# Best short telephoto?



## thepancakeman (Jul 4, 2014)

Here's a bit of a strange question:

I'm soon going to be attending a sporting event that the venue restrictions disallow "lenses longer than 5 inches". So what are the best options for getting as much reach as possible, but staying under that threshold? I'm open to lenses or superzooms or whatever is going to get me results.

Thanks!


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jul 4, 2014)

200 f/2.8L and 1.4 and 2X extenders in the wife's purse? Limiting lens choice by a metric like that is stupid and should be soundly mocked.

Jim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2014)

The 200/2.8L II is barely over 5". The 135/2L is 4.5". With either lens, you could add a 2x TC if the lighting will be sufficient.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jul 4, 2014)

There is also the 70-300 DO; not the fastest but lots of reach for its physical length.

Jim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> There is also the 70-300 DO; not the fastest but lots of reach for its physical length.



Good point, and the IS would be helpful at the tele end compared to the primes, although the latter have better IQ. Also, depending on the venue if there'll be lights in the frame, the 70-300 DO's ugly bokeh may be an issue.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 4, 2014)

Now that is a weird restriction...what sport/type of venue is that 

5 inches is bonkers too, even the 24-70 at 70 is longer than that! (5 inches = 12.5 centimeters right?)

Anyway, after a quick look at TDP tables (like in http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx ) your only true choices are 24-70 II (4.4 inches) for IQ and 24-105 (4.1 inches) for reach. 

You also have the odd choices like the 28-135 and 28-200 but those are old designes (late 90's)
Anything longer seems well...longer. The 70-300 DO might be a winner too but the optic qualities are...disappointing to say the least: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=21650.0;last_msg=411551

Short version: The rule is big time BS, 3 inches longer and you'd be in 70-200 territory! You gotta fight for your right to photography!


EDIT: multiple ninja'd. That's what I get for including references and having to convert that damn imperial system.


----------



## dcm (Jul 4, 2014)

The whole point is to exclude professional equipment, whether or not the photographer is a professional. In the near future I'm going to a concert at Red Rocks Amphitheatre outside Denver with some tighter restrictions.

Allowed:
Small, personal cameras (unless prohibited by show)

Prohibited:
Audio or video recording devices, professional cameras or cameras with removable lenses
Drones

Guess that even excludes the M and the S110 will have to suffice. Another vote for the SX50.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2014)

dcm said:


> The whole point is to exclude professional equipment, whether or not the photographer is a professional. In the near future I'm going to a concert at Red Rocks Amphitheatre outside Denver with some tighter restrictions.
> 
> Allowed:
> Small, personal cameras (unless prohibited by show)
> ...


 
The 5 inch rule is pretty common, but not often strictly enforced. The amount of extension is a red herring, what they are trying to do is to prevent someone from lugging in a big lens and setting up a tripod that will block the view and annoy other people. People bring their Digital Rebels and 75-300mm lenses all the time.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 4, 2014)

Yeah but concert hall have those rules for IP reasons mostly, this is a sport event...as long as he doesn't bring a broacasting unit he should be fine


----------



## thepancakeman (Jul 4, 2014)

Grumbaki said:


> Yeah but concert hall have those rules for IP reasons mostly, this is a sport event...as long as he doesn't bring a broacasting unit he should be fine



Actually, I mis-spoke, it's not the venue itself but the people putting on the event, and they have a reputation for being quite strict on this and litigious about photographs. I just want them for my own purposes, so I'm not worried about that but from what I hear it's unlikely that I'll get anything oversized in, and would actually be asked to leave if I snuck it in.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 4, 2014)

If you have (or can get hold of) an APS-C camera, how about the EF-S 55-250 IS STM? According to TDP it's 4.4" long (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx), and allowing for the crop factor it gives a 400mm equivalent FOV. My Dad has one and I think it's fantastic when you consider it's size, weight and cost. It may not be an L, but if I was still shooting with a crop DSLR I reckon I'd pick one up, notwithstanding the relatively slow aperture.

From what it says in the TDP review it seemer the newer STM version is a definite step up from the previous models.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2014)

jd7 said:


> If you have (or can get hold of) an APS-C camera, how about the EF-S 55-250 IS STM? According to TDP it's 4.4" long (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx), and allowing for the crop factor it gives a 400mm equivalent FOV. My Dad has one and I think it's fantastic when you consider it's size, weight and cost. It may not be an L, but if I was still shooting with a crop DSLR I reckon I'd pick one up, notwithstanding the relatively slow aperture.
> 
> From what it says in the TDP review it seemer the newer STM version is a definite step up from the previous models.


 
The problem is that sporting events usually need a fast shutter speed, and the light is not all that bright. Combine that with the poor low light performance of APS-C, and its poor for that use.
A FF body with at least a f/4 lens is head and shoulders better.
A Canon 135mm f/2L might be a good choice for a crop or FF.
I once had to use a 35mmL with my 1D MK III at a indoor racing event, and it was sharp enough to be able to severely crop, and in the low light, it allowed a fast shutter speed.

This is a shot of a friend driving a monster truck. I was well up in the stands, and he was at the far side of the field.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 5, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The problem is that sporting events usually need a fast shutter speed, and the light is not all that bright. Combine that with the poor low light performance of APS-C, and its poor for that use.
> A FF body with at least a f/4 lens is head and shoulders better.
> A Canon 135mm f/2L might be a good choice for a crop or FF.



Agreed - if low light is an issue then going with a FF body is the way to go. I just thought I'd mention the EF-S 55-250 as food for thought, as the OP hasn't said what the lighting conditions are likely to be. For example it's if it's an open air stadium and the players will be in bright sunlight, the 55-250 might work. I took some photos at the Australian Open tennis in January and the conditions were exactly like that. I was shooting with a 6D and an f/4 lens, but from the lighting point of view a crop body and the 55-250 would have been fine.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jul 5, 2014)

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!


----------



## thepancakeman (Jul 5, 2014)

jd7 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that sporting events usually need a fast shutter speed, and the light is not all that bright. Combine that with the poor low light performance of APS-C, and its poor for that use.
> ...



Sorry about the lack of details! It's for the CrossFit games which is at outdoor stadiums in California--should be bright and sunny. 

The 55-250 sounds like a good option for the extra reach as I will be using a 7D, but I'm tempted by the 135 as well. I'm taking it one of these options with potentially heavy cropping would still produce a better results than a superzoom? Is the 55-250 better than other options in that same class, such as the new Tamrons?

If you're familiar with the CrossFit games, although some of it can be fast moving, much of it is pretty slow movement in relation to other sports, so between the hopefully sunny skies and some options for slower shutter speeds that does open up the possibilities.


Thanks again!


----------



## LSV (Jul 5, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> 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


----------



## vic20 (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm probably too new to giving much advice :-[ , but i;d like to add a BIG vote for the 135mm 2.0.
Ideal lens to "hide" 

On a side note I was sadly turned away from a monster truck event some time ago cos i didn't read the fine print
( my fault ) 
"NO extended lens cameras " and I had the 70-200mm with a few other lens .
I had the option to the leave the camera and lens with security ,,but NO THANKS !

I took a refund and left sad and angry !


----------



## cpsico (Jul 5, 2014)

100 f2 is a nice lens, very sharp nice color, some color fringe wide open in high contrast but still very nice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2014)

LSV said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



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.


----------



## dafrank (Jul 5, 2014)

To circumvent this rule, and, if a long to very long lens will help, the obvious answer is a folded path mirror lens. Here is one for Canon EOS mounts : Rokinon ED500M-EOS 500mm F6.3 Mirror Lens. You can use a search engine to find this or one of the many others available in a range of apertures and focal lengths, all under 5 inches long. Other possibilities are some of the many "shorter" non-mirror longer lenses, along with a 1.4x or 2x extender. Good luck, David


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jul 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LSV said:
> 
> 
> > JumboShrimp said:
> ...



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 (Jul 5, 2014)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> 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.




JumboShrimp said:


> 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 (Jul 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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?



unfocused said:


> 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 (Jul 6, 2014)

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 (Jul 6, 2014)

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 (Jul 8, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Jul 8, 2014)

unfocused said:


> 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.


----------

