Looking for camera for sports photography

[compuwar]

My dad is a coach for highschool basketball, track, etc and has always taken photos with a basic digital camera. He's looking to upgrade to a camera that is more "professional" after spending a weekend with my uncles camera.

He has no idea what to get so he left it up to me, who also hasno idea what to get. He is interested in being able to take many photos in rapid succession, easy use and a good lens so he can capture photos without having to run across the infield during a track meet.

Price range is under 1000$ definitely, but the cheaper the better. He is very frugal

The new Nikon D3100's high-ISO speed and ability to do video with autofocus may make it an attractive option. If it can shoot reasonably at ISO 4800 and above, then you can get the shutter speeds necessary for sports using cheaper, slower lenses.

http://www.breakingglobalnews.com/nikon-d3100-price-and-specs/12214513

Personally, I'd wait for sample images and results of high-ISO on this body before I'd buy. Add in the 55-300 mentioned in the article and I think the potential is there.

Paul

 

[jabbott]

Staying within budget, I would recommend the Canon 50D (review here) with a 28-135mm lens (review here). This kit is available at B&H used for $900 (here). This setup would provide:

• over 6fps shooting speed and a very fast 59mm shutter lag - essential for sports and nearly 2x faster than what the lower-end Canon Digital Rebel line provides
• a 15.1 megapixel sensor - big enough that you can crop the photo a lot and still get a usable image
• Live View mode with a 3" LCD - that way he can just watch the screen instead of looking through the viewfinder
• ISO 3200 with good Auto ISO selection - very helpful for indoor shooting
• a lens with versatile focal length range, a decent aperture for sports, Ring Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for rapid autofocus (another essential for sports), and image stabilization

The other $100 can go towards a picture card, case, an extra battery and shipping. I really think this setup would meet his needs well. If more money becomes available in the future, check out the 70-300mm (review here) or 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L lens (review here) to greatly extend the camera's reach.

 

[compuwar]

[*]ISO 3200 with good Auto ISO selection - very helpful for indoor shooting

Looking at the samples in the review, I'd be wary of shooting it above ISO 800 myself.

Paul

 

[jabbott]

Looking at the samples in the review, I'd be wary of shooting it above ISO 800 myself.

Paul

With noise reduction enabled in the camera, the 50D still produces usable shots at most of the higher ISO speeds. Personally I use NeatImage for high-ISO images I shoot with my Canon T2i and it does an amazing job at removing sensor noise even at ISO 6400. Here is an example before and after using NeatImage. This was taken at 1/50s @ f/2.8 and ISO 6400, hand-held at night with dim lighting and no flash.

The Nikon you mentioned looks good but I can't find any high-ISO sample images because the camera hasn't been released yet. I do like that it can be purchased with 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses for under $1,000 though.

 

[funkboy]

what is wrong with a Used Nikon?

Nikon makes a ton of great cameras & lenses. It may be just because I have Canon gear but it seems to me like the Canon folks on this forum are a bit more active. Maybe this means that the Nikonians are out shooting more often .

I don't know the kit too well but the D200, D300, and D90 seem like fine cameras for sports coverage. The reviewers seem to like the 70-300 VR as well.

For me, the important thing is that the camera can do more than 3fps (preferably at least 5) and has good intelligent AF tracking. Most sports folks seem to want all the fps they can get (though it does depend on the sport). What I can say is that more than once I've been stuck with somebody else's Rebel camera trying to shoot sports (or some other fast-moving subject in a similar scenario), and it was no fun.

 

[toxic]

...

while the 1D would be the absolute best for sports, I think it might be too complicated. a tiny LCD is also a big compromise for someone used to large, high-res LCD's.

For me, the important thing is that the camera can do more than 3fps (preferably at least 5) and has good intelligent AF tracking. Most sports folks seem to want all the fps they can get (though it does depend on the sport). What I can say is that more than once I've been stuck with somebody else's Rebel camera trying to shoot sports (or some other fast-moving subject in a similar scenario), and it was no fun.

experienced sports phtoographers do not depend on fps. what they want is fast, reliable tracking and fast response from shutter press to image capture. fps has one valid use: capturing a rapid sequence of an unpredictable event, like a crash.

 

[kenned]

Don't overkill this.

I shoot a 40D, and it's a great camera! You can probably pick it up fairly cheap one used. Then get a 18-55 f3,5-5,6 IS and a 55-250 f4-5,6 IS lens. That should give him what he needs and still be within budget.

I'm assuming he'll be shooting in sunlight. If not, ignore my comment, the budget will have to be broken.

 

[midnightvii]

Sorry I can't contribute to this. I have a question of my own that could benefit the poster.

We are looking to get into Digital SLR. We are looking to get Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i until we found out that Nikon D3100 is coming in a month or so... Are these 2 camera comparable?

We are looking to get nice photos and HD video clips.
Also, will these type of camera capable of doing this type of movie?

http://gizmodo.com/5615781/an-enchanting-time+lapse-look-at-the-greatest-show-in-space

Thank you. Hope this is appropriate to use this post for answer.

 

[Eaton Photos]

• over 6fps shooting speed and a very fast 59mm shutter lag - essential for sports and nearly 2x faster than what the lower-end Canon Digital Rebel line provides
• a 15.1 megapixel sensor - big enough that you can crop the photo a lot and still get a usable image
• Live View mode with a 3" LCD - that way he can just watch the screen instead of looking through the viewfinder
• ISO 3200 with good Auto ISO selection - very helpful for indoor shooting
• a lens with versatile focal length range, a decent aperture for sports, Ring Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for rapid autofocus (another essential for sports), and image stabilization

Jabbott,

You just proved that you are caught up in the marketing gimmicks of technology. And you also quoted specs on a camera, you have apparently never used. (1) There is a such thing as too many pixels & the tech that goes along with them. The 50D is an example of this. (2) The 50D's reputation for ISO above 800, is notoriously horrible. (3) There is no auto-focus in Live View, so how is the OP's father, going to track action while, looking at the LCD? (4) The 28-135 is a piece of crap for shooting sports. It's a decent walk-around lens. Its not decently sharp till 5.6 to 8. And BTW, the IS is 1st Generation which is 12 year old tech. As I pointed out in my 1st posting, if you knew anything about IS, it does nothing for shooting sports/ tracking action.

So the moral of my response is, do not recommend a camera you have never used.

Looking at the samples in the review, I'd be wary of shooting it above ISO 800 myself.

Listen to Paul, he has knowledge & wisdom.

while the 1D would be the absolute best for sports, I think it might be too complicated. a tiny LCD is also a big compromise for someone used to large, high-res LCD's.

I made my recommendations, based on budget, and my own experiences' with practically every DSLR, that Canon has manufactured, since the D2000.

experienced sports photographers do not depend on fps. what they want is fast, reliable tracking and fast response from shutter press to image capture. fps has one valid use: capturing a rapid sequence of an unpredictable event, like a crash.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a Winner. This statement is 1000% Accurate.

Don't overkill this.

BINGO...

 

[Matty-p]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

Sorry I can't contribute to this. I have a question of my own that could benefit the poster.

We are looking to get into Digital SLR. We are looking to get Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i until we found out that Nikon D3100 is coming in a month or so... Are these 2 camera comparable?

We are looking to get nice photos and HD video clips.
Also, will these type of camera capable of doing this type of movie?

http://gizmodo.com/5615781/an-enchanting-time+lapse-look-at-the-greatest-show-in-space

Thank you. Hope this is appropriate to use this post for answer.

Yes the two cameras are comparable the t2i has more mega pixels (although that's more of a gimmick only usefull if you print big not so good if you want high iso) and a better 1080p movie mode (more frame rates slow mo in 720p pixel binning 3.5mm mic ect) and is avalibke now so personally I'd pick that but maybe I'm biased cos I shoot canon.

Yes you will be able to take that type of time lapse movie but this was or can be done with stills so almost any camera could do it but beware as said in the article "This was shot over three days" !

Oh btw just out of interest who is "we" a company if so what do they do or personal use like "we" as in me and partner

 

[compuwar]

For me, the important thing is that the camera can do more than 3fps (preferably at least 5) and has good intelligent AF tracking. Most sports folks seem to want all the fps they can get (though it does depend on the sport). What I can say is that more than once I've been stuck with somebody else's Rebel camera trying to shoot sports (or some other fast-moving subject in a similar scenario), and it was no fun.

With all due respect, if you know the sports you're shooting, you can get by with 3fps quite easily. A couple of weeks ago, I read a post on DPR that illustrated this quite nicely. A sports shooter had loaned his camera to someone who was an active umpire in the youth sports league, and who knew the batters and pitchers quite well. They ended up with more ball-on-bat images than the sports shooter simply because they timed the shot. High frame rates often trade equipment for skill- the few exceptions being, as was pointed out, random events- like the Canadian fighter crash at an airshow that was done in the last few weeks- there high FPS makes a difference.

I don't shoot a bunch of sports, but I've been trackside for motorcycle and Indy car races. I never felt the need for even 1/2 fps. I'd expect after 3 or so times shooting most people sports, I could get publishable shots in 14-bit mode with my D3x without undue difficulty.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

With noise reduction enabled in the camera, the 50D still produces usable shots at most of the higher ISO speeds. Personally

I suppose a lot depends on your definition of usable, and how much detail you want to lose. Noise reduction reduces detail. If you again look at the in-camera NR in the samples in the linked article, at even ISO 800, the lost of detail is quite visible and for me, not something I'd want to have given a better alternative.

I use NeatImage when I have to- I wouldn't want to have to use it on most shots.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

We are looking to get into Digital SLR. We are looking to get Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i until we found out that Nikon D3100 is coming in a month or so... Are these 2 camera comparable?

Only someone who doesn't know what they're talking about would posit that a camera that we haven't seen production images from is comparable with one that's been out for a while.

Again, if it were me, I'd wait because the D3100 looks like it may (and granted, some of this is pure speculation based more upon where I think Nikon is going) be a step up in terms of ISO.

I'd expect a coach to want good video. I believe that if it works, the D3100 will be the best choice for this because unlike the Canon it's spec'd to have continuous AF in video mode.

Paul

 

[midnightvii]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)


Oh btw just out of interest who is "we" a company if so what do they do or personal use like "we" as in me and partner

Thank you We=my wife and I. She complains that we don't have good photo like our friends do. After I saw that video, I agree with her with different interest. I like to get the camera that capable of doing that type of video and for my wife, she just wants to look pretty!

Again, if it were me, I'd wait because the D3100 looks like it may (and granted, some of this is pure speculation based more upon where I think Nikon is going) be a step up in terms of ISO.


Paul

I will wait for the review for D3100 I have no clue what so ever about these type of camera. Hopefully by the time review comes up. I will know more and able to make decision easier. Thank you.

Reason why I asked for comparison because form the information i gathered. Nikon just starts to get into video as before it was jPeg sequences and Canon has been doing it. So I just want some opinion form your guys.

 

[jabbott]

Jabbott,

You just proved that you are caught up in the marketing gimmicks of technology. And you also quoted specs on a camera, you have apparently never used.

You have proven that you are an immature person who only knows how to belittle other people, but I'll reply anyway:

(1) There is a such thing as too many pixels & the tech that goes along with them. The 50D is an example of this.

If you are referring to diffraction limits due to pixel size, yes this is a problem with most modern digital cameras. The only "solution" to that problem for under $1,000 is to go with an outdated 10D/300D/1D which have larger pixel sizes and allow commensurately larger apertures before diffraction limits become involved. As you (and another person) mentioned, the 1D has significant downsides though. Most, if not all of them are mitigated by newer dSLRs.

(2) The 50D's reputation for ISO above 800, is notoriously horrible.

You are incorrect. The 50D captures very nice photos at ISO 3200 when noise reduction is enabled in the camera. Here are some sample photos to prove this. It may not be pixel-perfect but it certainly still usable.

(3) There is no auto-focus in Live View, so how is the OP's father, going to track action while, looking at the LCD?

You are incorrect again. Quoting the 50D manual: "Although AF is possible with the Live View image displayed, the AF operation will take longer than with Quick mode." It all depends on the situation and whether you want to spend all of your time looking through a viewfinder.

(4) The 28-135 is a piece of crap for shooting sports. It's a decent walk-around lens. Its not decently sharp till 5.6 to 8. And BTW, the IS is 1st Generation which is 12 year old tech. As I pointed out in my 1st posting, if you knew anything about IS, it does nothing for shooting sports/ tracking action.

Have you used a Ring (not Micro) USM lens with a Canon dSLR that handles AI Servo AF such as the 50D? It continually auto-focuses very fast. As for sharpness, Canon zoom lenses under $1,000 are generally not sharp at large apertures, and I have extensively studied ISO 12233 charts with numerous Canon zooms at varying apertures to back that statement up. That is simply what you get for under $1,000 (unless you use prime lenses). Also, I never said that Image Stabilization helps with sports shooting -- you misinterpreted what I wrote.

 

[Eaton Photos]

You have proven that you are an immature person who only knows how to belittle other people, but I'll reply anyway

Actually, I am quite the opposite. I'm not immature, rather I consider myself helpful, in providing facts based on experience. However, I made statements, based on what you quoted as fact, though based on what you wrote before, you don't even own a 50D.

You are incorrect. The 50D captures very nice photos at ISO 3200 when noise reduction is enabled in the camera. Here are some sample photos to prove this. It may not be pixel-perfect but it certainly still usable.

Show me Images you have shot with the 50D, at a High School Game. The link you shared, shows images in a Controlled Environment/ Controlled Lighting Situation, which does not count. I was referring to real world applications. And why on this Green Earth that we live on, would you shoot ISO 6400 of a house in broad daylight. NR only works on Jpegs, and even then, it reduces the details within the image.

You are incorrect again. Quoting the 50D manual: "Although AF is possible with the Live View image displayed, the AF operation will take longer than with Quick mode." It all depends on the situation and whether you want to spend all of your time looking through a viewfinder.

Alright, I will concede that I am partially incorrect. My 40D does not have AF in LV. However, why would you recommend something that is very slow? What's the point of recommending it then? The purpose of LV, is critical focus, not using the DSLR like a P&S. If your going to do that, then just buy a P&S. The Slow Mode, is defeating the purpose of focus tracking in Servo mode.

Have you used a Ring (not Micro) USM lens with a Canon dSLR that handles AI Servo AF such as the 50D? It continually auto-focuses very fast. As for sharpness, Canon zoom lenses under $1,000 are generally not sharp at large apertures, and I have extensively studied ISO 12233 charts with numerous Canon zooms at varying apertures to back that statement up. That is simply what you get for under $1,000 (unless you use prime lenses).

I use a pair of 1DMKIIN's & I have a 40D, when I need a 3rd body/ backup body. I know from real world experience, that the AI Servo in my N's is much faster & more accurate, than that of the 50D. I don't study or shoot charts either. I shoot people & assignments. And yes, I use Ring USM lenses every day. There are only a couple of Micro Motor USM lenses still around.

Which lenses have you owned/ tested & used to create your basis for such a statement regarding sharpness. I've owned several zooms, that I paid less than 1K for, that were quite sharp wide open. But what do I know. Like I said I don't study charts, or take my lenses out & shoot rulers & brick walls.

Also, I never said that Image Stabilization helps with sports shooting -- you misinterpreted what I wrote.

I didn't misinterpret anything, you just wrote IS at the end of your statement, and left it open to interpretation.

 

[jabbott]

Actually, I am quite the opposite. I'm not immature, rather I consider myself helpful

That's great -- let's have a civilized discussion then.

Which lenses have you owned/ tested & used to create your basis for such a statement regarding sharpness. I've owned several zooms, that I paid less than 1K for, that were quite sharp wide open. But what do I know. Like I said I don't study charts, or take my lenses out & shoot rulers & brick walls.

For zooms I own and use the following: 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, and a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. I have studied ISO 12223 charts at various focal lengths and apertures for lots of Canon zooms on the market, including the 10-22, 15-85, 17-40L, 17-55, 18-55, 24-70L, 24-105L, 28-105, 28-135, the various 70-200s, the DO and non-DO 70-300s, and the 100-400L. The 28-135mm is not the sharpest or fastest lens out there, but for the money I think it's still pretty good.

If primes under $1K are to be considered, a potentially useful sports lens would be a 100mm f/2 USM. At $430 it has really good sharpness even wide open, and a large aperture for stopping action.

 

[David G.]

Glass First, Camera Body Second

Does anyone that has contributed to this thread, actually shoot sports (HS/ U-18), and not from a casual standpoint??? It's a serious question.

I do. And am reporting for duty!

First off, about what I do with what i have. In my senior year of High School I was in the Yearbook class and was the go to photographer in the class for all things sports for the yearbook. At the start of the year I personally had a Canon Rebel XT (350D), a 24-70 2.8L and a 580EX2 flash. Being a photographer for the yearbook, I had access to the sidelines of games, something which few others had and of course the coach will have. Even with the closeness of what I had to the action relative to the stands for football games, the 24-70 lens was completely useless for field action. It was only good for the cheerleaders of the games and some of the fanatical fans my school is known for when I was near the stands.

Because my lens wasn't working out for me at all for what I needed to get for the yearbook, I purchased with my money a Canon 70-200 f/4 L (non is) lens before Homecoming football came around. The only other lens I had thought about getting was the 70-300 Canon lens. I chose the 70-200 lens because of it's focusing speed, constant f/4 aperture, and its build quality.

Once I got that lens I started using the yearbook classes camera as well, putting my 70-200 on the classes Rebel XTi and my 24-70 on my XT.

I now have been helping out with the yearbook in some spare time I have, dropping in occasionally when suggested by the new yearbook teacher, teaching some students some photography tips and helping with other yearbooky admin/design things when I can work around the college and job duties I have. I also have been taking pictures for them because I greatly enjoy it and have become much better at tracking action with all the sports i shoot for, them being: football, XC running, XC skiing, basketball, cheerleading, volleyball, wrestling, and hockey. My primary camera set up for most of those would be my Rebel XT with my 70-200. The only time it ever really struggled with anything was when I did hockey (once!) or with inside sports like basketball or volleyball, which I think calls for the a shorter lens. This lens even works when the sunlight has disappeared completely and the only thing I have in regards to light are the friday night field lights, all the way out til 10 or 10:30pm. Even to you peeps comparing 1D's to 50D's in regards to ISO related picture quality issues and lowlight autofocusing, I still think my experience with what I've detailed proves you can have absolutely wonderful pictures very often with equipment some would call impossible to work with, i.e. old rebel camera bodies.


The 70-200 f/4L lens paired with a used 350D/400D (or 30D/40D, i don't know how much they go for used) will get someone great pictures often if the camera is set up properly and the person taking the pictures has some skill, or some great pictures occasionally if the skill is a bit lacking anyway. I think that would be the ultimate setup for a budget of under a thousand dollars for distant sports pictures.

If a shorter lens is called for, I suppose the previously recommended 28-135 is will do well. I have used my uncles (never for sports though) but from what I remember, it was good, even compared to my L lenses.

 

[toxic]

Have you used a Ring (not Micro) USM lens with a Canon dSLR that handles AI Servo AF such as the 50D? It continually auto-focuses very fast.

the AF of a 28-135 is irrelevant. it's still too slow and too short.

As for sharpness, Canon zoom lenses under $1,000 are generally not sharp at large apertures, and I have extensively studied ISO 12233 charts with numerous Canon zooms at varying apertures to back that statement up.

ISO charts don't tell you anything reliable, not without extra data from another source, preferably real-world experience.

 

[jabbott]

Even with the closeness of what I had to the action relative to the stands for football games, the 24-70 lens was completely useless for field action.

Agreed. Even at 70mm its reach leaves more to be desired.

Because my lens wasn't working out for me at all for what I needed to get for the yearbook, I purchased with my money a Canon 70-200 f/4 L (non is) lens before Homecoming football came around. The only other lens I had thought about getting was the 70-300 Canon lens. I chose the 70-200 lens because of it's focusing speed, constant f/4 aperture, and its build quality.

Wow -- I didn't realize the non-IS 70-200 f/4L could be had so cheaply. Looks like it retails for around $550 used and $650 new. I'm used to L glass costing over $1K, so consider me surprised. I think we have a winner. Couple that with a 1.4x extender and you wouldn't need much else (other than a camera body, battery, picture card, charger, shoulder strap, case, and possibly a tripod and UV filter... had to add those for all you hyper-critical comment bashers so you can disagree with me some more ).

 

[funkboy]

I agree that most pros that shoot team sports for a living know the subject well enough that they can anticipate the one shot that they really know they want, especially if they have a pro camera with ultra-low shutter lag.

But the OP's basketball coach is clearly not in this category of sports photographer, & neither am I.

I've shot a few baseball games on my 40D, and I can say that the 6fps "spray & pray" method is the most reliable way for me to consistently get the shot I want (esp. a batter connecting with the ball with the ball still in the frame). I had to do it once with a Rebel, and I'd say that I only got a home-plate shot I was happy with about 30-50% of the time. I don't do this very often and I won't get a pro camera or spend hours honing my shot timing for baseball.

Same goes for kite surfing. I shoot at 6fps from the time the surfer takes off for a trick & follow him until he lands. I agree that this is not the most elegant way to do things but if you've got your AF points & tracking set up properly you can maintain good composition throughout the trick, and pick the frame you want in post-prod. If the whole sequence is good it makes for very nice triptics too.

I've also shot freestyle ski jumping a couple of times, and since you have no idea what the crazy skier is going to do it certainly helps to have 5 or 6 shots of the progress of his trick & pick the best one. When I had to do it with a Rebel camera it gave me 2 shots per trick, maybe 3 maximum on a few of them.

Now basketball doesn't exactly have 90+mph fastballs, the dunk always happens in pretty much the same place, and in general you're sitting closer to the action than in baseball, but I still feel that high-fps shot sequences are super useful for amateur sports photographers. They certainly are for me.

BTW if the OP has the cash I fully agree that a used 70-200 f/4L non-IS is a fantastic indoor sports lens for folks on a budget. I had one for about 4 years. The autofocus is absolutely pro-grade and the image quality is perfectly acceptable wide-open at f/4 throughout the zoom range, and fantastic when closed down a stop or two (this is on a crop camera, haven't looked at the corners of an FF wide-open).

 

[MacFly69]

BTW if the OP has the cash I fully agree that a used 70-200 f/4L non-IS is a fantastic indoor sports lens for folks on a budget. I had one for about 4 years. The autofocus is absolutely pro-grade and the image quality is perfectly acceptable wide-open at f/4 throughout the zoom range, and fantastic when closed down a stop or two (this is on a crop camera, haven't looked at the corners of an FF wide-open).

i beg to differ, the f/4 shooting ambient HS gym lighting is not fast enough.

1d mkIV FTW!

 

[arogge]

Coaching and handling a dSLR kit at the same time is not a good plan. Things go much better when a person is either a coach or a photographer, but not both at the same time. The most common focal lengths that I use for track meets are 300 mm and 600 mm, dropping down to a shorter zoom lens only when I have to do multiple events at once or when the event is long and I want wider shots of the runners.

Photography and Frugal are not compatible with each other. Track meets are not too bad for expenses, but when you add in a requirement of being able to stand in one place and cover the whole track area, you are suddenly going from a basic 70-200 or 70-300 zoom lens to something that will cost a minimum of $4,000. I suggest reconsidering this fixed-position requirement.

 

[HBOC]

For under a grand, you WILL NOT find a better camera for sports than the 1D2n. Even at 8MP, it is still sufficient. The AF is superior to anything the xxd line has, and the burst rate is superior, plus it uses dual cards, etc etc.

The 28-135 is way too slow for shooting in ambient light. Is he just shooting for fun? I see that this will be indoors as well. You could get away with a 70-200 2.8 or 70-200 f/4IS. These lenses run about a grand used. The body is also about a grand as well.

He could use a Rebel (or even a 30/40D), but the buffer is not at large, the AF isn't as good. They are good cameras, but there are better options out there for relatively not much more money. You could pick up a 200mm 2.8L for about $600, or a 300mm f/4IS for $1000ish, and they are superb lenses as well.