Recommendations on a lens ...

Hi all,


I've been combing through a pile of reviews and forums AND I've gone to the local stores to try out my next lens purchase but still can't seem to decide on one ...


I've currently got a Canon XSi with the EFS 18-55 IS kit lens, a Sigma 30mm EX 1.4 prime and a Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM.


I have a one year old at home and he and my wife are primarily the subjects of all my photography. The primes have been excellent in low light situations and have been great for "stopping action" of my little one as he moves quite fast and he does not like to pose. ;)


Over the summer the family has been on a couple of trips. Specifically kids events such as local fairs and theme parks. I've found my 18-55 a bit short and I am unable to get a shot of my kid on the rides with his mom. I was also unable to use the 18-55 at his first birthday party as it was indoors and to avoid using flash I ended up mounting the 30mm 1.4. With the 30mm I was able to get most of the group shots but none of the candid close ups.


I have thought about the following lenses:


1) EFS 17-55 2.8 IS - still short ....just a way better version of my kit lens


2) EF 24-70 2.8L - good length but a bit heavy


3) EF 24-105 4L - great length but maybe too slow for my kid when indoors


4) EFS 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS - havent been able to try it since its not in stock yet and maybe too slow


5) LEARN TO USE A FLASH with option 3 and 4 =) ... I currently have an old 380EX Speedlite that doesnt rotate %&^@#


My budget is about $1300 CDN so the most I can afford is the 24-70 ....


Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Maybe take a look at extending your focal length with the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM....based on your description it might "fit the bill" just right and this lens gets great reviews.

I've had some pretty good results with the 24-105 on my backup body (30D) for basketball in poorly lit gyms... it works fine as long as you're not afraid to turn the ISO up. The 24-70 might be heavy, but I think you'd get used to it pretty fast once you saw the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holeysox

I've found my 18-55 a bit short and I am unable to get a shot of my kid on the rides with his mom.

---

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holeysox

I was also unable to use the 18-55 at his first birthday party as it was indoors and to avoid using flash I ended up mounting the 30mm 1.4.

---

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holeysox

With the 30mm I was able to get most of the group shots but none of the candid close ups.

---

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holeysox

My budget is about $1300 CDN

---

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holeysox

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

---

In all seriousness, it sounds to me like you need more reach but not at the expense of speed. I would have recommended the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS but, with your budgetthis lens fits the bill!

You really have 3 options... IMO


24-70 is a great lens if you think it'll be enough reach, best best is to honestly maybe rent it and try it.. or just go into a store and bring your camera and try it out.


24-105 is the next best thing and others will argue possibly better, especially with the IS if you're moving around trying to capture the moving child.


70-200 4 IS is about your budget currently, before taxes.. same with the rest of them really.


2.8IS is great ... but it's way over your budget and might be too heavy for you to carry around all day at the park, etc. But I love mine :)





But those are pretty much your options IMO for the price. The 2.8IS is $1800 use if you're lucky.. and well over $2k if you buy it new.. + taxes.

With your budget in mind and the lenses you list, I'd say the 24-105 4.0 IS L if you don't need to stop action and the 24-70 2.8 L if you do. Light-wise I don't think you'll see a huge difference between them due to the IS on the 4.0.


The 70-200mm 2.8 L would be wonderful, but it's a little out of your price range.


You might take a look at the 100mm 2.8's (Macro or not). The non-L macro version takes great pics and is well under your budget, but the focal length may be too long (then there's the new L version that fits right on your budget). You could also look at the 50mm and 85mm 1.4's and 1.8's... you might even be able to get one of each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

In all seriousness, it sounds to me like you need more reach but not at the expense of speed. I would have recommended the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS but, with your budgetthis lens fits the bill

---

Well, sorta. First, let me say that I own and use a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, but I've found that it is overkill for many uses. It's expensive, heavy (3.5 pounds!), bulky, and requires 77mm filters (more expensive--a good 77mm CPL can cost $85-225). It's not as "good" a lens as the 70-200mm f/4L and especially the f/4L IS (both of which I've used--I still use the f/4L IS), which is actually cheaper than the non-IS f/2.8L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holeysox

I've found my 18-55 a bit short and I am unable to get a shot of my kid on the rides with his mom.

---

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

---

That would work, but, as it's outdoors, f/2.8 probably isn't needed. See below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holeysox

I was also unable to use the 18-55 at his first birthday party as it was indoors and to avoid using flash I ended up mounting the 30mm 1.4.

---

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holeysox

With the 30mm I was able to get most of the group shots but none of the candid close ups.

---

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

---

The 70-200mm may be too long for that use. On holeysox's XSi, that would be equivalent to 112-420mm. 112mm could be too long for most indoor shots, unless the room is large. Also, f/2.8 may be a bit slow, depending upon the circumstances. His (assuming that holeysox is male--he referred to "my kid" and "his mom" on a ride) 30mm and 50mm lenses are 2 stops faster than the 70-200mm f/2.8L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holeysox

My budget is about $1300 CDN

---

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

---

I don't know what the price would be in Canada. The 70-200mm f/2.8L (non IS) is $US 1330 at B&H. Converting that comes to $CDN 1376. The 70-200mm f/4L IS is $US 1210, $CDN 1252, for example.


It sounds like holeysox needs a longer lens for outdoors, but not a fast long lens, unless he needs to stop action in dim light. (I use my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS only for indoor horse shows. For outdoor shows, it stays home and I use the much lighter (and better quality!) 70-200mm f/4L IS or, if circumstances require, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, plus a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS.


Here are some possibilities, with prices at B&H in $US and their weight in oz (without tripod collars), in addition to those that holeysox listed:

• EF-S 18-200mm IS f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $595; 21 oz
  
• new EF-S 18-135mm IS f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $500; 16.1 oz
  
• EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM @ 200; 13.2 oz
  
• EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM @ $410; 19.1 oz
  
• EF 70-200mm f/4L @ $660; 24.9 oz
  
• EF 70-200mm f/4L IS @ $1210; 26.8 oz
  

Each has advantages and disadvantages, of course. Some considerations that may or may not be important for holeysox:

• Weight & convenience. It can be a pain to carry a big, heavy lens, especially if you also have to carry another shorter lens. You can easily lose a great shot in the time it takes to change lenses. That would make the 18-135mm & 18-200mm quite attractive for trips to the park, zoo, etc. The 18-200mm can also be a great lens for travel or any other time you want to carry only one lens.
  
• Image quality would be an advantage of the L lenses, but at the expense of cost, weight, and convenience.
• Full-time manual focus is not available on the two EF-S lenses.
• IS can be a real help.
• Filter size might be an issue, though only the 28-105mm uses the same size filter (58mm) as any of holeysox's current lenses (50mm f/1.4)
• If full-frame compatibility is an issue (e.g.., if holeysox is considering a 5D), then the EF lenses would be better choices than the EF-S.

I'm not sure if holeysox really needs a much longer lens for his indoor shots--his 50mm f/1.4 lens might do the trick, plus there's also a little trick called "cropping."[:D] If he does need a bit more length and fast speed, the 85mm f/1.8 ($439) might fit the bill, though, like the 70-200mm, it could be too long for his needs.


If holeysox needs a flash that rotates (helps with bouncing--that's about all), the Canon 430EX II at $280 would be a good choice. Slightly cheaper and a bit more powerful and flexible is the Sigma EF-530 DG Super, at $219.


Here are possible choices that fit within holeysox's budget ($CDN 1300 = $US 1258)

• EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $410 for outdoors
  
• EF 85mm f/1.8 @ $439 for tight/longer shots indoors (including some indoor sports) if he really needs it
  
• 430EX II @ $280 - better flash
  
• Total = $1129

• EF 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $595 for outdoors (well, actually, most anything in good light)
  
  
• EF 85mm f/1.8 @ $439
  
  
• Sigma EF-530 DG Super @ $219 - cheaper than 430EX II
  
  
• Total = $1253

Check Bryan's reviews of these lenses. If holeysox wants to "replace" his kit lens for everyday use, he might choose the new 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS instead of the 28-135mm, but I'd wait until we see thorough reviews, as this is a brand-new design.


One last thing: while the "L" lenses usually (not always!*) have better image quality and are noted for their sturdiness, they may not be the best choice for everyone. They're expensive, heavy, expensive, bulky, expensive, and usually need large filters (72-77mm)--and, did I mention that they're expensive? For many people, the mid-range (in cost) lenses can provide a significant step up from the kit lens at a much lower cost and lighter weight, especially for 1.6x body users.


*One exception, according to Bryan's reviews, is the EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which appears to have as good or even better image quality than the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L or 17-40mm f/4L or even the 24-70mm f/2.8L at comparable lengths and apertures. It uses the same glass as L lenses, but in a less-sturdy body. It's one of my favorite lenses.

The 24-70 f/2.8 L is not a very good value on a crop body, because most of the money goes into paying for the part of the image circle that you're not using (because you're not full frame). A lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 L, on the other hand, gives you the full bang for the buck. I'm sure you've already considered lenses like the 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2, and 200mm f/2.8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

The 24-70 f/2.8 L is not a very good value on a crop body, because most of the money goes into paying for the part of the image circle that you're not using (because you're not full frame). A lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 L, on the other hand, gives you the full bang for the buck. I'm sure you've already considered lenses like the 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2, and 200mm f/2.8.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Could you explain that a bit further? The image circles will be the same size for both lenses, I expect.


OTOH, I agree that the 24-70mm f/2.8L may not be a great choice for many 1.6x body users. It doesn't go that "wide"--the equivalent of 38-112 on a full-frame camera. Indeed, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS--27-88m full frame equivalent--was apparently designed to fill the same niche for 1.6x cameras as the 24-70 does for full frame. The fact that the 17-55mm has L-quality glass is a major clue.


From a focal-length standpoint, the 17-85mm or new 15-85mm might be better, but they are slower by 1-2 stops. For many uses, however, they would work well, especially if one would benefit more from IS than from full-time manual focus and doesn't need action-stopping fast shutter speeds in low light.


For holeysox's purposes, long primes may not be that useful, if he's primarily concerned with shooting indoors in available light, unless he's shooting sports or similar activities at longer distances than in a typical room. I have three of the four Daniel mentions, missing only the 135mm f/2, though I'll be selling the 200mm f/2.8L now that I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. I often photograph horse shows in indoor arenas. Some are well-lit and a f/2.8 lens is fine, but others are poorly-lit and I really need the fast primes to avoid motion blur. I've used 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 II, 85mm f/1.8, and 100mm f/2. I bought a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.4, but haven't had the opportunity to use either extensively where it would be "required."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

The 24-70 f/2.8 L is not a very good value on a crop body, because most of the money goes into paying for the part of the image circle that you're not using (because you're not full frame)...

---

I don't get that either. The 24-70 just turns into a 38-112 on a 1.6 body. Likewise the 70-200 is really a 112-320.



Personally I think 38-112mm at 2.8 (but no IS) is pretty dang good for what he's trying to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Slusher

Could you explain that a bit further? The image circles will be the same size for both lenses, I expect.

---

I think the idea is that image circles are more difficult to attain with shorter focal length lenses, and thus it is more of a shame to waste image circle with a short lens. Another way of putting the same thing is that an EF-S lens 24-70 would be much easier to make (and much cheaper) than the EF counterpart, while an EF-S 70-200 would not be.


Yet another way of saying the same thing is that there is probably exists EF-S lens that will give more performance for the dollar on a crop body than the 24-70, which is exactly what you concluded about the 17-55.


(I'm sure Daniel can answer this better than I can. But I'm stuck proctoring a math test and have nothing better to do[:)])

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Slusher

It's not as "good" a lens as the 70-200mm f/4L

---

George, be careful


We 70-200 f2.8L non IS and IS users are watching you...[:D]


That's a very difficult statement to substaintiate. It really depends on what you consider to be "good". If it's the lighter weight, tack sharp imaging @ f4 and resonable price tag then you may have somewhat of an argument. Unfortunately, you'll never gain a full stop of speed in low light shooting nor ever see the bokeh and isolation that af2.8 aperture can provide. Bang for the absolute buck, I'll pick the f2.8L over the f4L any day. But that's me. It is the portrait zoom of portrait zooms. If I shoot zoomed landcscapes @ f8 then yeah the f4L version would be better than adequate.

You hit the nail on the head, Jon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Slusher

Could you explain that a bit further? The image circles will be the same size for both lenses, I expect.

---

Yes, the image circle size is the same between the 24-70 and 70-200, but the difference is that the 70-200 gets it for free, whereas you have to really pay for it with the 24-70. In other words, longer focal lengths result in large image circles as a necessary part of their construction. Short ones don't, and so they require expensive lens designs (retro focal) to get the image circle large enough. And if the lens needs to cover 2.56X more area, that can add up to a lot of expense (and/or lower quality).

Compare the 18-55 IS with the 17-40 f/4 L on a 50D

The $150 kit lens beats the $770 L in resolution at several focal lengths and f-numbers, despite the fact that it costs 4.5X less! The reason for this is that the L must be able to cover a much larger sensor size. The 24-70 provides relatively low value on a crop for the same reason.

Of course, if the 24-70 provides the exact focal length that the OP needs, then it doesn't matter if Canon could have built an EF-S version for half the price and twice the quality, because unlike the 17-40, there are no EF-S 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. The reason they do not exist, IMHO, is because most lens makers think the 17-50 range is more useful on APS-C.

In any case, once you get into the longer focal lengths like 70-200, the image circle will cover 35mm without any effort, so there is nothing to be gained by building an EF-S version.

IMO, Die EF-S [:P]



I was praying that 7D was a FF ;) But now I'm stuck buying a 5D II this weekend hopefully ...


Forget my previous recommendation.. get a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM .. then you have all the reach you need covered [6]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hotsecretary

But now I'm stuck buying a 5D II this weekend hopefully

---

I wish I was stuck having to buy a 5D MkII.


We discussed this before. EF-S is not going away. It is very useful for many.


Take deep breaths Kenny, deep breaths........it's OK....[:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Slusher

It's not as "good" a lens as the 70-200mm f/4L

---

George, be careful


We 70-200 f2.8L non IS and IS users are watching you...[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]


That's a very difficult statement to substaintiate. It really depends on what you consider to be "good". If it's the lighter weight, tack sharp imaging @ f4 and resonable price tag then you may have somewhat of an argument. Unfortunately, you'll never gain a full stop of speed in low light shooting nor ever see the bokeh and isolation that af2.8 aperture can provide. Bang for the absolute buck, I'll pick the f2.8L over the f4L any day. But that's me. It is the portrait zoom of portrait zooms. If I shoot zoomed landcscapes @ f8 then yeah the f4L version would be better than adequate.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Chuck, did you note that I said that I own and use both a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS? I've shot over 500 images with each lens, so I have some idea of what they do and the advantages/disadvantages of each. (Have you used both extensively?) If I have a choice, I'll use the f/4L IS. I can actually refute one of your statements, about low light shooting--see below. Again, if you haven't actually used both lenses, you may not realize the major difference in IS performance. Remember that the f/2.8L IS was introduced in 2001, the f/4L IS in 2006, so it benefitted from 5 years advance in technology.


Where the f/2.8L IS has an advantage:

1. Action-stopping in low light. That's why I got the f/2.8L IS, as I often shoot horse shows in poorly-lit indoor arenas. I need 1/400 sec or faster to get a galloping horse's legs to not be noticeably blurred. I can keep the body from blurring by panning with the horse, but the legs move quite fast relative to the horse's body. Even so, it's not fast enough for some arenas, so I use faster primes.
   
2. Isolation, as you said, but that depends upon what you shoot. It may or may not be that useful and depends a lot upon the distance (well, actually upon the size of the image of the subject). The f/4 lens may be just fine at longer distances. For portraits, 70mm @ 8 ft and f/2.8 with a 1.6x body gives a DOF of 0.42 ft (5 inches). That's great for isolation, but it can put part of the person out of focus, as well. In the same situation, f/4 gives a DOF of 0.59 ft or 7 inches. That's a small difference. FWIW, backing off and using a longer focal length will give you the SAME DOF. 140mm @ 16 ft also gives 0.42 ft at f/2.8, 0.59 ft at f/4.
   
3. Bokeh. The background will be a bit more out of focus with the f/2.8L IS @ f/2.8, but how often do you use f/2.8?
4. Ruggedness. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is a tank (and weighs almost as much as one!).
   
5. Autofocus in low light.

If you are really serious, #s 1, 2, 3, and 5 above would be good arguments for fast primes. I've read that serious wedding photographers like the 85mm f/1.2L, for example, and indoor sports can benefit from fast primes, if the distance doesn't change very much. In photographing games (barrel racing, pole bending, etc) at horse shows, I usually choose one spot on the course to shot and pick the lens (and my location, as much as I can) to fit. Up in the stands, I've used 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2. I have gone down to the floor level and used 35mm f.2 and 50m f/1.8. (I need to try out my 30m f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 for this.)


Where the f/4L IS has an advantage:

1. Handheld in low light with stationary subjects. I'm not the only one who has found that the f/4L IS can get good results at lower shutter speeds than the f/2.8L IS does. I've made direct comparisons--same subject, same light (within minutes), same camera, same techniques, etc. I was able to get at least one stop (often more) slower shutter speeds with the f/4L IS at f/4 than with the f/2.8L IS at f/2.8, so it more than makes up that stop. Check Ken Rockwell's results for the f/4L IS @ f/4 and f/2.8L IS @ f/2.8. Ken gives the slowest shutter speed where he got at least 50% "perfectly sharp" images. At 70mm, it was 1/8 sec for the f/2.8L IS, 1/3 sec for the f/4L IS. That's more than 1 stop better. At 200mm, it was 1/30 sec for the f/2.8L IS but 1/11 sec for the f/4L IS, again, more than one stop better. One other advantage: the f/4L IS is tripod-sensing; the f/2.8L IS is not. You need to remember to turn it off when it's on a tripod or you can get some odd results.
   
2. Sharpness. The 70-200mm f/4L IS is reported to be the sharpest zoom Canon makes and may be the sharpest zoom, period. See Ken's review as well as Bryan's.
   
3. Carrying it around. The f/2.8L IS weighs roughly 56 oz, the f/4L IS about 26 oz, nearly 2 pounds difference. (If you add in the hood and tripod ring, the difference becomes a bit greater.) This is non-trivial, especially if you carry the camera on a strap around your neck. (I have a way that makes it less of a burden, necessitated by walking around with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at horse shows and the almost-as-heavy (6 oz less) 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS for nature/wildlife photography.)
   
4. Ergonomics. It's easy to spin the zoom ring on the f/4L IS with the fingers of my right hand on my 30D + battery grip. Can't do that with the f/2.8L IS. It's also easier to handle because the balance point isn't so far forward.
   
5. Minimum focus distance. f/2.8L IS is 51", magnification 0.17; f.4L IS is 47" and 0.21. Neither is a "macro" lens, but the f/4L is a tiny bit better in this regard. It can be useful if I'm shooting an outdoor horse show and find an interesting flower. When I'm trekking around for nature photography, I'll have either a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens or a Canon 77mm 500D close-up lens (and step-up ring).
   
6. Autofocus speed is a bit faster and more stable for me with the f/4L IS, given adequate light, but the difference is minor.
   

Which lens is "better" will, thus, depend upon what you're using it for, irrespective of the cost. For example, when shooting outdoor horse shows, f/2.8 would provide better isolation, but it might also make it harder to ensure good focus over the main subject, which can easily be 8+ feet long/deep and moving a up to 20 mph.

Daniel &amp; Jon:


Thanks for the crystal-clear explanation. That's essentially what I thought might be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

The reason they do not exist, IMHO, is because most lens makers think the 17-50 range is more useful on APS-C.

---

I expect that you're correct. The 17-55mm or 18-55mm covers almost the same "framing" range on the APS-C bodies as the ever-popular 28-80 or 28-90mm lenses did on 35mm cameras. When I bought my first Canon SLR, a Rebel 2000, it came with two cheap Sigma lenses, 28-80mm and 70-300mm. (I had been using two Minolta bodies--XD11 and XP470, but they and all my lenses were stolen.) I still have them, as they're hardly worth trying to sell, but that package is still available. I may end up donating/loaning them to a 4-H member. I've already done that with the Sigma 28-300mm lens I bought immediately after I got the 30D with the kit lens (non-IS at the time). Little did I guess, then, that, less than 2 years later, I would have bought 20 more lenses plus two extenders. (I gotta get around to selling the ones that have become redundant.)

<div>



<div>





<span>Thanks to everyone who provided comments. They are all
useful and in some cases you folks have offered an option I haven't thought
about ... such as purchasing a EFS 18-200 3.5-5.6 IS along with a EF 85 1.8 and
a new flash. =)<o:p></o:p>


<span>I'm afraid after reading all the comments, I've narrowed it down
to the "classic" choice between the 24-70 and the 24-105. And
I'm heavily favoring the 24-70 because of the f2.8 ...<o:p></o:p>


<span>Now, I know there have been countless threads on comparing the two
so I won't take you guys down that road again ... but here are my reasons:<o:p></o:p>


<span>1) I don't mind changing lens while I'm at an indoor location.
Having different lenses is the reason why I bought a DSLR. I usually
set up my "base" in some corner and go through the various lenses
I've brought with me and get a different style of shot throughout the day.
This does mean thatoccasionallyI will miss a candid shot here
and there because I don't have the right lens on my camera. Hence, my original
comment about using the 30 1.4 at my kids birthday.<o:p></o:p>


<span>I do, however, hate changing lenses when I am outdoors and running
about with my kid. <o:p></o:p>


<span>This means I cannot consider any of the 70-200 lenses for this
particular purchase. It will probably be the purchase after this one and
use it for when he starts playing hockey! =) And I will probably be saving up
for the 2.8LIS ... <o:p></o:p>


<span>2) Having to go to a f5.6 or f6.3 on the long end is also out of
the question. Although my kid is not as fast as a horse around a track or
a basketball player on the court, he RARELY sits still. The lighting is
also rarely adequate in places like the local McDonalds indoor playground or
the theme park at dusk. I will need something faster than a f5.6. I
guess in some cases even f2.8 won't be enough.<o:p></o:p>


<span>When you couple that reason with the fact that I hate to change
lenses when I'm out and about, that means that the option of EFS 18-200, 15-85,
17-85 combo with long prime is out of the question. Although they are all
excellent focal lengths, I&rsquo;m afraid they are just not fast enough.<o:p></o:p>


<span>3) For what I'm shooting, I don't need it to be wider than 24mm;
that&rsquo;s even when considering my 1.6X crop factor. The reason I came to
this conclusion is because I find my 30mm adequate for most of the group shots
of my family and friends. Any wider than 24mm would be for when I'm
travelling with my wife and taking architectural or landscapes shots during the
day ... and that is rare enough that I'm willing to live with my 18-55 IS.
I know it's a kit lens and all, but I really find the sharpness to be
adequate for my amateur landscape photography. The only regret is buying
a $100 CPL filter for a $100 kit lens; just doesn't seem worth it ... but
that's another thread. ;)<o:p></o:p>


<span>This means the 24-70 is wide enough and adds another (70X1.6 -
55X1.6) 22mm on the long end compared to my kit lens. I just wish there
were places where I can rent lenses in Vancouver .... because I need to find
out if (70X1.6) 112mm is long enough for what I'm shooting.<o:p></o:p>


<span>My only remaining questions is to IAMB since he/she has had a
positive experience in using the 24-105 in a poorly lit gym shooting a
basketball game .... is it really good enough for stop action indoor
photography? I know for sure that f5.6 is too slow but is f4 fast enough?<span> If it is, I wouldn&rsquo;t mind getting the extra
(35X1.6) 56mm beyond the 24-70.<o:p></o:p>


<span>Thanks again to all who have posted!<o:p></o:p>

</div>



</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hotsecretary

But now I'm stuck buying a 5D II this weekend hopefully

---

I wish I was stuck having to buy a 5D MkII.


We discussed this before. EF-S is not going away. It is very useful for many.


Take deep breaths Kenny, deep breaths........it's OK....[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Good one! I expect that EF-S cameras outsell full-frame--or even full-frame plus the 1.3x 1D--by an order of magnitude or more. I've been to several "photography" stores that don't even stock the 5D, much less the 1D or 1Ds, but they push the Rebels and consider the 50D their "top" Canon camera. The reason is pretty obvious--lots more folks will be in the market for a $500 Rebel XS, $627 Rebel XSi, $785 Rebel T1i, or even $1215 50D (all with the most-common kit lenses) than the $2700 5D (body only!) or $3700 1D, much less the [:O] $6,115 1Ds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Slusher

Chuck, did you note that I said that I own and use both a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS? I've shot over 500 images with each lens, so I have some idea of what they do and the advantages/disadvantages of each. (Have you used both extensively?) If I have a choice, I'll use the f/4L IS. I can actually refute one of your statements, about low light shooting--see below. Again, if you haven't actually used both lenses, you may not realize the major difference in IS performance. Remember that the f/2.8L IS was introduced in 2001, the f/4L IS in 2006, so it benefitted from 5 years advance in technology.

---

George,


I stand officially refuted.


Thanks for your in-depth comparison. When I decide to step up to a IS version of the 70-200 I will definitely give the f4 version much more consideration. It may possibly be the betterchoice for a 5D FF body. I do shoot alot at f2.8 with my non-IS version but prefer f4 asthe default.

I've got following lenses:


24-105 f4 IS USM, 24-70 f2.8 USM, 70-200 f4 IS USM and 70-200 f2.8 IS USM etc...., my suggestion buy all above :P all great lenses ! All for different use~ If you onlycan getone lens for FF body, 24-105 f4 IS USM will do. For 1.6x body and not thinking upgrade FF body in the future, I will get EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM.


Just wanna mention 24-105 f4 IS USM to stop action indoor may require high ISO up to 800~1600 with speed 1/250 or 1/320~


Buying lenses just never end story~~

I'd go with


3) EF 24-105 4L - great length but maybe too slow for my kid when indoors


...in conjunction with your flash, you should be good - maybe get a Gary Fong slip on to soften the flash. This lens is great with a decent reach and nice Bokeh. If you wish I can submit some photos to you for you to compare that I have taken in low lightusing flash.


Hope this helps...

24-105 is what I would recommend. its very sharp, and a great lense all around


-e

EF 50mm F1.4 USM