Choosing my first L-series lens

Hi, I've been shooting events, portraits, and sports for a few years, but never really had the money to upgrade to good glass. I know a good camera without good glass isn't exactly great, but I've succeeded in proper exposures and good composition in order to make my clients happy, rather than spend money on glass.

I've found myself at a bit of a loss as to how I should progress in getting my first L-series lens, as there's simply too many options, and no single lens covers every single thing I need; meaning that I'll have to compromise somewhere and save up for any future lenses after this. My issue, however, is simply deciding where to start.

My current set up:

• Canon 60D
  
• 17-85mm USM IS F/4-5.6(Not a great lens, but I've done my best to make up for it; it's my general walk around lens right now.)
  
• 50mm F/1.8 II
  
• EF-S 55-250mm IS II
  
• 580EX II

Naturally, due to the nature of the events I shoot(inside of gyms, community centers, schools), I find myself using the 17-85mm the most, since 50mm on a crop sensor can be a bit narrow for indoor events. However, when I find myself in outdoor events, especially sports, I normally end up using the longer ranges. The 50mm II has done a lot for me as a portrait lens, and I'm very happy with the creative results; plus, it lets in a lot of light when I need it for the more creative, no-flash shots.

The lenses that I'm looking at(and are in my budget) are these:

• Canon 17-40mm F/4L (Good range and price, not sure about the F/4)
• Canon 70-200mm F/4L (My telephoto pick, but f/4 seems a bit narrow for portraits; not bad for daylight sports and airshows(I usually find my shutter at about 800+ during these events, no real need for IS), and a bit better than my 55-250mm for night sports. Also, who can resist a white lens?)
• Canon 24-105mm F/4L(Not very wide, but I like the range as it reduces much need to swap to my 55-250 during a event. F/4 is worrying at walkaround)
• Canon 28-70mm F/2.8L(Not wide either, but the long end + F/2.8 would be good for portraits, and seems like a decent walkaround and indoor event lens, since I could always "zoom" to 18mm with my feet. Seems rather old though, no IS but fill-flash would make the main subject in focus even at a lower shutter speed.)
• Canon 16-35mm F/2.8L(This might be an ideal range for me in general event photography, it doesn't really need IS at that wide of a focal length, and good F/2.8 for indoors. Issue is, it's at the far end of my budget range, and I would need to make a lot more than I was originally planning in order to get it. I'd like to know if anyone thinks the positives of it make up for the price.)
• Canon 17-55mm EF-S F/2.8(I'd like to say this is a perfect lens, but the reality is that I may very well end up with a full-frame camera within a year, and I wouldn't want to spend $800 on a lens that I can't even use on the camera!)

The part where this gets iffy, however, is that I'm very torn between the variety of lenses and options I could get. I'm partly feeling like I want to get a mid-range lens to use for most general purpose situations(and possibly portraits if it goes past 50mm), but most L-lenses seem to be a little long for that range. I also do end up doing sport and airshow photography, which leads me to wonder if it's worth more to invest in a good mid-telephoto lens, as it would probably vastly improve the image quality(mainly contrast, which is dismal on the 55-250) at the telephoto range.

The other thing is aperture, as many of the lenses I like the range of have the aperture of F/4. My 60D does produce acceptable(in my standard) shots at ISO 3200, and if there's no other way, ISO 5000 is not absolutely horrifying. That has been my savior with the F/4-5.6 17-85mm, as its aperture is horrific indoors. Flash, although it makes up for a lot of light in small and portrait situations, does not make up for large gym environments; and I normally find myself pushing my ISO up higher than I would really want(Ideally, I want it to stay below 800)

Now, my budget is limited-- I could maybe get 600 in spare cash, and then sell the lenses that fall under that general focal range to get maybe 800 bucks, but even that might be a bit of a stretch.

I figure this is a pretty weirdly worded question, but I'd really like to hear some input on what people think would be an appropriate lens for me to start my L-series collection with. Bear in mind, I will be unlikely to find the money for another lens for around six months-- so this is a pretty important decision to me.

Any thoughts? I'm open to discussing or explaining myself more, I'm just in a rut to figure out what to buy; everything seems to be a compromise in one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hjones

• Canon 17-55mm EF-S F/2.8(I'd like to say this is a perfect lens, but the reality is that I may very well end up with a full-frame camera within a year, and I wouldn't want to spend $800 on a lens that I can't even use on the camera!)

---

Go for this lens.

Resell will be good on this lens. If you upgrade to FF you most likely will dump your 60D.

Firstly, welcome to the forum!

Lens choices are not always easy, but you're in the right place. The folk here have a range of experience and I'm sure some of them will add their ideas. We are very good at coming up with great ideas for spending other people's money!

Talking of money, I would consider where you make most of your money. If it's the indoor events, you should prioritise a wide angle, wide aperture lens. If it's the outdoor events, get the telephoto zoom first. Also think about which of your clients require the highest quality images (or which of your current lenses delivers the lowest quality images). Could you charge more, or get more work with a quality wide angle or telephoto capability?

I'll offer the following comments on your list, which I've shuffled a bit here:

Canon 70-200mm F/4L - Your only option from this list if telephoto shots are worth more to you than wide angle. Depth of field decreases with increasing focal length, so f/4 may give acceptable portrait results in this range. Have a look at some sample shots (but bear in mind that many were taken with a full frame camera)
Canon 17-55mm EF-S F/2.8 - Your best option from this list if wide shots are worth more to you than telephoto. It is widely regarded as the best general purpose lens for a crop body. It should hold its value if you need to sell it when you upgrade to full frame.
Canon 17-40mm F/4L - Not as good as the 17-55 EF-S on a crop body, due to the narrower aperture. It is intended as an ultra-wide lens for full frame cameras.
Canon 16-35mm F/2.8L - Like the 17-40, this is intended for ultra-wide use on a full frame camera. You won't get the benefit of all the extra glass on a crop body. The 17-55 will deliver similar results at lower cost.
Canon 24-105mm F/4L - Would not replace either the 17-85 or 55-250. This focal length range is ideal for general purpose use on a full frame body, less so for the 60D.
Canon 28-70mm F/2.8L - Like the 24-105, it doesn't replace any of your existing lenses. 28mm may be too narrow for some of your indoor uses.

I think your choice should be between the first two. If you think you might need f/2.8 above 55mm, consider adding the 85mm f/1.8, which is great for portraits and indoor sports and good value for money.

Agree with the above. IMO, the 17-55 is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

The combination of 17-55 + 85/1.8 on APS-C is really a good one - that and a T1i/500D was my starting kit (along with a 430EX II).

Thanks for all the replies! Plenty of great info, and I think I'll go with the 17-55mm judging by all your comments.

I was a little hesitant to the idea of buying it, but now that I think about it, buying the 17-55mm will probably boost what lens I can buy when I do get a full frame lens-- after all, I will have extra money earned at that point in time, and will be able to add that onto the $700 resale value of the lens. Right now, I have about $250 in resale of the 17-85mm, and my budget is around $700, which sure seems like I'll be able to buy a ~$1200+ lens when I do move to full frame and sell the 17-55mm.

I've heard a lot about the 17-55, but part of me was a little worried that the jump wouldn't be as big as I'd want in moving to an L lens-- since the 17-55 visually looks quite a lot like the 17-85. I'm quite certain that for all other details(judging by all the reviews and specs), it is an L lens, and should suit my needs well.

After the 17-55, I'll be sure to replace my 55-250 with a 70-200, and maybe even get a good IS or f/2.8 version.

Thanks again for all the help!

Why the 28-70/2.8 instead of the 24-70/2.8? More importantly, you're shopping for six lenses between 16mm and 200mm. Three cover 17mm, five cover 28mm, two cover 50mm, yet only one goes beyond 105mm. Frankly I'm thinking you need to decide what range you need to improve most, and that will nearly answer your question outright. Do you need wider than 17mm? If so, one choice (16-35) or consider the EF-S 10-22. Otherwise, strike the 16-35 because its value to you doesn't justify the price (think of it as a 2:1 zoom on the wide end, so you'll endlessly be wanting more on the long end and be changing lenses frequently, so it's not worth the upper end of your range). I'd say strike the 17-40 because it too is a 2:1 zoom, and I doubt you need the aperture in that range (easy to handhold at the requisite shutter speeds).

My thought is to pick up a 24-105/4IS, because you can probably get these for right about $600 (6D kits are +$600 over body-only, so the lens is "worth" $600). Why spend more on the 17-55 if you can't use it on your next camera? 24-105 might be a smidge long on a crop body, but I'm amazed at how useful it is on FF. It almost makes me want to "untrade" the 24-70/2.8 with my wife (I said "almost"...which means I'll keep the 24-70 thanks).

My other suggestion is don't bother with choosing your "next next" lens until after you've had your "next" lens for at least a month. Your habits will change, etc., so don't fret about it just yet.

(For the sake of mention, my wife and I both shoot Canon. I started with a 1D3 and 24-105, she started with a 40D and 28-135. I/we added 70-200/2.8IS, 16-35/2.8, 50/1.8, then two 7D and sold the 50/1.8. Two years ago we added the EF-S 10-22 and 24-70/2.8 (this effectively benched the 28-135). This summer we went a little crazy with rebate season, and added a 70-200/4IS, 100/2.8IS Macro, 85/1.2, 14/2.8 (this benched the 10-22), and 5D3 (this benched the 40D). The 40D is hanging around as our "time-lapse camera", but I think its days are quite numbered, as I just picked up an off-rental 1Dx from LensRentals/LensAuthority, and this has essentially benched one of the 7D bodies. Yes it's a lot of stuff, but we both shoot a lot of events, and I have a mixed-purpose consulting activity that needed some tax write-offs this year.)

Okay guys, I have a revised question for you.

Ignoring price, what would be your must-have piece of equipment? As per the Christmas season, a family member has told me they'll buy me pretty much any single piece of kit, within reasonable standards(<2000 dollars, so no 5D mk IIIs sadly) I would expect that if I was selling my 60D, I would make at least 750 off the body, maybe 150 off the 55-250mm IS, and at least 260 off the 17-85mm. So that said, I would only be able to buy a 6D if I were to upgrade with this money.

Would you rather an upgrade to a 6D with only a 24-105mm and a 50mm f/1.8, from a 60D, selling the 60d, 55-250mm, and 17-85mm; which the ISO preformance of the 6D would probably make up for the F/4 aperture.. Or..

What single lens would you buy for a 60D(Possibly, what two lens combo, if under 2000 combined)? Still the 17-55mm? I've come to realize since my last post was posted that I do mainly indoor events and portraiture, and that a low aperture is valuable.

One of the big things I'm considering is getting both the 16-35mm F/2.8 (MK I) and the 70-200mm F/2.8 (non IS), as that would cover pretty much every possible situation, and then my 50mm F/1.8 would still be a viable creative lens and even lower-light lens.

Thoughts?

Ebay shows 60D bodies and kits going for much less than what you're hoping.

Again, I'm surprised that YOU haven't identified which piece of your gear is most due for replacing.

The 50/1.8 is soft below 2.8. Once I learned to shoot it at 2.8 instead of 1.8, I was much happier with the results, but then it stopped getting used alongside a 16-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8IS.

Would a studio lighting kit work for the indoor stuff you do (i.e. is it mostly portraits, with outlets nearby)? I'd really consider that.

I'll add my $.02.. I just sold my 17-55 2.8 IS and it really was a great lens. You'll probably never take it off the camera.

But, I'll also add that I don't always subscribe to the resale part of it.. The lens is only worth how much someone will pay for it and how long you're willing to wait for the right buyer. :)

Hjones....I think you are discussing a step improvement when you should be considering a path. If you are happy with the 60D, then you should look to supplement that kit and build around a crop sensor body. If you think you will go FF someday, you likely want to start putting together the pieces and having that path.

So, to try to give input to your latest questions directly. No, given that you describe using the 55-250II for outdoor sporting events, I do not think it would be a good idea to limit yourself to the 6D and the 24-105. I think you would find yourself missing the >105 range. Also, you mention portraits, and the 24-105 is nice, but something with a wider aperture would be better.

So, based on what you describe, I would be most tempted to upgrade from the 55-250 II to the 55-250 STM (which is getting very good reviews). For the very generous offer from your friend, I would consider a prime lens such as the Canon 35 L/35 f/2.0 IS, Sigma 35 f/1.4, Canon 50 L/50 f/1.4, EFS 60 f/2.8 macro, 85 L (probably too much)/85 f/1.8. The intention of these would be to help with your low light/indoor photography. I would look at the focal lengths that you tend to use the most and pick a prime that matches that length. If possible, adding the 35 f/2 IS or Sigma 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 would give you a very nice prime set up, some great optics and still be under your friend's offer of $2k. I own the 50 f/1.4 and have evaluated the other two at different points. The 50 f/1.4 is ok at f/1.4, sharp by f/2, and amazing by f/2.8. Even though I have several "L" lenses, I've been noticing that a lot of my favorite pictures recently have been coming from my primes (50 f/1.4 and 100 mm L). Both are very sharp, but it is also the low light that I can work in with those lenses.

Regarding the path, on a crop body, the 35/50/85 would cover your "classic" portrait range with fast glass. If you moved to FF, they are still very usable. The issue with primes is flexibility. So this makes sense if you are willing to carry a couple of lenses and switch them out. So if you are a more methodical shooter. If you just want to walk around with one lens on your camera body, then I think you are back to the 17-55 f/2.8 or possibly the 24-70 II.

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Hjones....I think you are discussing a step improvement when you should be considering a path. If you are happy with the 60D, then you should look to supplement that kit and build around a crop sensor body. If you think you will go FF someday, you likely want to start putting together the pieces and having that path.

---

Wow, excellently presented.

A few "observations from the outside": fast glass is great for low light, but to truly use their advantage, you must be comfortable with "singular theme" shots. In other words, to use an 85mm prime under f/5.6, you must be ready for ultra-thin DoF, and you "cannot" do group shots like this. Further, you have to be comfortable with that look. I'm finding that I'm happier with my 85 in the f/4-f/8 range to avoid over-blurring shots and to have versatility between single and group shots.

Going FF means all of your lenses will "get wider", so jumping into a 6D and not having a telephoto at your disposal (particularly one that'll go to 300mm if you're used to having 250*1.6 handy) will be perhaps crushing. I recently went from a 1D Mark III (1.3 crop) to a 1Dx (FF), and I'm saddened by what it's done to my 70-200mm in terms of effectiveness. However, FF seems to give a thinner DoF across the board, so I have to be more aware of that and more prepared to stop down than I was before.