Lenses - General

I don't shoot Canon, but I see everyone using their 70-200mm f/2.8. It's kind of long for some indoor sports. And you can pick your quality, they have an L version and an IS version. With a rebel, that would be about a 100-300mm equivalent field of view.

I know Canon has a lot of very fast prime lenses as well.

I use Olympus and I absolutely love the 35-100 f/2.0. The equivalent field of view is 70-200mm. I bought it solely for the indoor sports, but it is great for portraits and a number of other subjects as well.

More generally, my experience in school gyms and sports has taught me that in a good gym at 1600 ISO and f/2 I can get 1/500s shutter speed. In a bad gym maybe 1/200s. The only problem is that at f/2 your focus has to be dead on. And if they are moving you need to use continuous autofocus.

I'm shooting Olympus as well, using the 14-54mm and 50-200mm lenses.  The 14-54mm was the original kit lens for the E-1 and I find it to be really sharp in the f/5.6-f/10 range.  The aperture is f2.8-3.5 so it's good in low-light situations like before sunrise or after sunset.  I'm learning how to use it to get good panoramics (was everyone aware you rotate around the len's center point instead of the camera body's?).

To reach out and touch I add a 1.4x teleconverter (Zuiko) to the 50-200mm - with the 2x 35mm equivalent due to the Oly sensor size this give me a 560mm lens at full extension, at f/4.5.  This is my wildlife lens and is pretty sharp in the f/7.1-f/11 range even with the teleconverter.  I can crop 50% easily but would probably get better pictures if I'd just learn to get closer!  As a photographer said, "...your legs are the best zoom."

I've read some very good reviews of the 12-60mm Zuiko but don't think I need to make a change just yet.  My dream lens is the 300mm f/2 Zuiko - $6000-7000!

How do you like the 1.4x? I have the 50-200 too and have been wondering whether to get the 1.4x, the 2x or just go out and get the Sigma 50-500mm (aka the Bigma).

I've seen the 12-60mm and it is very nice. I'd get it if I didn't have a good lens in that range already.

My dream lens would be the 90-200mm f/2.8. But it's over $5k.

I use the 1.4x when I just can't get closer to fill the image with the subject.  You lose one stop of light, making faster moving things just that harder to pin down.  If you look hard enough there are some things where sharpness drops slightly, but no enough to bother me.  It's pretty small (about 1.5" thick) and light so not much weight addition.  When on my 510 it pushes the camera back away from the 50-200mm mount on my ballhead, which I think provides a little better balance when I'm tracking something.