Asking for advice - baby grows, kit grows; what lens do I need next?

Hello,

First, I posted about a year ago and I was given amazing advice by this community. I can't thank you all enough. I love my kit and its been amazing photographing my family.

Now for the question; I currently shoot with a 60D. I have a 17-55 2.8, 60 macro 2.8 and a 50 1.4. My son is now 1 (thus the reason I got into photography) and as he grows I think my kit needs to grow too. I love all three lens I currently shoot with, however I feel like I may need a telephoto lens... he's almost walking:)

What lens next does the community recommend for my kit?

And, as a second question, does anyone shoot with a point and shoot camera? I was looking at the Canon Powershot s110. Again, as he grows so does the amount of stuff I need to bring, so sometimes the 60D and the kit are too much.

Any advice / recommendations are very welcome. Thank you.

Bruce

Hi Bruce!

They do grow fast... Our oldest just started kindergarten, it seems like yesterday she was the size of our 5-month old.

A key question is budget. That aside, and since you have a macro lens and a fast prime already, I'd be looking at a telephoto zoom lens. Options include a 70-200mm or the 70-300L (I'd not recommend the 70-300 non-L). I expect you'll mostly be using it outdoors? If so, a slower aperture may not be a show-stopper.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is the cream or the crop, and priced accordingly. Fast aperture, IS, excellent IQ. The budget option is the 70-200/4L (non-IS) - very good IQ, around the same price and a much better choice than the 70-300 non-L.

In between sit the 70-200/4L IS and the 70-300L, and it's a tough choice between them as they both deliver great IQ and aren't very different in price. The 70-200 is lighter but physically longer (compared to the retracted 70-300), doesn't extend, is a constant f/4, and takes extenders (1.4x only if you want AF, gives a 98-280/5.6). The 70-300L gives you an extra 100mm, at the cost of a variable aperture (not a big deal unless you usually shoot in full manual mode), a stop slower at the long end (and 1/3 or 2/3 stop slower along the range), and it doesn't (really) take Canon extenders (Kenko works, but likely not worth it optically).

So, budget permitting, I'd recommend the 70-300L. It's a great travel lens, gives you a good reach, handles nicely. There's one minor handling annoyance for me, which likely won't bother you - the relative positions of the zoom and focus rings are reversed on the 70-300L compared to other L zooms (the 70-200's, 24-xx, etc.). But, their position with the zoom ring furthest out is the same as your 17-55, so you won't have to break any habits.

Good luck with your decision...

--John

Regarding the P&S, I had an S95 (which my 5-year old now uses), and have an S100. If you go that route, compare S100 vs. S110 pricing - they have the same sensor and lens, S110 only has slightly faster AF (still slow relative to your 60D), and the S110 *doesn't* have the ergonomic finger grip that makes the little S100 easier to hold.

I bought those two cameras because they had the largest sensor available in a camera that fits in a jeans pocket. That was before the Sony RX100 came out, and today I'd have opted for that due to the larger sensor size - a great little camera, budget permitting (it's not cheap).

But...do you need truly pocketable, or just small? If the latter is ok, consider the EOS M (if you're not in a rush, a new version is probably going to be announced relatively soon). With the 22mm pancake lens, it fits easily in a small belt pouch or coat/cargo pants pocket. Regular 18 MP APS-C sensor, IQ will match your 60D and the 22/2 is a very good lens. I picked up the kit at the $299 price a little while back, and I find myself reaching for that much more than the S100. You might set your 17-55 to 22mm for a while to see if a 22mm prime would work for you. The EF-M 18-55 IS is a pretty good lens, but IMO it eliminates the size advantage on the M + 22 setup.

Kids are the best subjects for photographs. :)

I am no means a pro, but wanted to point out one thing. Your current kit contains all fast lenses. If you don't ever shoot with a slow lens it might become very frustrating. If you only use your telephoto outside or you bump up the ISO it might not be so bad ... for now. Kids get faster and the shutter speed needs to get faster as well. Something to consider.

Happy shooting!

John,
Thank you for your detailed reply. I appreciate your response, I have been thinking a lot about the next lens. I would like your opinion please... I found two lens for sale, both used by only one owner. The Canon 70-200L IS F4 for $800, and the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 Version-I L-Series Lens for $1,000. The 4.0 is barley used, it's less than a year old and looks like new. The 2.8 has been used by a professional for a while who has paperwork on all the canon servicing, most recently a cleaning Feb 2013. Do you think the 4L is a better purchase, newer, less used, cheaper? Or, do you think the 2.8 I is a better purchase? Is there a huge difference between the 2.8 I and the 2.8 II ($2,500)? I have not found the 70-300L used, only new.

Regarding the P&S, thank you for your suggestions, I am going to shoot with the 17-55 @ 22mm for a while and see how I like it. I like the idea of the EOS M with the 22mm, still smaller than the 60D, and better IQ than a $300 P&S. The RX100 looks nice too though, however its almost $800. How is the video quality of the EOS M vs P&S's?

Trav,
Thank you for your reply, I agree... my son is the best subject, in fact he loves the camera which is a bonus:)

Bruce

Personally, I'd be inclined to go with the 70-200mm f/4L IS over the 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS). The former delivers better IQ, and is a better deal (the f/2.8 is only $100 more new). I find that IS is pretty beneficial in a telephoto lens.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is an amazing lens, one of the sharpest zoom lenses avaialble. The only downsides are the size/weight and the cost. Note that there are five 70-200mm L-series zooms available - f/4 non-IS and IS, f/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II. In terms of IQ, I'd rank them f/2.8 IS II > f/4 IS > f/2.8 non-IS > f/4 nonIS > f/2.8 IS. If you absolutely need f/2.8 (indoor sports) and your budget doesn't cover the f/2.8 IS II, then the f/2.8 non-IS is a good choice (for indoor sports, you would generally want a high enough shutter speed to recude the need for IS). Otherwise, I think the f/4L IS is really a great lens.

The 70-300 L is new enough that you won't see too many of them on the used market.

Video quality of the M is better than a P&S - it'll be basically the same as your 60D, but the on-sensor phase AF allows AF during video.

Back in '07, I rented the 2.8 IS, loved it, so I bought it. A year or two later when my wife and I both needed to have telephoto lenses for an event, I rented her the 4 IS. She loved the lighter weight of the 4 IS, and has never complained about the lack of aperture compared to the 2.8. We've rented that lens several times. In April during the rebates, I finally bought a 4 IS. Honestly, having both here at my disposal, I'm amazed at how often I choose the 4 IS over the 2.8 IS. I do recall one time that I took the 2.8 IS only because I was going to be shooting our doggies with great skies, and our CPL filter won't fit the 4 IS (and I haven't bought a step-down ring). Otherwise, I would have taken the 4 IS. So...you're probably fine with the 4 IS, and I'd much suggest that over any of the black lenses.

Hi Bruce,

Overall I agree with the recommendations you've been given. For action shots or to give yourself a little distance from your baby as they grow, a telephoto lens makes a lot of sense. I just wanted to through out some thoughts of how to grow your kit to include a telephoto lens that may work for your baby and other purposes:

• 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2: If you are building a prime kit, either of these would likely be very nice additions for <$500.
• 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS: Great lens, fast AF, would give you a longer option than you current have and another macro lens that has IS. I use this lens much more on FF (my primary portrait lens now) than I did on crop, but I always loved the images I got off of it off the 7D.
• 100-400L: This has been my second most used lens. Even on crop, I used the 100-200 range around the house a little and it works well. But the 100-400 mm focal length range provides a lot of overall flexibility for wildlife photography. Your 17-55 and 100-400L would be a great two lens travel kit.
• 70-300L: Just reflecting Neuro's recommendation. It does a lot of what the 100-400L will do for you, but giving you the 70-100 range, which you may want for family photography, at the sacrifice of 300-400 mm, which is great for wildlife where you always want more reach. Other advantages are two more stops of IS, slightly better IQ, and complete weather sealing. Some may also prefer the twist zoom rather than push-pull, but I've never had an issue with the push-pull.
• A 70-200 mm lens. I've seen several forum members use one of these lenses on a crop sensor camera body but I've also read several descriptions of people calling it an "awkward" focal length for a cropped sensor body. Depending upon your use, the 200 mm may be a little short for the reach and the 70 mm starts in the middle of the "portrait" range, whereas on FF, it covers most of the portrait range. Of course, if this is the range you need, some great lenses. If you get one, you may want to consider a 1.4x tc to give yourself more reach if you want it.

So, it all depends on what you would like your lens to do for you.

Good luck,
Brant

Hi all,

Thank you again for all your recommendations and opinions. I am humbled by the level of professionalism, helpfulness and overall intelligence in this community.

I am meeting with the guy this Saturday who is selling the Canon 70-200L IS F4 for $800. I have the opportunity to purchase this lens, however is there something I need to be looking for in 10 minutes or less to see if the lens is in good condition to buy? I am a bit nervous to spend $800 bucks off of a CraigsList ad, however, if it's used as little as he says it's and it is in as good of condition as he says it is, then it may be a good deal.

Jrw, I read a lot about the 50 1.4 and I thought it is a good lens to start with. I believe the 17-55 (all purpose, great IQ), the 60 2.8 macro (great for shots of little features on my new born) and the 50 1.4 (low light, great blur) is be a good starter kit that will provide me with I need. In my experience I enjoy using all three, however I like the option of the zoom and 17-55 is my go to lens.

Fast forward one year; my little boy is getting very active and the longer focal length is appealing. However, I am struggling with the idea of buying a high end point and shoot in place if the telephoto. I can't afford both, and I'm torn; telephoto vs. P&S. My heart is with the telephoto, is it the better of the two given my current kit? (60D, 17-55 2.8, 50 1.4, 60 macro 2.8, 430 EX II).

Thank you again for all your assistance!

Bruce

[QUOTE=Magijr;84997]Hi all,

Thank you again for all your recommendations and opinions. I am humbled by the level of professionalism, helpfulness and overall intelligence in this community.

I am meeting with the guy this Saturday who is selling the Canon 70-200L IS F4 for $800. I have the opportunity to purchase this lens, however is there something I need to be looking for in 10 minutes or less to see if the lens is in good condition to buy? I am a bit nervous to spend $800 bucks off of a CraigsList ad, however, if it's used as little as he says it's and it is in as good of condition as he says it is, then it may be a good deal.

[Quote] Look at the exterior to see if it's been well cared for, including the collar and foot. Bring your camera and take some shots with it....does it focus quickly, quietly AND accurately? Is the lens mount tight? Look at the front and rear elements for severe scratches. Look for excessive dust or crud inside the lens. Check the zoom and focus rings....they should be firm yet smooth...no loose play. Look at pics taken with varying zoom and aperature. Zoom in and look closely at the center and all 4 corners of the images. Should be able to check it out pretty well in 15 minutes or so.

PS: Take some shots at low shutter speed with IS on and some with IS off to check that it functions properly AND quietly.

I haven't been checking here as often as before, and just saw your cross-post in your original baby thread. There isn't much I can add to all the good advice already given, so I'll just pass along my experience. My little ones are 5 and 7 years old now.

When they were about 1 year old, I didn't see a need for a longer lens... which isn't to say that I don't recommend the 70-200mm. I've got the f/2.8 IS II and I love it. But, I initially got it to shoot a friend's wedding, not for the kids. It's also nearly killed me carrying it around all day. Worse, carrying around 15-lbs of gear *and* a 36-lb kid; not so bad for a day out, but I needed a beer and chiropractor after a week at Disney World in August.

I'm telling you that, because that's when I decided to get the PowerShot G15. I decided on it over the S110 mainly for HD video and the external flash-shoe. For out-and-about (and Disney), it covered all the important shots, which is a decent snap-shot... even Disney's photographers just give you a decent snap-shot.

For stage performances, I've had my wife sit up front with the G15, while I'm behind everyone with my 5DII, 70-200, and Rode Mic Pro. The results are comparable... actually, I get slightly better audio with the Rode Mic at 50-ft than she did at 15-ft.

Back to lens choice, I found that the 55mm to 70mm gap between the 17-55mm and 70-200mm on my 50D is where I wanted to shoot indoors. I was at 55mm and wishing I could zoom in a bit more, or at 70mm and backing up to a wall. I have the 24-105mm f/4 IS, but it was too slow. Most of that was solved when I got the 5DII. Now, I switch between the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm.

I keep the 50D around for outdoor action, like when we scored free tickets to a Washington Nationals game (top pics). If you're wondering, wife said no pics of the kids on the open internet.
http://www.jimslamepics.com/