Which L Lens?

[Sam]

<span>I&rsquo;m a college photographer, who is looking to invest in some high-quality lenses. While I shoot various things - people, landscapes, ect. - I spend most of my time photography collegiate sporting events.





<span>I am curious to hear your thoughts about the following lenses I&rsquo;m contemplating purchasing...


<span>- Canon 16-35 mm f/2.8 L II USM


<span>- Canon 24-70 mm f/2.8 L USM


<span>- Canon 180 mm f/3.5 L USM


<span>


<span>I currently have:


<span>- Canon 50D


<span>- Canon 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS


<span>- Canon 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS


<span>Canon Extender EF 2x II


<span>


<span>Any thoughts?

[Oren]

What kind of sports? indoor or not?


Anyway, you've got 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, so it sounds like what you need now is some fast prime.

[Sam]

<span>Currently, I&rsquo;m primarily shooting basketball and other indoor sports. When Spring comes along, I&rsquo;ll be shooting outdoor sports - soccer, track, tennis, golf.

[atticusdsf]

he's right. get yourself a fast prime.


no canon photographer should be without the 50mm f/1.4. you will get more bang for your buck than with any other lens. it's the bread-and-butter of the EF lineup, and once you experience the amazing bokeh it provides, you'll be so addicted that you'll want to carry the thing with you everywhere. taking a good portrait with the 50 is like shooting fish in a barrel. with a gun, that is.


from there.. out of the lenses you listed.. i'd put my money on the 16-35mm.. you need a wide-angle in your lineup, and since you're using a crop sensor, the 28-135 doesn't count. wide angle lenses are fun.. try leaving yourself zoomed all the way out, and get right up close on your subjects.. it will give you a whole new perspective, and can sometimes yield a very edgy look.

[Oren]

He said he was shooting sports, I don't see how a wide angle will help. He need more on the tele-end, not the wide end.

[atticusdsf]

that's true.. i guess i was thinking more general purpose with the other things he listed..


really.. all of those would be too slow for sports. i'd say get the 70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS depending on how much $$ you wanna spend. the IS won't help you in a ball game where your subject motion is fast.

[atticusdsf]

correction-- the 24-70 would be fine, but still short for sports

[Oren]

He also said he own a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS already - read again.

[Sam]

Thanks for all your advice. I really appreciate it. Any additional thoughts?

[Mark Elberson]

For outdoor sports with big fields (soccer) you may want to consider the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L. It's range is unbeatable. Like many other posters said, I would consider a fast prime as well you back up your 70-200 f/2.8 for indoor sports. You can pick up the 50 /1.4 for about $350. It's L counterpart is well over $1,000.

[greggf]

for indoor sports I would get the 135 f2...plus you have the 2x. The 135 is an awesome lens, even with the 2x, but since you have a crop(50D), you really won't need it. you already have the 70-200

[MVers]

YOU DO NOT NEED AN L LENS TO MAKE A GOOD INVESTMENT LET ALONE GOOD PHOTOGRAPHS. Sorry, had to get that out of the way. If you are not planning on going FF I'd pick up the EF-S 17-55 over the
24-70 for a midrange zoom. I'd also seriously consider an 85/1.8 for
indoor sports (50/1.4 is too slow AF wise and the 135/2 is too long for most indoor sports on a crop body) as well as any of these: 300/4IS+1.4x TC, 400/5.6, 100-400 or Sigma 100-300/4+1.4x TC for outdoor field sports. You may also want to consider a second body (30D or 40D).





p.s. You do know the 180L is a macro lens--right?

[mark]

as well i would suggest the 50 1.4 it makes a grreat b-ball lens indoors provided you can get to the sidelines ..if you can you may also want to cinsider the EF-S 17-55f2.8


It is L quality in terms of IQ and would be an L lens but for some of the amterials used in the body. I think the fact that it EF-S mount kind of precludes it from being called an L lens as those with the FF bodys may get upset(LOL)





cheers

[Benjamin]

I think the 24-70L will make the most sense to have if you plan on replacing the 28-135 lens. I have the 24-70 and it works great overall. As far as I concern this lens is not too long, even on 50D. It's perfect for portraiture on a 1.6x body throughout 50-70mm though.


The 16-35L II willgive more wide angle for sureand it's going to be a good choice if you want to keep your 28-135. However, for such a lens probably you need a full frame body to get the best out of it. Things will become "weird" when it's 16mm, not 25mm equivalent. I use the 16-35L II too, it's a fantastic lens and gives unique perspective.


The 180L is sort of Macro only in my mind. if one is not very intense on doing macro, such a lens will not make too much sense to have. Just my very personal opinion[:)]

[L33t]

I think 300 F4 would do awesome.





Very fast and very accurrate, the price isn't bad

[Ehcalum]

Here's what we use for Basketball, football, baseball, soccer and every other sport we cover at TriDuo:


70-200 2.8 (some use IS, some don't, i'm the latter)


28-70/24-70


24-105 (the boss hogs this lens)


300 2.8 (great for soccer, though it can over shoot on a smaller field.)


1.4 TC


17-55


17-40


Not all are used at each event, but the 70-200 and one of the mid zooms are our bread and butter. For events like Basketball, indoors and on the court, depending on your position, a prime would be more of a hindrance unless you have a zoom on a 2nd body, which it looks like you do not have. Go with a decent wide and you'll be fine. Don't limit yourself to L either, I know plenty for full time sports photogs who make kick arse shots with "cheap" equipment and 3rd party glass.