Printable View
Right now I shoot with a 24-105 and I really want something with more reach and Ideally some speed for sports. Im wondering what would be best between the 4 versions of the 70-200 also any open suggestions on what lens other then those 4 I should go for. I am a college student so keep price in mind as a factor.
Thanks,
--Matt
the only lens other then those 70-200mms can balance the sports and portrait maybe the 135mm 2.0L. people might say it's too long for portrait, but I havn't heard any body complained about the 200mm 2.0L is too long for potrait[:D], and 135mm with a 1.6x body is ok for sports I guess?
I have the exact same 24-105mm Lens and I too was in the exact same situation; I was debating on either the 135mm or 200mm primes.
If you have money to burn...(lol)..., go for the 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM, I was contemplating for months on purchasing this lens and then decided to go for the plunge as the price had dropped via $225.00.
This lens is great for night/sports and portrait shots, however you may get away with the non-IS lens (600.00 savings) as long you have it on a tripod you should be fine...but there will be moments when the IS was available.
Check out this site on the lens reviews and sample images as well as www.pixel-peeper.com, a great place to check out images filtering on different lenses on different camera body's!
Hope this helps...
That depends on what type of sports and whether inside or outside. The zooms are more versatile than primes but unless you get the 70-200 F4L, they're all pretty expensive. I own that lens and it's lovely outdoors; marginal inside. For portraits it works very well but you don't get the bokeh with an F4 lens that you do with something faster.
I think the best bargain in Lprimes is the 200 F2.8L. It's light, fast, and the bokeh is gorgeous. Some say it's too long for portraits but you just have to back off a bit. The 135 F2L is also a wonderful lens but it's not all that much longer than your 24-105.
The other question is whether or not you feel you need IS. If you do, then you're looking at the 70-200 F4L IS and the 70-200 F2.8L IS. The 2.8 is a great lens but it gets a bit heavy after an hour or so.
If you start with your budget, the selection gets pretty easy.
Jim
70-200/2.8IS is an extremely versatile lens, and probably what I'd recommend.
The 85/1.2 is an amazing portrait lens, but as expensive and very slow to focus so it's awful for sports.
The 85/1.8 might be a good, cheap compromise, adding in the 135/2 or 200/2.8 when you're ready.
On a student budget, the 200/2 is out of the question, but IF you have distance to back up it's a phenomenal portrait lens.
I don't do much "strict portrait work", so I tend to be a two-body two-lens shooter. I've had great luck with the 16-35/2.8 and the 85/1.2 on a 40D and Rebel, respectively. For more sporty times, 16-35/2.8 or 24-105/4 and the 70-200/2.8IS is a very versatile combo as well.
Realize that with primes, you have to walk. A friend of mine is a portrait shooter, using exclusively the 5D2 and the 50/1.4. She does very good work, because she understands depth of field very well. However, she has to walk to compose her shots right, and apparently the other day she walked into a river. :)
I really like the 200 2.8 prime. but at the same time I might go for the 2.8 zoom I just need to decide if its worth the price increase.
thanks for the advice everyone
--Matt
I debated on getting the 2.8 or the 4.0 version of the 70-200 mm lens for quite some time. I finally decided on the 70-200 mm f4 L IS USM lens for a variety of reasons. It's quite a bit more reasonable in price, it's lighter and if I am shooting indoor sports, I just raise the ISO and am still able to get good images. I recently shot for a magazine in Macau the Sampras/Agassi exhibition using the lens. For outdoor sports, it's more than fast enough for my needs.
EF300 L F4 mixed with 1D MKII