Re-thinking Lens Choices... or, If I knew then...

My current equipment:


Body: 50D, Lenses: 10-22, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS.


My subjects:

• Bicycling race photograpy (www.bkingfoto.com) pays some bills.
• Family portraits: 6 month old baby girl Julia Anne (www.bkingfoto.com/Julia)
• Travel photography

While I am generally very happy with the 24-105 and the 70-200 I have, I am considering if I would be significantly better off to have f/2.8 glass for the general purpose and 70-200 lenses. I could probably financially justify replacing the 24-105 with either the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8, and replacing my 70-200 f/4 IS with the non-IS f/2.8 version.


Here is my analysis:


Pros: The 2.8 lenses would improve the autofocus for the fast action shots for bike racing, and would be better for available light family portraits of my little girl.


Cons: Cost, hassle, giving up IS, and the physical size of the 70-200 2.8 is a negative for me for a travel lens. I really like that my entire kit fits nicely in a Slingshot 200 bag!


I know a future body will have a better focus system that should benefit my race photography, on the other hand, no matter what body the future brings my way, I assume the focusing would always benefit from having faster glass.

If you want faster glass, you might want to consider the 135mm f/2.0l usm. It more or less covers all three of your interest IMHO. If you want a zoom, I suggest waiting on the 17-55 or 24-70 and instead buying an IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8. There are two versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 (I & II), and you can decide which fits your budget.


brednan

Actually the 85mm 1.8 is currently at the top of my wish list as an additional lens, but right now I'm more specifically considering trading my existing zooms for the others I mentioned.

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes, so in that case you're gonna miss your IS a lot! I don't know about the 85mm...it doesn't have usm, so for sports?? I don't know.


I own the 70-200 f4L non IS, for a sportslens it is absolutely great, but if you want to use it elsewhere, the higher shuttertime to handhold it is a pain in the ass every time again.





17-55 by the way is really great! Although no weathersealing, so for sports...





Good luck with your choice :P

When I first started out, I had a couple f/4 and a couple fixed f/1.4. I found myself struggling on commercial shoots. I tried to use my fixed lenses but I was constantly changing between them. The f/4 usually didn't give me shallow enough DOF. So I pretty much sold every thing and went 2.8 with 16-35 II, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS.


The 24-70 is the workhorse for what I do. I tried to make the 16-35 "My" lens but I found I was still limited by 2.8 and the 50 1.4 just wasn't fun and didn't have that something, something. So now I have the 35 1.4 and I'm hoping it will have that something, something.


So, I'm of the mind to have the fastest apertures on the most versatile. I usually don't find myself needing IS on short lenses, even when I had the 24-105 I almost always had the IS turned off. 70-200 I find it to be a must have, so I'd say keep the 70-200 f/4 IS if the 2.8 IS is not in the cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I don't know about the 85mm...it doesn't have usm

---

It does have USM, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes

---

completely agree 110%. Never thought of that[:P]

One stop isn't all that much. Now if we were talking 2-3 stops, that would be something else entirely, which means you should look into primes. I know you would rather switch out your existing gear rather than supplement with additional lenses, but I really think you need to consider the benefits of primes for your subject.


If your goal is indoor shots in low light, the IS will be effective for more stops of stabilization than the one-stop increase in aperture from f/4 to f/2.8. If your subject is moving quickly and you need a fast shutter speed at low ISO, then what you would really want is a prime like the 135/2L or even the 100/2 which is much cheaper. You can go even faster if you are willing to forgo some focal length; e.g., 85/1.8, 85/1.2L II, or 50/1.4 (but keep in mind this last lens is quite soft at f/1.4, but it is three full stops faster than f/4).


Just throwing some suggestions out there for you to consider. Personally, I keep going back and forth on the value of my 24-105/4L IS. There are times when I absolutely hate the f/4 and feel like it limits me, or I hate the extending zoom design; and then there are times when I love using this lens because the IS just works so well, and it is the only EF lens that has IS in this focal length range (I'm unable to use EF-S).

I had my 2.8 non-IS and 40D at the London stage of the Tour of Britain 2009 and was very happy I had the extra stop as the finish line was partly in the shade and I wanted to freeze the action. Below is one of my fave pics from that day. I dont agree that freezing the action takes away the emotion as some of the best pics I have seen of sprint finishes have all had high shutter speeds and the emotion is definitely there, especially the pain and when the drop of sweat is frozen. Its probably a more photojournalistic approach then creative but each to their own. I have also added a finish line (intermediate) sprint as an example. I dont find the 40D autofocus limiting though I did come from a Rebel.....


I am not going to pretend that the F2.8 isnt a monster to carry for long periods. I love what it can do with sports/wildlife but when it comes to your other uses listed I would take the 70-200 F4 IS any day. My father has it and I will be borrowing it (and returning it) when I go back to Oz for a friends wedding soon.


My take on the topic is that family and travel are less likely to be moving subjects so the F4 IS versions are going to be more useful (excl the 17-55 from the discussion which is best of both worlds) for your needs (in my opinion). For the cycling the stop would be handy but I personally dont think its worth giving up for the other uses. You are doing quite all right as you are at the moment. I would only say that you could experiment a bit on the composition or shooting angle of the racing shots a bit more. I try to look at lots of pro pics from races, especially the iconic ones to get ideas





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.91/IMG_5F00_4763a.JPG[/img]


40D, 70-200 F2.8 non-IS, F2.8, 1/1600, ISO400, Centre focus point


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.91/IMG_5F00_4863a.JPG[/img]


40D, 70-200 F2.8 non-IS, F2.8, 1/1600, ISO400, Centre focus point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes

---

completely agree 110%. Never thought of that[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

---

24-105 only has one mode IS. No panning mode.

I like the something something on the 35 1.4...


the 85 1.2 has something something wicked, but I use it a lot less. heavy, slow, and the angle of view itself is less interesting than the 35mm.. But, I should probably break it out. It does some nasty nice things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

I like the something something on the 35 1.4...


the 85 1.2 has something something wicked, but I use it a lot less. heavy, slow, and the angle of view itself is less interesting than the 35mm.. But, I should probably break it out. It does some nasty nice things.

---

Yeah I was shooting with the 35 1.4 today. Noting important just trying to feel out the lens and I'm kind of feeling that something something. I for got how nice 1.4 can be. I'd shoot with the 50 1.4 and I just never got too excited about the images. I don't know if it was that the images were too soft at 1.4 but the 35 is tact sharp at 1.4. And the Bokeh is pretty sublime.


If and when I get a new lens it will be the 85 1.2 II.

The sharpness on the 35 1.4 is pretty great. It's not as fantastic as Daniel's 24 1.4 mkII,but it absolutely pounds my 16-35 (first version) 2.8 at 2.8, which I thought was just awesome until I compared it to the 35 1.4...


But it's a combination of it's subjective quality that I really like, combined with the 35mm field of view on full frame that I really dig.


The angle of view yields a perspective which enhances spatial relationships, but not extremely. It allows a lot of playing with different perspectives. You can make things seem farther/smaller, as well as make things look big.


I love the color, and indoors, it soaks up light like a champ. Depth of field control is an obvious benefit, but the feel of the pictures is what makes me happy. Maybe it's something qualitatively about the bokeh. I don't know.


Easy to carry, and can take the casual bump. From an all around use perspective, it's my favorite prime. The 85 1.2 is technically a better lens, and it delivers what it does astoundingly well, but what I get with the 35 1.4 is usually more interesting.

I really like my 16-35 II but it is less than great at 35mm. I think that is the lenses weakest range. My 24-70 is a lot sharper at 35. Plus 2.8 shooting wide just doesn't separate subject from background well enough on wide angle shots.


Not as fantastic as the 24 mkII? Looking at Bryan's crops the 35 and 24II look pretty similar and the 35 actually looks sharper in the center. I just went by the 1.4 setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Not as fantastic as the 24 mkII? Looking at Bryan's crops the 35 and 24II look pretty similar and the 35 actually looks sharper in the center. I just went by the 1.4 setting.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Sorry, my memory is that of an old person, and I don't read Bryan's reviews over and over daily as much as I used to. Maybe it was a CA or flare thing in the corners, or whatever. I think it's probably related to my remembeing Bryan comparing both the 24 and 35 mkI versions as similar in quality, and finding the 24 mkII a significant upgrade. I didn't internalize the knowledge, in part, because I haven't actually found the lens to have a serious limitation in my use. it's exactly as good as I want it. It may be possible to improve on, but there's nothing about it that I have found lacking.


Regardless, I apologize for being wrong. I do that a lot. I apologize almost as much, if I can stay on top of that.


Enjoy your new baby. Don't let my senior moments damp your enthusiasm!


Plus, you can feel good that you made me feel even better about my 35 1.4! You did a good deed! i'm going to go put that on my camera right now!

Colin


No apology necessary. I hope I didn't sound like I was scolding you. Not what I meant. I need to use those happy faces more often. I was hoping to make you feel better about the 35.


I really debated for a while about the 35L since I know a new one is probably on the horizon. I checked to see how it compared with the 24II. When I noticed how it was at least as sharp I knew I'd be happy and also be saving about $400 by not waiting for the 35 mkII.


I remember when I got my 16-35II and did comparisons between it and the 24 mkI. The 24 mkI blew the 16-35 out of the water and the 35 is way sharper than 24 mkI so I'm happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes

---

completely agree 110%. Never thought of that[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

---

24-105 only has one mode IS. No panning mode.

---

Yes that is true Keith, but I was talking about him changing his 70-200 f4 IS for a 70-200 f2.8 non IS, so that's where it came from. And for as far as I know, that lens does have two mode IS. I should have stated that better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I don't know about the 85mm...it doesn't have usm

---

It does have USM, actually.

---

Sorry did not know that, so yes that is a good option. Also consider the 50 1.4 then. It might be a more usable focal length on a crop?








I'm still thinking you should keep the 70-200. Yes the f2.8 gives you the opportunity to stop action, at a shutter speed one stop faster. Also I'd like to point out to jnort002, yes it does stop action in your pictures. But to be very honest, the first picture does not really catch my eye. You say it is a finish-photo, but I couldn't tell that if you hadn't already said that. The second picture though is really nice, it shows the advantage of f2.8. But I assume you do not always take pictures only at the start and finish? During the races it is nice to do some panning once in a while. I always thought cyclers where a pain in the ass to photograph. Always that annoying helmet making big shadows on their faces and they tend to look at the road a lot :P so taking pictures from the front isn't giving me the nice results I want to have. In that case I would rather take a nice panning photo, which shows speed and their face and I know the sportsmen and women do like them! (Especially the amateurs love them very much :D )


Also the 70-200 f4 IS is a much more handhold-able lens for the times you don't shoot sports and could go with a much lower shutter-speed. It's also very sharp at f4, only getting a little better stopping down, so for portraits it is really nice.





About the 24-105 exchange. If you're hungry for more low-light capability, the 17-55 is a nice lens to go with. It benefits from IS and f2.8 so it's really good. So yes it would be a good deal. It isn't wheathersealed, and for outdoors, the 24-105 is probably a nicer focal range. You could go from a familyportrait to a single headshot with one lens. For indoors the 17-55 is really something to think about. I wouldn't go for the 24-70. For as far as I'm concerned, the 17-55 is a really great lens. About the 24-70...really nice lens but I can't justify the cost over the 17-55 and the loss of IS. The 17-55 just takes really good quality pictures. (That is of course not considering the full-frame ability..) Good luck mate

Bryan I took another look at your site. And now I'm really not sure what to say... I think we have different standards. The pictures I think are boring might make you the most of money [:P] I take quality over quantity, but that's also the reason I don't ask money for my pictures, because I can't guarantee that everyone is on a picture. I throw away pictures I find not sharp enough, boring and cut off limbs and helmets and stuff like that. But I know people in general don't think those things matter, so they will buy them whatsoever. I never get it, but that's probably me [:P]


So in that case the 70-200 2.8 might be a good option, but yes you will loose the IS and panning mode which makes the lens really handhold-able(which you choose to be usefull or not). You make money out of it, so you have to start thinking what is more important to you. How you get the most money out of your pictures or how you make the most eye-catching pictures.


Also think about how you focus. If you don't focus on the head with 200mm at f2.8 you might get disappointed by the number of out of focus pictures. I even had that with f4. I was tracking people with centerpoint focus and tried to fill the entire frame, so I focused on the chest of people and even then sometimes the face was slightly out of focus.





The same thing counts for a prime. Yes 1.4 or 1.8 is a nice number, but at a fixed focal length you might miss some shots, which could cost you some money....





Good luck with your choice![:D]

Shelky, unfortunately with the big races and no press pass hanging from my neck[:(], being at a decent position for the finish meant being at the stage an hour before it even started and even then I wasnt the first person there by a long shot. Panning was also painful as people were crammed against the barriers like sardines. As I'd pan left to follow I would hit the telephoto someone was pointing over my shoulder which was annoying. The first pic was just one of the laps but it was my fave pic from the day as you could see the peleton closing in as the sole rider tried in vain to make a breakaway. I was in a diff position for the previous years London stage where I was panning but was using a Rebel and a diff lens so hit rate was very disappointing. I decided this year I wanted the finish line and also to hopefully see big improvements from better kit


I take your point about it being difficult to get decent face pics particularly where there is a blob of riders. Its one of the reasons I prefer criteriums as if you dont get something decent one lap you can try the next

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

we have different standards. The pictures I think are boring

---

Thanks Jan, that was about the most politely anyone has ever said my photos are lousy! At the very least, our objectives are probably different. I shoot for the participants, and my goal is to have at least one shot of each participant that is in focus and hopefully shows their face clearly. My subjects are amateurs and I'm trying to give them something as a memory of their participation. I hope to also provide better photos than what their spouses might capture with their point and shoot or consumer DSLR and kit lens in full-auto mode.


All... My thoughts for "needing" faster than f/4 for the race photography is not necessarily to freeze the action, I doubt that I would be shooting at f/2.8 anyway due to the narrow depth of field, rather, it was to enable the higher focusing accuracy that the f/2.8 allows. I'm suprised nobody has commented on this aspect. Is it not that big of a deal?


After the first several responses to this thread, I was leaning toward ditching the 24-105 in favor of the 24-70, and keeping my 70-200 f/4 IS. Now I'm not so sure. It seems that no matter what there are always going to be compromises unless you have every lens made, and that assumes you have that lens on your body when you need it.

Hey Bryan and Jnort002,





nice quote Bryan, that's how misunderstandings get there [:P]


No I shot a lot of sports last year, but my goal was not to have a normal picture from every person in the contest, but only my "best" pictures. I did it purely for myself. That's really another standard. That is what I was talking about.


To be very honest, I shot some cycling, and yes it is a really hard sport to shoot and no I wasn't content with my pictures. But the pictures I liked from others are mostly OR emotional pictures, like tremendous dedication to get to the finish, getting really tires but still going on etc, OR nicely panned pictures. It shows speed a lot and you still get to see their faces if you do it correctly. Yes it is hard and I haven't had the opportunity to use image stabilizer on my kit.


It's also very hard to make "more special" photo's if the cyclists only pass by one time, so in that case I totally understand you.


So no I don't call any of you lousy. You've got totally different things on your mind than I did. I couldn't care less if I missed a person or two. That's how I could experiment. Plus I chose tyo not make money with it, just to get more out of my shots. If I wasn't satisfied, I just didn't post any photo's at all. But your case is something totally different.


About the f2.8 focusspeed going faster...I never had any trouble with my 70-200 f4. My tamron 17-50 2.8 was twice as slow so....But maybe in lesser lightcondition it does make more of a deal, I don't know.





There are always going to be compromises when buying lenses. There is not 1 lens that fits all photographers needs...I think they call it marketing [:D]





@jnort002,


I do see the large group in the back, but I wasn't there so I don't know what happened...so I don't get that emotion with that picture that you've probably got. That's probably why I think it is boring and you think it's one of your best shots.


I do understand your problem. When it is that busy you can't get a nice space where you got the room to turn around, there is little other option then to stop action.


So I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings...both of you, that was totally not my intention.


I did really like the second picture you took jnort, it shows a battle, thats what I can see even if I only take a quick peek. That's a strong picture.


Same counts for all the perspective Bryan uses on his site. I like how you shoot in the corners, so cyclists look very dynamic. I like things like that that makes pictures look special.


Hope this helps a bit. I really don't think you're lousy photographers, I'm an amateur as well. My cyclists photo's are lousy as well, but I do know what I'd like to make next time, that is what I was trying to explain to you. I learn everytime again. I'm never satisfied with my pictures...maybe I'm just to picky I don't know.

First off, Jan - I'm not offended at all, no apology was necessary. Like you, I am not satisfied with my cycling photos, and only strive to do better, which is why I am inquiring in the first place if I have the wrong lens selection for what I'm doing. I shot several thousand cycling photos in 2009, and there may only be a couple that I really like at all.


Back to initial question though, it seems like nobody feels strongly that I should change lenses for my shooting style or subjects. I'm somewhat relieved. I still have a few primes on my wish list, but at least I don't feel compelled to sell my current lenses and replace them.


Thanks everyone who commented so far! Additional opinions are appreciated, as well as positive or negative criticisim, etc. (I'm pretty thick-skinned)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BryanKing

Additional opinions are appreciated, as well as positive or negative criticisim, etc. (I'm pretty thick-skinned)

---

Thank god [:D] I was thinking it was my european hardness [:P]


One last thing, try to enjoy your photo's. Try to do a trainingsession or something that is not important at all and try to shoot pictures for You in stead of for Them.


I really like the 10mm from the ground perspective. The bike wants to get out of those pictures...really nice. I'm looking forward to see your newer photo's





Jan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I really like the 10mm from the ground perspective.

---

Those are some of my favorites too, but it is a little nerve rattling to sit on the curb on an inside corner with a 10mm in a criterium race. They're going fast, and really, really close!

True that!, but it's worth it!


I cut myself open for this photo, but I really think it's worth it. And believe me, nobody else had such a shot [:D]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.48/27_2D00_Triathlon-Rijssen-140.jpg[/img]

great picture sheiky.

Thank you Colin