2nd (or 3rd) Opinion

I want to take my photography to the next level. For the past few months I have been looking
at purchasing a 7D body with two 8GB CF cards, a battery grip, and an extra
battery. But now that the price of the
7D has increased by several hundred dollars I am thinking that I would be
better served by purchasing a new lens rather than a new camera.


I'm thinking
of either the 70-200mm f/4 IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm would be used for outdoor
portraits and sports such as football, soccer, track & field, and
baseball/softball. The 24-70mm would
also be used for outdoor portraits and sports, but since it is a 2.8 I could
use it for basketball, volleyball, and other indoor sports. Also, both lenses
would probably find work in landscapes as well.


Here is a
list of the total price for each lens with accessories:


~ 70-200mm f/4 IS + BW 67mm CP filter + 67mm ND filter + Tripod
mount = $1,654.40


~ 24-70mm f/2.8 + BW 77mm CP filter + 77mm ND filter =
$1,654.00


~ 7D body + two 8GB CF cards + Battery Grip + Extra Battery =
$2,078.80


My question is which lens would be the best for outdoor
portraits? And which lens would offer
the sharpest images and the highest image quality?


My current setup is: T2i, 18-55mm, 55-250mm, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8.


I would love to hear your opinions, especially if you own
either of these lenses.


-Chris<a name="_GoBack"][/URL]

Have you considered the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS? IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom lens for a crop body. Just my 2&cent;. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is a fine lens, but not wide angle on a crop body (38mm is just inside the 'normal' range) and it doesn't have IS. The 17-55mm would be a subatantial improvement on the 18-55mm kit lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

My question is which lens would be the best for outdoor
portraits?

---

Honestly, for that purpose I'd recommend a lens you already have - the EF 85mm f/1.8. Pair it with a B+W 3-stop ND filter (0.9, #103) so you can open up the aperture as wide as you need. I really like the 85mm focal length for portraits on a crop body. How much? I started with the 85mm f/1.8 on a T1i, then on a 7D. Liked it so much I changed to the 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II. Then I got a 5DII, and while I still use the 85mm f/1.2L a lot, I also got a 135mm f/2L for my 5DII, since that produced equivalent framing and DoF as the 85mm f/1.2L on a crop body.

Your better investment right now to get you shooting better is the 70-200


I woud update to a 5D later but Id pick the glass now


but my suggestion is as follows


70-200 f4 nonIS 750


70-200 f4 IS 1300-1400


70-200 f2.8 nonIS 1500


70-200 f2.8 IS 2500


If you can afford the f4 IS then you can afford the 70-200 2.8 nonIS


I shot sports for years with the 70-200 f4 nonIS and was very very pleased, with the exception of indoor low light


the 70-200 f4 has excellent sharpness again excellent sharpness.


When I upgraded to the 70-200 f2.8 I never put the f4 back on, it is excellent the extra stop helped a great deal for lower light


combine that with the ability to use ISO 1600 - 2000 on a 50D and I am more than pleased. The 70-200 also is a great portrait lens as


the longer focal length reduces distortion.


The 24-70 is a wedding lens, you cant get close enough in sports.


You will keep the 70-200 forever


Why nonIS? buy IS if you can afford it I dont use it because:


price is not my issue


it is somewhat slower to autofocus and that is not good for sports


the auto focus does drain battery life


it does make a noise


I DOES NOT HELP WHEN THE OBJECT IS MOVING


IT ONLY HELPS CAMERA SHAKE, So I stabilize, or increase the ISO to keep speed above 1/00


MY VOTE 70-200 F2.8 nonIS if that is your budget


get the camera body later

This is why I love the forum. I had thought of the 17-55mm f/2.8 but for some reason I completely forgot about it while thinking about a new lens. IF that makes sense. I guess I was leaning towards those two lenses partially because I want to replace my 55-250mm. I am really disappointed by my 55-250mm, so much that I try to avoid using it if at all possible.


The 17-55mm f/2.8 with hood, CP filter, and ND filter would be about $1,465. Saving me around $200 to put towards saving for my next lens purchase [:p]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

I want to take my photography to the next level.


I'm thinking of either the 70-200mm f/4 IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm would be used for outdoor portraits and sports such as football, soccer, track &amp; field, and baseball/softball. The 24-70mm would also be used for outdoor portraits and sports, but since it is a 2.8 I could use it for basketball, volleyball, and other indoor sports. Also, both lenses would probably find work in landscapes as well.


Here is a
list of the total price for each lens with accessories:


~ 70-200mm f/4 IS + BW 67mm CP filter + 67mm ND filter + Tripod
mount = $1,654.40


~ 24-70mm f/2.8 + BW 77mm CP filter + 77mm ND filter =
$1,654.00


~ 7D body + two 8GB CF cards + Battery Grip + Extra Battery =
$2,078.80


My question is which lens would be the best for outdoor
portraits? And which lens would offer
the sharpest images and the highest image quality?


My current setup is: T2i, 18-55mm, 55-250mm, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8.


I would love to hear your opinions, especially if you own
either of these lenses.


-Chris<a name="_GoBack"][/URL]

---

Hey Chris,


I think you're on the right track with the 7D or 70-200mm. These 2 pieces of equipment will help you take your sports shooting to the next level.


The rebel is a little slow in Auto focusing (it only uses one cross-type sensor vs. 19 cross-type sensors on the 7D), fps, and it lacks a 100% viewfinder. Sports shooting is about, frame rates, auto-focusing, tracking, and wide apertures.


If you get a 7D eventually, it has some weather sealing, whereas the EF-S 17-55mm does not. The 17-55mm is a nice lens and while it's certainly too short for sports, it also won't fit on a Mk III, MKIV or FF body. if you ever go that route. But regardless of weather sealing, I think you should put your money into a 7D or a 70-200mm, because you seem to enjoy shooting sports, and therfore you will need some longer good quality glass.


I understand that there is a budget, but I would just like to point out that if you could eventually get a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, then you would be able to put a 1.4X extender on it and still be at f/4 and 98mm-280mm, the other benefit of the f/2.8 bare is that it will work better indoors, in some gyms with a higher ISO. With the 70-200mm f/4, this will probably not work. The 3rd benefit for a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be for shooting outdoor games at dusk or under the lights at night. In addition the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS includes the tripod mount. This lens was a few hundred dollars less a few months ago, so maybe you should wait until the price drops a bit or until the rebates start again.


Also the 1.4x on a 70-200mm f/4 lens will make it f/5.6 which is too slow for sports plus the 2X want even be an option, unless you want to manually focus at f/8.


Any of the 70-200mm lenses will be great for outdoor portraits.


I think you should keep the 85mm f/1.8 for indoor gyms.


Even though I am recommending the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...


I will be selling one of my 7D's (I bought it approx. 1 year ago, but I haven't used it since football ended in November 2010), as I have 2 of them, in addition to the MK IV. I also have an extra 8GB card and extra battery.


If you're interested you can PM me.





Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

I want to take my photography to the next level.


I'm thinking of either the 70-200mm f/4 IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm would be used for outdoor portraits and sports such as football, soccer, track &amp; field, and baseball/softball. The 24-70mm would also be used for outdoor portraits and sports, but since it is a 2.8 I could use it for basketball, volleyball, and other indoor sports. Also, both lenses would probably find work in landscapes as well.


Here is a
list of the total price for each lens with accessories:


~ 70-200mm f/4 IS + BW 67mm CP filter + 67mm ND filter + Tripod
mount = $1,654.40


~ 24-70mm f/2.8 + BW 77mm CP filter + 77mm ND filter =
$1,654.00


~ 7D body + two 8GB CF cards + Battery Grip + Extra Battery =
$2,078.80


My question is which lens would be the best for outdoor
portraits? And which lens would offer
the sharpest images and the highest image quality?


My current setup is: T2i, 18-55mm, 55-250mm, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8.


I would love to hear your opinions, especially if you own
either of these lenses.


-Chris<a name="_GoBack"][/URL]

---

Hey Chris,


I think you're on the right track with the 7D or 70-200mm. These 2 pieces of equipment will help you take your sports shooting to the next level.


The rebel is a little slow in Auto focusing (it only uses one cross-type sensor vs. 19 cross-type sensors on the 7D), fps, and it lacks a 100% viewfinder. Sports shooting is about, frame rates, auto-focusing, tracking, and wide apertures.


If you get a 7D eventually, it has some weather sealing, whereas the EF-S 17-55mm does not. The 17-55mm is a nice lens and while it's certainly too short for sports, it also won't fit on a Mk III, MKIV or FF body. if you ever go that route. But regardless of weather sealing, I think you should put your money into a 7D or a 70-200mm, because you seem to enjoy shooting sports, and therfore you will need some longer good quality glass.


I understand that there is a budget, but I would just like to point out that if you could eventually get a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, then you would be able to put a 1.4X extender on it and still be at f/4 and 98mm-280mm, the other benefit of the f/2.8 bare is that it will work better indoors, in some gyms with a higher ISO. With the 70-200mm f/4, this will probably not work. The 3rd benefit for a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be for shooting outdoor games at dusk or under the lights at night. In addition the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS includes the tripod mount. This lens was a few hundred dollars less a few months ago, so maybe you should wait until the price drops a bit or until the rebates start again.


Also the 1.4x on a 70-200mm f/4 lens will make it f/5.6 which is too slow for sports plus the 2X want even be an option, unless you want to manually focus at f/8.


Any of the 70-200mm lenses will be great for outdoor portraits.


I think you should keep the 85mm f/1.8 for indoor gyms.


Even though I am recommending the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...


I will be selling one of my 7D's (I bought it approx. 1 year ago, but I haven't used it since football ended in November 2010), as I have 2 of them, in addition to the MK IV. I also have an extra 8GB card and extra battery.


If you're interested you can PM me.





Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iND

it is somewhat slower to autofocus and that is not good for sports

---

Actually the IS version has much faster AF. Quote from Canon TechnicalReport,"The AF performance of the EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is up to about twice as fast as that of the EF70-200mm f/2.8L USM by improving the AF drive circuits and AF algorithm of the ring USM drive and inner focus design.". What I think you are noticing is the IS startup time which is 0.5 second when youhalf way press the shutter button. But after that itshould be faster.Now I don't expect it to be twice as fast in all situations, but I would expect it to be at the least as fast at the worst.And most of the time a little better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iND

I DOES NOT HELP WHEN THE OBJECT IS MOVING

---

Yes,it does not help if you are trying stop motion. But if you are useing a slower shutter speed and motion bluring the background, such as in sports or aviation photography, IS is very helpfull.


My vote is for the the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS or if you can afford it the IS version. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8OS has gotgood reviews andworth looking into. That sells for about $950 and has four stop OS. JUZA has a good review on it here http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_70-200_os_hsm_review.htm.


Hope that helps,


John.

My budget is $1,700. But that includes things such as CP and ND filters.


Let me rephrase the original question. Which of these three lenses (17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/4 IS) do you think would offer the greatest improvement to my current set up? When I say it like that the 70-200mm f/4 IS immediately jumps out at me because, while the 18-55mm is not the sharpest or fastest lens, my 55-250mm is far worse. When I think about it I don

Out of those 3 lenses, I would definitely pick the 70-200mm f/4 IS, but it really comes down to what your focal length needs are.


These are all very good lenses!


You already have the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, so if you get the 70-200mm, then you will be lacking a high quality wide angle lens, which you could get next time around.


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

You already have the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, so if you get the 70-200mm, then you will be lacking a high quality wide angle lens, which you could get next time around.

---

Very true. I think that I have been limited by my 55-250 more so than my 18-55. And now I see that there is a 70-200 f/2.8 for sale here for $1,050. I might end up going for that, even though it lacks IS.


Ugh. Why can't I just win the lottery and buy all the lenses [H]

Chris,


I can't make a recommendation, because all of the above are good options to upgrade your kit. But here are two different alternatives that I haven't seen discussed...I am not trying to muddy the waters, just a different angle:

1. For your budget (with current prices, this is a little tight) you could buy the EFS 15-85 and the EF 70-200 f4 non-IS. What I like about this is that you upgrade bothof your zoom lenses so you are taking quality photos throughout this focal range and you can use the 85 f1.8 for DOF on portraits. I own the 15-85 and think that it is optically amazing and it works very well for how I shoot. I've used it for portraits, waterfalls, landscapes, etc. Very versatile lens. The disadvantage is the speed of the 15-85 and the age/lack of IS on the 70-200.
2. You could go "all prime." It is something I don't see myself doing, but it is something others seem to have done and like. So it is up to you. But you have 50/85 mm already covered. You could pick up a Sigma 30 mm f1.4, 200 mm f2.8and have a very fast kit.

Like I said, just some thoughts. Everything being discussed is a "right answer" to upgrading your kit. Sometimes the hardest decisions are picking which right answer you want. [:D]


Brant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Like I said, just some thoughts. Everything being discussed is a "right answer" to upgrading your kit. Sometimes the hardest decisions are picking which right answer you want. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

---

Hahaha exactly [:P] And now to make the decision even harder, a friend of a friend is going to be selling her 5D Mk II and lenses, including a 2 month old 24-70, to make the switch to the dark side..... Nikon.... [^o)]


And now that I think about it even more, a lot of portrait photographers swear by the 24-70mm f/2.8. But they are using full frame cameras. The lens that gives me the closest focal length to 24-70 on my T2i would be the 17-55mm f/2.8 which is the FF equivalent of 27.2-88mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

The lens that gives me the closest focal length to 24-70 on my T2i would be the 17-55mm f/2.8 which is the FF equivalent of 27.2-88mm.

---

Closest focal length, yes. But in terms of depth of field (often quite important for portraits), the FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is actually 27-88mm f/4.5 (which means than when used on a FF camera, a 24-105mm f/4L is wider, longer, and can provide shallower DoF than the 17-55mm when used on a crop body. You'd need a nonexistent lens - a 15-44mm f/1.75 - to profide equivalent framing and DoF on a crop body to the 24-70mm on FF. If you want thin DoF on crop, within a reasonable budget, Brant's suggestion of primes is the way to go - lenses like the 85/1,8 which you have, and a 50/1.4 for looser framing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

The lens that gives me the closest focal length to 24-70 on my T2i would be the 17-55mm f/2.8 which is the FF equivalent of 27.2-88mm.

---

Closest focal length, yes. But in terms of depth of field (often quite important for portraits), the FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is actually 27-88mm f/4.5 (which means than when used on a FF camera, a 24-105mm f/4L is wider, longer, and can provide shallower DoF than the 17-55mm when used on a crop body. You'd need a nonexistent lens - a 15-44mm f/1.75 - to profide equivalent framing and DoF on a crop body to the 24-70mm on FF. If you want thin DoF on crop, within a reasonable budget, Brant's suggestion of primes is the way to go - lenses like the 85/1,8 which you have, and a 50/1.4 for looser framing.

---

Thanks for the info, this makes my decision that much harder [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

Thanks for the info, this makes my decision that much harder

---

Then my work here is done. [6]


I am just thinking back to a past discussion between me and Jon Ruyle, where he made the point that for about the same amount of money, you can get either a 7D and 85L or a 5DII and 135L - equivalent framing/DoF, but in the latter combo you get a FF camera.

I use mostly primes, OK I only have one zoom that I even use! And a stadard range that I don