Zoom Lenses

[andrewb]

I am about to buy my first digital SLR having been nothing but a point and shooter previously. It's a toss up between the Canon 300D and the Nikon 70D at the moment but I am leaning towards the Canon with the lens kit. However I intend to take a lot of pictures of my son playing football and would appreciate any advice on an appropriate zoom lens that will take a good shot when my son is, for example, in the middle of the pitch and therefore quite a way from me.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

[fastuno]

We really can't answer that question until we know how much money you are willing to spend?

-Money is no object=70-200 2.8L USM, $.00 or 100-400 4.5/5.6L USM, $1,459.95
(a freakin lot!)

-Better than average=70-200 4l USM, $629.95 or 75-300 4/5.6 USM Image Stabilized, $449.95

-Economical=75-300 4/5.6 III USM, $179.95 or 70-300 4/5.6 APO Macro Super, $219.00


Anyway, that would be my choice!

[ray645]

If you go with the Nikon you can get a nice used 180mm 2.8 AF ED (Prime) for under $350 this combined with the 1.5 factor (270mm) should be enough for your needs

Not cheap but a little better price than the Nikkors is the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM $700-750, with the crop factor of the D70 it will put you out into the 300mm perspective range, and if thats not enough you could get a good 1.5x tele and a tri/monopod for 450mm

Anyway Id rather have a fast 180 or 200 than a slow 300 any day

[fmilder]

I am a long time Nikon film-camera owner and I recently purchased a D70 along with the kit lens. I already had several Nikon lenses, but my 80-200 f2.8 (becomes 120-300 f2.8 with the D70) has become my favorite, along with the 18-70 "kit lens".

I haven't used the Canon, but what I hear is that some people think that it is sharper (I haven't noticed anything to make me question the sharpness of my D70, but that's what I've read). On the other hand, the Canon's photos are somewhat grainier, the camera itself is far more "plasticy" (and generally cheaper feeling), and rubs its disabled menus in your face. The Nikon seems to be operating at "full capacity" with nothing disabled. I also hear that most people think that the Nikon kit lens is higher quality than the kit lens that comes with the Canon. The Canon is cheaper -- you can get the lens and memory for $1250 at B&H. My Nikon cost about $1600 similarly equipped (although my lens is a little "longer" than the Canon lens.)

I can honestly say that using the Nikon is every bit like using a premier, but improved, film camera (i.e., my Nikon F100). I say this because the Nikon is instant on (I hear that the Canon is not), instant firing, and has all the same metering, shutter and lens controls as my Nikon F100, but it also allows you instant previews of your photographs.

In my experience (your "mileage may vary"), the Nikon takes pictures without noticeable grain at ISO 400, meaning that you can take photos at about 1/2000 at f5.6 on a reasonably sunny day.

I'm sure that you'll get used to, and love, whichever you get, but I've got to say that my Nikon really reminds me of driving a BMW 3-series -- it's that "smooth".

[andrewb]

Thanks for the advice everyone. Much appreciated.

[wilfredmrand]

The Nikon is sharper, has better AF control, better noise reduction at high ISO 800-and-above, shares the same Tamron/Sigma aftermarket lenses as Canon. If the extra $$ is no object, and you can live with occasional moire issues (caused in part by Nikon's sharp algorithm) then you might consider this.

The Canon, on the other hand, is noise free up to ISO 400, has the optional battery grip for extended shooting (no small matter when the AF is zipping around all afternoon), and the larger universe of Canon lenses. No moire worries on those mesh soccer shirts.

I'm a 300D owner, but I'd lean toward the D70 in a sports-dominated regime.