Best short telephoto?

[JumboShrimp]

I'll go out on the proverbial limb here and recommend the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 bridge camera, which I own. It has an equivalent 25-600/2.8 constant aperture zoom and provides plenty of IQ for situations like this. And ... no one would ever think you were a "professional" with this camera!

Please do not repeat dishonest Panasonic marketing crap: at equivalent 25-600mm, it is f/16, NOT f/2.8

Damn, you mean if I put an iPhone 5 behind a 40mm f/2.8 'pancake' lens I won't magically have a 320mm f/2.8 supertele lens?? Way to burst my bubble.

Think what you will about the Lumix camera (and others like it), but in the end it gets the job done. Isn't that the whole point? As far as the 2.8 issue goes, I believe it is an f/2.8 optically (ratio) and an f/16+/- DOF.

 

[unfocused]

Okay, I'm having a really difficult time getting past the whole concept here.

The OP is planning to go to one sporting event, and wants to buy a lens based on the length of its barrel, without any consideration as to what other lenses he already owns or would like to own and what he ordinarily shoots.

I am assuming the OP is a man, BTW because no woman would be that bat-guano crazy.

If you really are bent on doing this, your best bet for an outdoor venue is the 55-250 STM coupled with the 7D. Very sharp lens and since the venue is outdoors, the maximum aperture won't matter. Plus, it's cheap.

That said, though, the obvious question that has yet to be asked is, what do you ordinarily shoot and what short telephoto would you be most likely to use in the future, if any? If there isn't one that fits into your criteria, then the 55-250 at least won't cost you a fortune.

 

[Loswr]

Think what you will about the Lumix camera (and others like it), but in the end it gets the job done. Isn't that the whole point?

Getting the job done is the point. That said, it would help if the OP had indicated what 'the job' is...a 'sporting event' is not very descriptive. Knowing the sport (action-freezing shutter speeds for 'sports' vary quite a bit) and indoor vs. outdoor, and if indoor the level of the sport (more importantly, if indoor if it's televised which means better lighting, or amateur which means the lighting is likely to be crap) would certainly help with a recommendation. For indoor sports or very fast action, high ISO will be needed and the 5.6x crop sensor in the FZ200 likely won't get the job done.

As far as the 2.8 issue goes, I believe it is an f/2.8 optically (ratio) and an f/16+/- DOF.

Interesting that you mention ratio. Important to note that the numerator in that ratio isn't 600mm...it's 108mm. As LSV stated, Panasonic lies (even if Leica, who make the lens for the FZ200, doesn't lie, and they print 4.5-108mm f/2.8 on the front of the lens itself, regardless of the lie Panasonic chooses to print on the lens barrel).

 

[thepancakeman]

Think what you will about the Lumix camera (and others like it), but in the end it gets the job done. Isn't that the whole point?

Getting the job done is the point. That said, it would help if the OP had indicated what 'the job' is...a 'sporting event' is not very descriptive.

Yup, I did add another post with more details--it's the CrossFit games, so mostly not super fast moving, at least from a sports perspective, and it will be outdoors in California. Given this scenario, should I be taking a look at the Lumix?

Okay, I'm having a really difficult time getting past the whole concept here.

The OP is planning to go to one sporting event, and wants to buy a lens based on the length of its barrel, without any consideration as to what other lenses he already owns or would like to own and what he ordinarily shoots.

I'm guess I'm not quite sure why this is a difficult concept. Sure, I could list out all the lenses that I own, what I like and dislike about them, what other things I take pictures of and under what conditions, but I think that's pretty extraneous to the discussion other than that I don't have one that is going to accomplish what I'm looking for.

So far the list seems pretty darn short: the 55-250, the 135/2.0 and a 500mm mirror lens. Obviously I will evaluate these as to how well they fit in with my style and existing equipment, but to ask someone else to make sense of that for a simple "short telephoto lens" question seems excessive.


If you really care, I shoot primarily sports and some portraiture, and only have one lens that I love--the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS Mark I. I don't care for the 24-105L, and also have but am unimpressed with the 85 1.8, the 50 1.8, the 100 2.8 macro, the Tamron 17-55 2.8. I shoot almost exclusively with natural lighting and prioritize a narrow depth of field and good contrast over pure sharpness. But nd as far as sharpness goes, the center is all I care about, as I don't do anything that requires corner sharpness.

But I don't see how this info would change the recommendations people have provided above. Sorry if this comes across snotty--I'm kinda in a grumpy mood this morning. :-\

 

[Hannes]

It really depends how well lit it is. I brought a 40D and 55-250 lens to the London olympic arena. It was so well lit I could shoot 1/400, f5.6 at iso 1600. I did sacrifice a little shutter speed to stop down though as I have the non stm version which isn't terribly sharp at the long end wide open.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

There really are not many lens options that fit your needs. For outdoor sports 55-250 STM seems unbeatable for its size.

Canon 70-300DO is very compact when at 70mm, but the price is absurd for the mediocre image quality.
500mm mirror lens with manual focus only would be torture to track movements.
Canon 135L is great, if the object distance is adequate.
Canon 100mm F2 is also very good for sports in the proper distance.

I will not recommend anything like 18-200 (any manufacturer), 18-270, Tamron 28-300, since all of them are below the very good 55-250 STM.

 

[thepancakeman]

There really are not many lens options that fit your needs. For outdoor sports 55-250 STM seems unbeatable for its size.

Canon 70-300DO is very compact when at 70mm, but the price is absurd for the mediocre image quality.
500mm mirror lens with manual focus only would be torture to track movements.
Canon 135L is great, if the object distance is adequate.
Canon 100mm F2 is also very good for sports in the proper distance.

I will not recommend anything like 18-200 (any manufacturer), 18-270, Tamron 28-300, since all of them are below the very good 55-250 STM.

Thanks for the great summation! I think I'm going to narrow it down to the 55-250 and 500mm mirror for this go round. I'll post results when I get back in a few weeks.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Okay, I'm having a really difficult time getting past the whole concept here.

The OP is planning to go to one sporting event, and wants to buy a lens based on the length of its barrel, without any consideration as to what other lenses he already owns or would like to own and what he ordinarily shoots.

I am assuming the OP is a man, BTW because no woman would be that bat-guano crazy.

That sounds all a bit presumptuous.