Which L Lens?

[Sam]

<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?

[Oren]

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.

[Sam]

<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.

[atticusdsf]

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.

[Oren]

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.

[atticusdsf]

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.

[atticusdsf]

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

[Oren]

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

[Sam]

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

[Benjamin]

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[]