Advice on future lens collection

Hi, this is my first post here. I've been reading the forums here for quite a while, and finally decided to join today. Very nice forum for Canon shooters. :-)


Lately I've been trying to decide on my future lens collection. I mostly shoot landscapes, nature, and family but enjoy wildlife, sports, and practically everything else. I enjoy macro shooting too, but I don't do it often enough to purchase a macro lens. Right now I think this is the basic idea of what I eventually want:
Canon 10-22
Canon 50 1.8 -- already own this lens
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC
Canon 85 1.8 (only if I decide on 200 2.8 prime?)
(Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS) or (200 2.8 prime)
Canon 400 5.6 -- most likely won't ever get to purchasing this one, but instead rent it when I want it
1.4x extender for the 200 zoom/prime


I'm not going to be purchasing any of this soon, but it's fun to dream for now. I'm starting to save up for either the 10-22 or the 200 zoom/prime right now. This will all be on a Canon 20D.. most likely won't be upgrading to full frame anytime soon (maybe never... :P).


So anyways, what do you think of the lenses I've selected? I'm having trouble deciding between the 70-200 2.8 and the 200 2.8 prime. The difference in optical quality is there, but I don't see it to be a huge difference. Both are excellent glass. Do you think the 85 and 200 prime combo would be too limiting compared to the 70-200? I like the 85 and 200 because they are small and black... doesn't attract near as much attention as the big white 70-200 2.8. But the 70-200 would cover both ranges with just one lens.. and very near the quality of the primes. What would your decision be and why? If I decided on the 70-200, do you think I should still pick up the 85?


Any other advice on my choices? If you can suggest changes that would remove or change lenses (and therefore cost), that's what I'm looking for.


Thanks,
Derrick

Welcome!


Looking at your lens choices:


I think the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 is a great lens for landscapes, and with a minimum focus distance of 9.5" you can get some interesting macro-like perspectives on nature shots by placing some interesting feature in the close foreground.


Can't speak for the Tamron 17-50, but the focal range is nice and a constant f/2.8 is great for indoor shooting. I love my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens!


I also have the EF 85mm f/1.8 - this is a great lens for close-up portraits and low light shots (i.e. school plays, indoor sports).





For the 70-200 zooom, my guess is you'll generally get more use out of a 70-200 zoom than the 85 + 200 primes. I suspect if I had gone for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens first (which is on my wish list), I might not have purchased the 85mm prime (but in fact, I'm holding out for a Mk II version of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, hoping for a January announcement). In practice with your camera, I doubt you'd notice the IQ difference between zoom and prime at 200mm, so the main consideration would be cost and the size/weight of the zoom, versus the increased flexibility. How much of your sports is shot indoors? I ask because if you shoot outdoors mostly, you may be better off with the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS over the f/2.8L non-IS, for a similar cost. Outdoors the loss of a stop of light will not penalize youtoomuch (iffy for high-speed sports, though), and the tradeoff is increased hand holding capability for your landscapes and nature shots.


You could also consider a 500D close-up lens for the 70-200mm zoom, which would give you near-macro capability (a little over 0.5x) for much less $ than a true macro lens.


Good luck with your choices!

first, why dont you tell us what do you already have, so we can continue. if you take 70-200 you can forget taking photos inside. not wide enough .


i had to decide too about shall i keep my 18-55IS and take Sigma 70-200, or will i buy better wide lens. so i bought tamron 17-50 2.8


its more useful than 70-200.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

I'm not going to be purchasing any of this soon, but it's fun to dream for now. I'm starting to save up for either the 10-22 or the 200 zoom/prime right now. This will all be on a Canon 20D.. most likely won't be upgrading to full frame anytime soon (maybe never... :P).

---

For the sports, family, and event shooting you'll do, you'll probably find that by the time you have three lenses, maybe four, you'll be ready for a second camera. It might be another 20D, though I suspect more like a 50D, but choose wisely from the options at your disposal when that time comes.


My other advice is that it's good to dream, but it's also good to focus on the one lens (or item) you'll buy next. I have the 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200/2.8IS, and 50/1.8. I know my next purchase is a second camera body. After that, maybe the 24-70 (the 24-105 would go to my girlfriend, so I won't be gaining much overall), or the 35/1.4, or the 300/4IS.

neuroanatomist, thanks for your welcome. I agree with your thoughts concerning the 10-22. I think it will be my favorite lens to use by far. My father has the Tamron 17-50, so I've had the chance to use it a few times. Very nice lens. On the ISO charts it is comparable and sometimes better than the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS in sharpness. Though I am wondering if I will really need this range of focal length when I already have the 50 f/1.8, and mostly use the wide end of the zoom anyways. It is definitely last on the priority list. Concerning the 70-200 zoom, I think I agree with you that I would get more use out of it than the 85+ 200 primes... my biggest concern is that it'll get too much attention. I'll have to test and see what times I will want to use that focal length... if it will be a problem in public or not. I shoot sports rarely, and it's all been outdoors. I've considered the f4, but I think I've decided f2.8 is what I want in this focal range. The f4 does work for outdoor sports easily most of the time, but I think I will use f2.8 much more often. My mind is bound to change some more though... 4 stops of IS is definitely helpful for nature shots. I have forgotten about the 500D close-up lens... I will definitely consider that. Thanks for your advice.


Deva207, right now I own the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS and the EF 50mm f/1.8 lenses. I think I will sell my 17-85 when I purchase the 10-22.


peety3, yes you're probably right... especially since right now I only have 4-5 lenses on my list right now. It's almost impossible to tell what camera I will want to buy that far in the future... I'm sure by then there will be at least a 7D mark III. Hopefully I will still think the camera bodies of today are good. :P Thanks for your advice.





Thanks,
Derrick

I just got my Ef-S 10-22 just this month and it works like charm. Perfect when there's not enough room to move to take pics of groups in a party.





I have to suggest on getting the Ef 70-200 f2.8. Less lens change = less dust on the camera/lens. If you're still afraid it may stick out, have you considered Lenscoats? You can cover your 70-200 with black if you want to. I'll be getting one for my Ef 24-70 2.8 cause it looks cooler in digital camo [:D]

I have considered lens coats, but I personally think it will still stand out... it's a big lens. I don't mind it standing out at sporting events... people are usually used to photographers with big white lenses at a game. And I probably won't find much use for it in places where I wouldn't want attention, so it may not be as much of a problem as I think. In most cases, it would definitely be nicer having the zoom instead of the two primes.





Thanks,
Derrick

There's been a lot of good advice here. I'd just add one consideration.


I'm all about being discrete, and the attention grabbed by shooting with my 70-200 can be a hinderence if you want candids. HOWEVER, the "serious business" look of it provides some serious credibility. You can get strangers to pose for you lickity-split. I've been able to finagle photo passes at events on two separate occasions with a little fast-talk and a this lens on my hip (both of which required either press affiliation or pre-application). You hold this thing over your head at a show, and the crow parts with greater ease-- they assume you're up to something important, maybe even official. Heck, I once got stopped after shooting photos of a abandoned-condemned power plant: I have dyed hair and some facial piercings, but seeing the camera, I swear, put security off their guard-- artists are just not threatening.





You could claim that the effect is psychological, and you really might be right. But I'm inclined to say it has an implicit meaning that changes the way people react to a camera. It's an engrained symbol artist-status, the way somebody solving a rubix cube implies to observers that they must be very clever.

New question...


What do you think of the 70-200 f/4L IS with a flash in comparison with the 70-200 f/2.8L (with or without flash)? For indoor family shooting or most any low-light situations? I'm thinking that if I have a flash anyways, maybe I don't really need the f2.8 and would rather have 4 stops of IS on the f4. I know there may be situations where I wouldn't have time to get out a flash, and f2.8 would be nice, but the IS would definitely be useful for the majority of my shooting. Then I could even add a f2.8 or faster prime lens (85, 135, or 200) down the road for when I don't want to (or can't) use a flash. Just a thought.


So many things to think about... I'm starting to see why many just go full blast and purchase the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. ;)





Thanks,
Derrick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

What do you think of the 70-200 f/4L IS with a flash in comparison with the 70-200 f/2.8L (with or without flash)? For indoor family shooting or most any low-light situations?

---

Hope you have big rooms in your house, or are planning on shooting mainly closeups of your family. 70-200 is a little on the long side for shooting in typical rooms, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Hope you have big rooms in your house, or are planning on shooting mainly closeups of your family. 70-200 is a little on the long side for shooting in typical rooms, IMO.

---

True, so I guess mainly compare the two options for tighter portraits. I'm thinking usually you'd want a flash in this case anyways... so f2.8 wouldn't be necessary. For now I'm leaning more towards the f4 IS... though I guess I don't need to worry about it until after my 10-22 purchase. Maybe by then the f2.8 IS will be around $1000 since the mark II version will be coming out. ;)


Thanks for all of your advice.





Derrick