I have asked Santa for a Canon Rebel XTI. If she produces, I want to use the camera primarily to shoot photos of my kids’ sports activities. The same involves all three triathlon disciplines, hockey and alpine skiing. I was told not to start with the stock lens and rather buy the camera body and get a nice zoom lens. So, I would like some recommendation from the ST camera gallery as to a nice workhorse zoom lens.
Nikon makes a very nice 18-200D with stabilizer control. Canon probably has something similar as well (not that you couldn’t use the Nikon, but it’s kind of like putting Campy on a Trek. 
First off, do you have any budget? The more you spend, the “faster” lens you can afford, which will give you tremendous versatility. Also, when shooting these sports, how close can you get? I think the Rebel is a 1.4 magnifier of the focal length, so you get a longer lens in effect. The size you need will depend on proximity as well. I’d stick with the better quality lenses, the top Canon ones, as they’ll be usable with any Canon bodies you’ll buy for years. They make great glass, so the choice should be easy, but spend as much as you can, as the payback will be worth it many times over.
I have a budget, but still want a lot of versatility and the ability to get a close-up at say a maximum of 20 yds.
And I think the Rebel XTI has a multiplication factor of 1.6.
I’m in the same boat, a used 70-210 f3.5-4.5 (budget) or new 70-200 f4 should do the trick. The xti has a 1.6 multiplying factor. Check out the Canon forum @ www.dpreview.com
Scott
I read a review on the later lens and it appears to be quite good for sports, if this is the one with image stabilization. In your opinion is it ok to start with this lens as my only lens? Or should I also just get the stock lens with the XTI for more versatility?
I would not go with just this lens, as you’ll be backing up for any family type shots, etc. Remember with the 1.6 magnifier, you’re looking at a pretty long lens; way too long for any scenic or family group photos, etc.
Since you’ll probably only have this one lens, and I’d reckon your budget isn’t huge…I’d go with the 28-135 IS. With the 1.6x crop factor, that gives you an equivalent 45-216 focal length, which is more than good enough for what you want to use it for. It also has IS which is Canon’s vibration control stabilization. That will help with hand-held shots. The only drawback to this lens is that it is a bit “slow”…meaning the maximum aperature is small at the long end. What that means to you is that you won’t be able to get those shallow depth of field shots where only the subject is sharp and everything else is pleasantly blurred. If you want a lens that can do that, you’re going to pay 3-4 times as much for a zoom type lens. Still…for an amateur looking for a single lens to cover their family snapshots, vacation shots, and sports shots…this lens is perfectly adequate. If this one is still too much for your budget, the 28-105 lens is a great option too. If you have $7-800 for the lens, you should go with the 70-200 F4 L lens. That is a top-line lens, with a slightly smaller max aperature that makes it an overall smaller zoom (compared to its big brothther, the 70-200 F2.8 L)…which is a pleasure to handhold. The problem with those two 70-200 lenses is that they will be VERY long for any intimate snapshots you want to take…you’ll have to stand way across the room to get a closeup! If you get the 70-200, you should also grab a 50 F1.8…those go new for $80 on ebay. That is a SUPER little lense. In fact, I recommend it no matter what other lens you get. It’s so cheap, yet is so sharp (way sharper than all but the most expensive zooms)…it’s a no brainer.
Anyway…that’s my $.02 from this Canon afficianado…
My lens stable:
50mm F1.8
50mm F1.4
24mm F2.8
28-105 zoom
70-200 F2.8 IS L zoom
I take most of my shots with the 50mm lenses…usually the 50 1.8 when I’m out and about…
For sports, stay away from the consumer zooms. They’re slow and don’t handle as nicely as the better zooms.
For Canons, the short list are:
700-200 f4 if you’re on a budget.
700-200 2.8 if you want the best.
Indoor Hockey will require fast glass, so the extra stop on the 2.8 will come in handy. Plus, it’s a super fast focusing lens.
If you’re really on a budget, consider 3rd party lenses. I have a sigma 70-200 2.8. A really nice lens, probably 70% as nice as the canon/nikon glass, but much cheaper. However, no IS/VR, and it doesn’t focus as fast.
That’s good info. I think the stock lens and a 70-200 4L is probably sufficient to start; don’t you think? My dad has tons of high end lens for his 1D (I think). But since he would not even let me use the riding lawnmower as a kid, use of the lenses might be tough too.
I think if your looking for quality a zoom lens is for the birds. They are never as sharp as a fixed lens and you have to put up alot of money to get one with a good apperture. For Sports you will want a 1.4. My recommendation is buy a 200 mm lens and a wide angle maybe a 28. With the 200 you can take good pictures of your kids and most sports. The wide angle is great also for sports. If you look at some of the most memorable sport shots they are often taken with a wide angle so you see all the action around them and the reactions of those people.
“I think the stock lens and a 70-200 4L is probably sufficient to start”
Probably so. I have had decent luck with a new Canon 75-300 4-5.6 ($200) and a Rebel XT for soccer, cross country, track … even wrestling and basketball in poorly-lit gyms (just set the ISO higher and/or use a flash at 200 speed). Yes, photo snobs, those photos don’t look so hot when blown up to 9X12 but I have still taken some darn good photos with that lens … While 2.8 is much better, its also 5X more expensive and weighs about 3X as much. Those fast lenses do hold their value, however. In the 90s, I bought a Nikon 70-200 2.8 for $900 and sold it 5 years later for $700 …
I have asked Santa for a Canon Rebel XTI. If she produces, I want to use the camera primarily to shoot photos of my kids’ sports activities. The same involves all three triathlon disciplines, hockey and alpine skiing. I was told not to start with the stock lens and rather buy the camera body and get a nice zoom lens. So, I would like some recommendation from the ST camera gallery as to a nice workhorse zoom lens.
Look at my blog from this year (kids and their sports) and last year (includes Tour de France) and you’ll see what I’ve taken with my 20D. All you need:
Canon 50mm 1.8 (cheap and worth every penny)
Canon 17-85 is f4-5.6 (excellent walk around lens that is good for 85% of your shots)
Canon 70-200 f4 (light and inexpensive telephoto rivaling almost any prime in sharpness, etc.)
Since your camera can shoot down to 1600 ISO with very little noise (unlike Nikons) the slightly slower lenses won’t be a problem. I’ve shot the 50mm indoors without a flash and dim lighting (museums, cathedrals, etc.) and came away with some pretty cool shots.
And no, the 70-200 cannot be your only lens because the focal length is too long. If you don’t want to spend the money on the 17-85 get the kit 18-55. It’s inexpensive and good for a snapshot lens.
for that type of shooting the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is a gold standard, the 70-300mm f4 or so lenses are also very very good.
also, with a camera like that you would be ok with a slightly slower lens, as the multiplying factor of the camera makes using a slightly lower quality zoom like the 70-300mm ok as you are only shooting through the middle of the glass and not around the edges.
I think if your looking for quality a zoom lens is for the birds. They are never as sharp as a fixed lens and you have to put up alot of money to get one with a good apperture. For Sports you will want a 1.4. My recommendation is buy a 200 mm lens and a wide angle maybe a 28. With the 200 you can take good pictures of your kids and most sports. The wide angle is great also for sports. If you look at some of the most memorable sport shots they are often taken with a wide angle so you see all the action around them and the reactions of those people.
I disagree… the sharpness issue was valid twenty years ago but isn’t now, and a 28mm isn’t wide enough for a 1.6x camera (equals 44.8mm) and a 200mm prime is not versatile enough for what you want.
Look at the pro photographers that are shooting the sports you’re talking about and the one lens that every pro photographer has is a 70-200… EVERY ONE… 200 primes… none of them. If they have other lenses they have a 16-35 and one 300, 400, 500 or 600 (if they can afford the $7,000 price tag and the several pounds they weigh).
another vote for the 70-200f4, one of the best Canon lenses and at a great price! Yeah, the 2.8 would be nicer, but not twice-as-expensive nice, just bump up the ISO and fix things later in photoshop.
Here’s a shot from this weekend with my 70-200 f4 shot hand-held at 200mm (35mm equivalent: 321mm) f4, ISO 400, 1/2,500s taken at mid-field:
I can’t say enough about this lens… it’s the highest rated lens at FredMiranda.com and in a recent test only two primes were found to be sharper overall… considering its light weight and fairly inexpensive price you can’t go wrong with this lens!
are you gay? You sound gay. Not that I am oppossed to you being gay, but the world needs to know. I think you’re gay
There you go projecting again. 
Thank you very much. You and the others were very helpful. I think I will start with the 17-85 f4-5.6 and get the 70-200 f4 later.