{"id":853,"date":"2015-06-08T05:00:21","date_gmt":"2015-06-07T21:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ywo.id.au\/blog\/?p=853"},"modified":"2025-02-23T21:52:39","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T13:52:39","slug":"choosing-canon-and-nikon-lenses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ywo.id.au\/blog\/2015\/06\/08\/choosing-canon-and-nikon-lenses\/","title":{"rendered":"Choosing Canon and Nikon lenses"},"content":{"rendered":"

There are two main types of parts to DSLR systems\u2014bodies and lenses. I’ve covered the mainstream Canon and Nikon bodies, so let’s now turn our attention to lenses for low light action photography.\u00a0There are two main\u00a0features\u00a0we’ll want\u00a0to see in lenses for low light shooting:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A\u00a0large maximum aperture (optically ‘fast’); and<\/li>\n
  2. Fast autofocus speed.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In poor lighting, we need to be able to catch as much light as we can, both to form the image in the camera (more light generally means better image quality) and to freeze the action (rather than ending up blurry images). We also need the combination of lens and body to be able to maintain\u00a0focus on our moving subjects. As long as the AF unit in the body is reasonably capable, autofocus\u00a0speed will depend mostly on the motor in the lens. (A notable exception to this will be the older Nikkor AF lenses, which depend on the motor in the body to drive autofocus.)<\/p>\n

    We’ll also typically need longer focal lengths rather than shorter focal lengths. Sports photography tends to involve the photographers being far away from the action, rather than being right next to the subjects, since this tends to interfere with the action (or at the least, block spectators’ view). Field sports obviously require long telephoto lenses, but\u00a0many indoor sports will only need short telephoto lenses (e.g., < 200 mm focal length).<\/p>\n

    In essence, what we’ll be looking for are\u00a0large-aperture\u00a0telephoto lenses with excellent autofocus capability. As it turns out, these tend to be some of the most expensive types of DSLR lenses in existence! Thankfully, Canon and Nikon have\u00a0extensive product lines, and it’s easy to get started in low light action photography without having to bankrupt yourself.<\/p>\n

    Prices are approximate market prices in Australian dollars as of May-June 2015. Images are from the\u00a0Canon UK press centre<\/a>\u00a0or the the\u00a0Nikon USA press room<\/a>,<\/span>\u00a0and are not necessarily to scale relative to each other.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Initial Canon\u00a0lenses<\/strong><\/p>\n

    If you’re buying one of the lower-end Canon DSLR bodies (which are all 1.6x cropped frame EF-S bodies), it’ll most likely be available both as a ‘body only’ purchase and as a ‘kit’ with a cheap standard zoom lens, typically something like an EF-S 18\u201355 mm f\/3.5\u20135.6. You’ll probably also see twin lens kits for sale, including the body,\u00a0a standard zoom lens, and a short telephoto zoom lens (e.g., Canon EF-S 55\u2013250 mm f\/4\u20135.6 IS II).\u00a0Unless you already have equivalent lenses, I’d suggest buying the standard zoom kit or the twin lens kit. These kit lenses have apertures that are too small for low light action photography, but they’ll be good general purpose lenses.<\/p>\n

    \"Canon<\/a>
    Canon EF-S 18\u201355 mm f\/3.5\u20135.6 IS STM image \u00a9 Canon 2015. Used under Copyright Act 1968, Section 41.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    In the early 2000s, kit lenses had fairly poor reputations. They’re still some of the cheapest zoom lenses available, but Canon and Nikon (and other DSLR lens makers) have improved the optical quality significantly. It’s now more or less a ‘no brainer’ decision to buy a kit rather than the body alone, unless you already have lenses.<\/p>\n

    The main thing that kit lenses give up, compared to their more expensive siblings, is maximum aperture. They’ll typically range from f\/3.5 to f\/5.6 for standard zooms and f\/4 to f\/5.6 for telephoto zooms, as compared to f\/2.8 for professional zooms and f\/2 or larger for primes.\u00a0In normal daylight conditions, though, even f\/5.6 to f\/8 with low ISO sensitivity (i.e., high image quality) will give very short exposure durations (or ‘fast shutter speeds’). The flexibility of a zoom lens, particularly in telephoto ranges (we simply wouldn’t be able to move ourselves quickly enough in that range, even if we wanted to shift position), will be a tremendous boon for adjusting image framing.<\/p>\n

    What we\u00a0really need to get started in low light action photography, though, is a good, cheap prime lens. Any of Canon’s EF 50 mm f\/1.8 lenses would fit the bill. There’s the original version (which you’d only be able to buy secondhand these days), version II ($150), and the newest STM version ($200) with a very\u00a0quiet autofocus motor to minimise sound interference when recording videos on your DSLR.<\/p>\n

    \"Canon<\/a>
    Canon EF 50 mm f\/1.8 STM image \u00a9 Canon 2015. Used under Copyright Act 1968, Section 41.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    On an EF-S body, a 50 mm lens will give you the equivalent field of view as an 80 mm lens on a full frame EF body. This is probably a good focal length to start practising with, although it might feel a bit too tight (zoomed in) at first. The optically fast f\/1.8 aperture will let you shoot with short exposure durations (essential for capturing action) even in low light, and will have the added benefit of blurring the background, which will probably be significantly out of focus.<\/p>\n

    A kit lens and a 50 mm prime lens (assuming you have an EF-S body) will be all you really need to get started. Indeed, it’s what I shot with for a few\u00a0years before starting to add to my set of lenses. If you like the 50 mm focal length, you might consider moving to the Canon EF 50 mm f\/1.4 ($500) in the future.<\/p>\n

    Further Canon lenses<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Beyond the basic lenses described above, there are\u00a0two main routes we\u00a0could go along: prime lenses or zoom lenses. Obviously, these options needn’t be mutually exclusive; if you can afford them, you could get prime lenses and<\/em> zoom lenses. The choice will depend on what exactly you’re shooting (e.g., field sports will usually be better served by zoom lenses, due to the additional flexibility of framing), your options for positioning (e.g., are you able to move freely around the venue, or are you limited to the sidelines?), and your personal preferences.<\/p>\n

    For indoor shooting, I’d recommend considering prime lenses first due to the larger apertures, which will let you shoot with shorter exposure durations and lower ISO settings, all else being equal. Depending on your typical camera-to-subject distance, you might\u00a0look at the\u00a0Canon EF 85 mm f\/1.8 ($550),\u00a0Canon EF 100 mm f\/2 ($600), or\u00a0Canon EF 135 mm f\/2 ($1,400).<\/p>\n

    Two lenses\u00a0to\u00a0avoid<\/em>\u00a0are the Canon EF 50 mm f\/1.2 and the Canon EF 85 mm f\/1.2 II, because they have\u00a0slow autofocus motors. Those lenses are\u00a0really intended for static or portrait photography, rather than action. As far as I’m aware, Canon doesn’t currently produce an 85 mm f\/1.4 lens, otherwise that might have been a good, slightly upmarket option from the 85 mm f\/1.8.<\/p>\n

    In terms of zoom lenses, if you’re shooting in low light then you’ll really want the\u00a0(professional) f\/2.8 short telephoto lenses. The smaller aperture, consumer telephoto lenses will\u00a0give you either blurry action shots (exposure duration too long to capture action) or poor image quality (if you boost ISO settings). Canon makes two 70\u2013200 mm f\/2.8 lenses\u2014one with Image Stabilization (IS; or Vibration Reduction in Nikon terms) for around $2,800, and one without IS for around $1,900.<\/p>\n

    \"Canon<\/a>
    Canon EF 70\u2013200 mm f\/2.8 IS II image \u00a9 Canon 2015. Used under Copyright Act 1968, Section 41.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    For fast action, you’ll be shooting at very short exposure durations, so IS will be of little or no practical use. I can attest to this from my own shooting experience. I also have to mention, though, that for general purpose shooting, IS will potentially be of great benefit. Even if you switch IS off while shooting action, you might well find IS invaluable in other types of shooting. Thus, if you can afford it, it would be worth considering buying the IS version of the 70\u2013200 mm f\/2.8, even if it’s more expensive. By the time you get to considering this kind of purchasing decision, though, you’ll probably already have a good idea of whether you’ll want IS or not.<\/p>\n

    Initial Nikon\u00a0lenses<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Lens-buying decisions follow the same basic principles regardless of the system you’re in, so my general comments in the Canon section above also apply to choosing from Nikon’s Nikkor lenses.<\/p>\n

    If you’re buying one of the\u00a0lower-end Nikon DSLR bodies (which are all 1.5x cropped frame DX bodies), you’ll see the same choices available as for Canon\u2014body only, standard zoom kit, and\u00a0twin lens kit. As before, if you don’t have equivalent lenses already, it’s probably a good idea\u00a0to buy either of the kits, rather than just the body only.<\/p>\n

    \"Nikkor<\/a>
    Nikkor AF-S 18\u201355 mm f\/3.5\u20135.6 DX VR II image \u00a9 Nikon 2015. Used under Copyright Act 1968, Section 41.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    For shooting action in low light, you’ll want to start with one of Nikon’s 50 mm f\/1.8 lenses. There are two current lenses you’ll want to consider here\u2014the older AF version\u00a0with no built-in autofocus motor ($150), and the newer AF-S version with a built-in autofocus motor ($350). Be careful! The AF version will\u00a0not<\/em> autofocus on the lower-end Nikon bodies (D3300 and D5500 at this point in time) because those bodies lack the motor needed to drive the focusing mechanism in the lens. The AF-S version will autofocus on all current Nikon bodies, but is a bit more expensive than the older version.<\/p>\n

    \"Nikkor<\/a>
    Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f\/1.8 image \u00a9 Nikon 2015. Used under Copyright Act 1968, Section 41.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    On a DX body, a 50 mm lens will give you the equivalent field of view as a 75 mm lens on a full frame FX body. I’d suggest avoiding<\/em> the older AF 50 mm f\/1.4 and the newer AF-S 50 mm f\/1.4; the former doesn’t give\u00a0significantly better image quality (while costing more), while the latter has a slower autofocus motor.<\/p>\n

    Further Nikon lenses<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Beyond these basic lenses, you’ll want to consider the same options as for Canon, but obviously from Nikon’s\u00a0lens range.<\/p>\n

    In terms of prime lenses, you’d want to look at the\u00a0Nikkor AF 85 mm f\/1.8 ($650) or\u00a0Nikkor AF-S 85 mm f\/1.8 ($700). With a larger, optically faster aperture, consider the\u00a0Nikkor AF 85 mm f\/1.4 ($1,900) or\u00a0Nikkor AF-S 85 mm f\/1.4 ($2,500). Note that the older AF versions are (or will soon be) out of production. For the f\/1.8 versions, the newer lens for $50 more is the obvious choice. For the f\/1.4 versions, it’s a bit trickier. The older AF version is a fair amount cheaper, but the newer AF-S version has better image quality.<\/p>\n

    Nikon does have 105 mm f\/2 and 135 mm f\/2 lenses with Defocus Control (DC), but these are older AF lenses and I’ve heard that they autofocus relatively slowly\u2014which renders them unsuitable for action photography. I’d suggest avoiding these, except for static or portrait photography.<\/p>\n

    For a\u00a0fast, short telephoto zoom lens, you only have one new option from Nikon\u2014the Nikkor AF-S 70\u2013200 mm f\/2.8 VR II ($3,200). Nikon doesn’t make the equivalent lens without Vibration Reduction, but the older\u00a0Nikkor AF 80\u2013200 mm f\/2.8 ($1,800) is still available for now.<\/p>\n

    \"Nikkor<\/a>
    Nikkor AF-S 70\u2013200 mm f\/2.8 VR II image \u00a9 Nikon 2015. Used under Copyright Act 1968, Section 41.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    The Nikkor AF 70\u2013200 mm f\/4 VR, while by all accounts an exceptionally good\u00a0lens, will be too optically slow for low light action photography. In my own shooting, there have been times when even f\/2.8 was too slow (leading to\u00a0the need to boost the ISO setting significantly), so f\/4 would be even worse.<\/p>\n

    Prices<\/strong><\/p>\n

    You’ve probably noticed that in most cases, Nikon seems to charge more than Canon. Let’s take a look at the choices head to head, where Canon and Nikon both make equivalent lenses that I’d recommend:<\/p>\n