Lens Replacement

Hi Everybody...


I'm going to be doing a LOT of shooting over the next few months, and I have money to upgrade lenses. I would ultimately upgrade all of my lenses (probably L's), but right now, I'm going to upgrade one. My question is - Which one will be the most useful to upgrade?


The kit to date (lenses shared with my parents' Xti):

• Canon 40D
• EF-S 17-85
• 50 1.8 II
• Tokina f/4 12-24
• EF-S 55-250
• EF-S 18-55
• 430 EX

My shooting:

• Stage performances - some well lit, some not
• Sports - Outdoor
• Travel - Going to Latvia in August - Lots of landscapes, family portraits...
• Family - Going to the States in July to visit family.

I am seriously considering a first L - the 24-70 L - And it looks like a fantastic choice. I can plan to go full-frame in the future. That's why the 17-55 2.8 IS isn't listed here (Trust me, if I wasn't planning to go full frame, it would be[:)])


I am selling some old Olympus gear, so the budget would be around $1400.



What do you think?


Any insights would be greatly appreciated. [:)]


- Alex

I think you should follow your gut on this one.

I'm with you on the exclusion of EF-S. I always take flack for that here, but I don't like the idea of buying a lens that doesn't work on both my bodies.


I would look into a 70-200 first. The 2.8 IS is a little over you budget but well worth it. This lens does make you giddy. It is spectacular at 2.8.


You could go with the 70-200 4.0L IS (under your budget). I don't recommend the 2 non IS. I think a lens this long needs IS.


My 2 personal favorite lenses are the 16-35 2.8L II (my favorite walk around) and the 70-200 2.8L IS. If I could only have 2 lenses it would be these 2.


24-70 is not a big range for me, so I can't personally endorse it.

When are you going to upgrade to full frame? For five years it has held steady at a $1,500 premium (body only), and it looks like it will continue to command that much more over the equivalent APS-C for the foreseeable future.


Personally, I'm not big on the idea of paying for a lot of glass that you're not going to use until you can afford to upgrade, so I think the 24-70 is not the optimal choice.


85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 are fantastic lenses; great for stage, some sports, portraits, and at just $~400, it leaves a lot of money left over for a second lens.


135mm f/2 is another good one.


70-200 f/2.8 L IS ($1600 after rebate; $200 over budget).

I remember I got 24-70mm, 100mm macro and 50mm/f1.4 at the same time about 2 years ago for my 5D and rebelXT and I never really liked 24-70mm/f2.8L, because it's not as sharp as the 100mm macro and it's not as fast as the 50mm/f1.4,and it's really heavy too.i tend not to use it as long as I can.recently I got 85mmlf1.8 and i quickly fall in love with this so called "hidden L lens",it's fast and sharp and makes nice bokeh. because of that 3 facts(fast ,sharp and bokeh), i bought 135mm/2.0L and 35mm/1.4L weeks a ago to cover more range.and those 2 lenses are really really fantastic glasses.for wide angle on rebel, I use Tokina 12-24mm too.to answer your question, you should consider one or two prime lenses.I know it sounds crazy to just live with some prime lenses, but once you see the result from those prime lenses, you don't want to use zoom lens or any other lenes.that's the way i do now, I still have the 24-70mm?f2.8, I probably will not use it any more for serious situation. and for general situation, i think the kit lens is good enough.I always think this way: If the lenes is not fast enough, sharp enough and can't make nice bokeh, then it's just taking pictures not photography and sure it's no fun.

Thanks for all of the replies...


I do like the idea of upgrading the tele - the 55-250. My current plan consists of selling the main lens in the focal range I'm upgrading. Like, if I were to upgrade to the 24-70, or any other general purpose lens in that focal range, I would sell my 17-85. Likewise, if I go for a 70-200 IS - $1500 - (http://community.the-digital-picture...ms/t/1151.aspx), then I would sell my 55-250.


If the upgrade would happen to the tele-range (a 70-200), I would opt for the 70-200 2.8 IS. I agree with Keith - I don't see a lens this long practical without IS, fast or not.


I posted in another thread - I tried out the 70-200 2.8 IS at a local camera shop and broke into tears (joking). The 70-200 L is fantastic lens, no doubt. The bokeh was a dream...


Now, I think I have to think, think, and think. This is a pretty big decision, and I feel no need to rush it. I plan to purchase a lens in June.


Any more ideas or first hand experience will definitely help.


Thanks


- Alex

Alex,


If I were in your position I would consider an 85 1.8 and one longer lens. My reasoning is as follows. For the family and travel shots I think you are covered with the 17-85 and the 12-24. I think the 85 1.8 would be a great addition to the 50 1.8 for stage shooting.


Depending on what sports you are shooting you may find 200 a little on the short side even with the 40D. When I hear "sports" I think field sports like soccer and football. I have a 30D with a 70-200 f4 non-IS, and I don't feel the need to spend the extra on IS, but I sometimes wish I had a little more length. For ME it (IS) is not worth the money, and the pain of explaining the expense to my wife [;)]. If I were trying to make money off this, rather than just shooting my daughter for fun, I would strongly consider the IS versions. You might also consider the 100-400, I hear it is a very capable lens if not the fastest, but it does have IS.


My opinion is offered freely, take it for what it is worth[:)]


Sincerely,


David McKinny