see that the 70-200 f4.0 USM without IS is about $600 on Amazon, buy you can get a 70-300 4.0-5.6 with USM and IS for even less. Granted, at 300mm you'll be at a slower 5.6, but presumably when you're at 200 you'll be able to open it up even further....maybe even to 4.0?
(And granted, it's not an L lens yes....)
September 7th, 2008, 03:03 PM #8
5.6 is too dark and 300 is too close.
September 7th, 2008, 03:26 PM #9
September 7th, 2008, 04:44 PM #10
Last edited by AutomaticBzooty; September 7th, 2008 at 08:37 PM.
Reason: Double post.