Which L Lens?

<span>I&rsquo;m a college photographer, who is looking to invest in some high-quality lenses. While I shoot various things - people, landscapes, ect. - I spend most of my time photography collegiate sporting events.





<span>I am curious to hear your thoughts about the following lenses I&rsquo;m contemplating purchasing...


<span>- Canon 16-35 mm f/2.8 L II USM


<span>- Canon 24-70 mm f/2.8 L USM


<span>- Canon 180 mm f/3.5 L USM


<span>


<span>I currently have:


<span>- Canon 50D


<span>- Canon 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS


<span>- Canon 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS


<span>Canon Extender EF 2x II


<span>


<span>Any thoughts?

What kind of sports? indoor or not?


Anyway, you've got 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, so it sounds like what you need now is some fast prime.

<span>Currently, I&rsquo;m primarily shooting basketball and other indoor sports. When Spring comes along, I&rsquo;ll be shooting outdoor sports - soccer, track, tennis, golf.

he's right. get yourself a fast prime.


no canon photographer should be without the 50mm f/1.4. you will get more bang for your buck than with any other lens. it's the bread-and-butter of the EF lineup, and once you experience the amazing bokeh it provides, you'll be so addicted that you'll want to carry the thing with you everywhere. taking a good portrait with the 50 is like shooting fish in a barrel. with a gun, that is.


from there.. out of the lenses you listed.. i'd put my money on the 16-35mm.. you need a wide-angle in your lineup, and since you're using a crop sensor, the 28-135 doesn't count. wide angle lenses are fun.. try leaving yourself zoomed all the way out, and get right up close on your subjects.. it will give you a whole new perspective, and can sometimes yield a very edgy look.

He said he was shooting sports, I don't see how a wide angle will help. He need more on the tele-end, not the wide end.

that's true.. i guess i was thinking more general purpose with the other things he listed..


really.. all of those would be too slow for sports. i'd say get the 70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS depending on how much $$ you wanna spend. the IS won't help you in a ball game where your subject motion is fast.

correction-- the 24-70 would be fine, but still short for sports

He also said he own a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS already - read again.

Thanks for all your advice. I really appreciate it. Any additional thoughts?

For outdoor sports with big fields (soccer) you may want to consider the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L. It's range is unbeatable. Like many other posters said, I would consider a fast prime as well you back up your 70-200 f/2.8 for indoor sports. You can pick up the 50 /1.4 for about $350. It's L counterpart is well over $1,000.

for indoor sports I would get the 135 f2...plus you have the 2x. The 135 is an awesome lens, even with the 2x, but since you have a crop(50D), you really won't need it. you already have the 70-200

YOU DO NOT NEED AN L LENS TO MAKE A GOOD INVESTMENT LET ALONE GOOD PHOTOGRAPHS. Sorry, had to get that out of the way. If you are not planning on going FF I'd pick up the EF-S 17-55 over the
24-70 for a midrange zoom. I'd also seriously consider an 85/1.8 for
indoor sports (50/1.4 is too slow AF wise and the 135/2 is too long for most indoor sports on a crop body) as well as any of these: 300/4IS+1.4x TC, 400/5.6, 100-400 or Sigma 100-300/4+1.4x TC for outdoor field sports. You may also want to consider a second body (30D or 40D).





p.s. You do know the 180L is a macro lens--right?

as well i would suggest the 50 1.4 it makes a grreat b-ball lens indoors provided you can get to the sidelines ..if you can you may also want to cinsider the EF-S 17-55f2.8


It is L quality in terms of IQ and would be an L lens but for some of the amterials used in the body. I think the fact that it EF-S mount kind of precludes it from being called an L lens as those with the FF bodys may get upset(LOL)





cheers

I think the 24-70L will make the most sense to have if you plan on replacing the 28-135 lens. I have the 24-70 and it works great overall. As far as I concern this lens is not too long, even on 50D. It's perfect for portraiture on a 1.6x body throughout 50-70mm though.


The 16-35L II willgive more wide angle for sureand it's going to be a good choice if you want to keep your 28-135. However, for such a lens probably you need a full frame body to get the best out of it. Things will become "weird" when it's 16mm, not 25mm equivalent. I use the 16-35L II too, it's a fantastic lens and gives unique perspective.


The 180L is sort of Macro only in my mind. if one is not very intense on doing macro, such a lens will not make too much sense to have. Just my very personal opinion[:)]

I think 300 F4 would do awesome.





Very fast and very accurrate, the price isn't bad

Here's what we use for Basketball, football, baseball, soccer and every other sport we cover at TriDuo:


70-200 2.8 (some use IS, some don't, i'm the latter)


28-70/24-70


24-105 (the boss hogs this lens)


300 2.8 (great for soccer, though it can over shoot on a smaller field.)


1.4 TC


17-55


17-40


Not all are used at each event, but the 70-200 and one of the mid zooms are our bread and butter. For events like Basketball, indoors and on the court, depending on your position, a prime would be more of a hindrance unless you have a zoom on a 2nd body, which it looks like you do not have. Go with a decent wide and you'll be fine. Don't limit yourself to L either, I know plenty for full time sports photogs who make kick arse shots with "cheap" equipment and 3rd party glass.