Next Lens for 50D

I need help to decide on my next lens purchase(s).


My current equipment:


50D:


501.8


85 1.8


17-40 L4


70-200 L4


430EX II flash


My main pictures are of basketball, track and field, and portraits/family pictures. I miss having a zoom lens with more reach then the 17-40 but less then the 70-200. I would like a zoom with the ability to shoot under the lower light of basketball gyms (flash cannot be used). My thoughts are the 17-55 S2.8 or 24-70 L2.8. I have tried both and like each one. I could trade the 17-40 in towards the 17-55 and save some dollars. But will I miss not having the extra 15mm of reach that the 24-70 offers? I have seen some comments that the lower focal length L quality zoom lenses (24-70) are somewhat wasted on crop cameras. If this is true then is spending $1,200 on the 24-70 a wise investment? The present says the 17-55 may be better (lower $, higher IQ?). But for versatility and the future seems to be the 24-70?


After this purchase my plans in three to four months are to also purchase a 70-200 2.8 i.s. for basketball and a 28/30 1.8 or 35 2.0 prime. Then probably a 5DII in 12 to 18 months not sure if I would keep the 50D or apply the sales dollars towards the 5DII. Also what are your experiences with "refurbished" lenses? Is the IQ better the same or worse then new lenses.


I appreciate your help and commets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrT

But will I miss not having the extra 15mm of reach that the 24-70 offers?

---

Only you can answer that question; personally, I would find 55mm too short for basketball and track and field. Even the 85mm is too short sometimes. 85mm is the lens I would go for, though a lot of shots would be missed because it can't zoom.


17-55 would be great for environmental portraits and full length shots, but I would switch to the 70-200 f/4 for close ups, headshots, etc.


The 24-70 and 17-55 both have very good image quality. One is wider and the other is longer (by about the same amount on each). One big difference is that one has I.S. and is $150 cheaper. If you don't need I.S., you would be paying a lot of extra money for something you don't need. Consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which has nearly the same quality and features, but is less than half the price. (Read Bryan's review.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrT

I have seen some comments that the lower focal length L quality zoom lenses (24-70) are somewhat wasted on crop cameras.

---

It's true. A lot of cost and design goes into the part of the image circle that a crop camera never sees. If Canon made an EF-S 24-70 f/2.8, it would be a lot cheaper for the same level of quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrT

If this is true then is spending $1,200 on the 24-70 a wise investment?

---

Yes, it's still a wise investment if it's the focal length you need. You can't help the fact that Canon doesn't make the exact lens that would be perfect for you, because you have to pick from the lenses Canon actually does make. If that means paying an extra $400 over what the "ideal" lens would cost, so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrT

The present says the 17-55 may be better (lower $, higher IQ?). But for versatility and the future seems to be the 24-70?

---

Always go with the present. At the very worst, you'll just have to sell your current choice for 20% or so of what you paid for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrT

Also what are your experiences with "refurbished" lenses? Is the IQ better the same or worse then new lenses.

---

Some say that they are better since they have been through more QA. I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

At the very worst, you'll just have to sell your current choice for 20% or so of what you paid for it.

---

Ha ha. Of/off, what's the difference. [:D]

Daniel thank you for your reply, sorry for getting back to you so much later. Since then I have been taking more indoor photos and want to ask your opinion on a different approach then my first questions.


I have read some other responses on lens versus bodies and iso and aperture and how each one effects the end results. I need some more help with understanding what are the best choices for my needs.


Would I achieve better results with my current 70-200 4L and a new 5DII for basketball/track and portraits or my current 50D and a new 70-2002.8L? I keep reading that the 50D is not the best at higher iso like 1,600 compared to the 5DII. And without using a flash it seems like I have needed to up the iso to at least 1,600 to get a decent sutter speed. So now I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to go with a new body for iso performance rather then 2.8 aperature lenses for right now. Another factor is shutter speed, is the 5DII fast enough for basketball and track pictures?


I would still want to purchase some additional leness as I see my needs develop with a full frame perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrT

Would I achieve better results with my current 70-200 4L and a new 5DII for basketball/track and portraits or my current 50D and a new 70-2002.8L?

---

In low light, if you can fill the frame with the 5D2+f/4, it will blow the 50D+f/2.8 out of the water in terms of noise, contrast, and overall image quality. No contest. But filling the frame with the 5D2 can be hard when you shoot sports, because the 50D at 125mm has an angle of view equivalent to 5D2+200mm.


One option is to use a 1.4X TC on the 5D2 when you shoot sports, and take it off for portraits. 1.4X TC combined with the higher total megapixels on the 5D2 should result in the exact same amount of "reach". You will have to underexpose even *further* (f/2.8 -> f/5.6), but it wont be enough to offset the read noise advantage of the 5D2, IMHO. (The distortion and chromatic aberration added by the TC can be corrected in post production if you have the right software.)


If you crop instead of TC, then global contrast will go down to the same level as the 50D, and pixel resolution will be lower. But it still has an advantage in low light: very low read noise at ISO 1600. Even when cropped to the same angle of view as the 50D, the 5D2 still has lower read noise. But then it will have lower resolution: just 8 MP vs 15 MP on the 50D.


But there are other important issues to consider. The 50D has a much newer and more advanced autofocus system, as well as a much higher frame rate. Furthermore, the f/2.8 lens will activate the f/2.8 center AF sensor, which is 6 times more accurate than the f/5.6 sensors.


Plus the 50D is cheaper. So when the 60D comes out in little while, you can take the $1500 you saved by not buying the 5D2 and spend it on the 60D.


It's a tough choice.

For the 17-55 vs 24-70, it's a wide vs tele. but for your needs, shooting indoor games, i'd go for the 24-70 on your 50D. It gives you the extra reach that you need to take shots.





regarding the 70-200 f4 + 5DMKII vs 70-200 f2.8 + 50D... Umm... I'm not really sure. I'm gunning for full frame bodies and lenses but it will lessen the reach of your 200s compared to having a crop body. but as Daniel suggests, you can get a TC for that but I would pair it with the 70-200 2.8 rather than the f4.