Recommendations on a lens ...

[holeysox]

Hi all,


I've been combing through a pile of reviews and forums AND I've gone to the local stores to try out my next lens purchase but still can't seem to decide on one ...


I've currently got a Canon XSi with the EFS 18-55 IS kit lens, a Sigma 30mm EX 1.4 prime and a Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM.


I have a one year old at home and he and my wife are primarily the subjects of all my photography. The primes have been excellent in low light situations and have been great for "stopping action" of my little one as he moves quite fast and he does not like to pose.


Over the summer the family has been on a couple of trips. Specifically kids events such as local fairs and theme parks. I've found my 18-55 a bit short and I am unable to get a shot of my kid on the rides with his mom. I was also unable to use the 18-55 at his first birthday party as it was indoors and to avoid using flash I ended up mounting the 30mm 1.4. With the 30mm I was able to get most of the group shots but none of the candid close ups.


I have thought about the following lenses:


1) EFS 17-55 2.8 IS - still short ....just a way better version of my kit lens


2) EF 24-70 2.8L - good length but a bit heavy


3) EF 24-105 4L - great length but maybe too slow for my kid when indoors


4) EFS 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS - havent been able to try it since its not in stock yet and maybe too slow


5) LEARN TO USE A FLASH with option 3 and 4 =) ... I currently have an old 380EX Speedlite that doesnt rotate %&^@#


My budget is about $1300 CDN so the most I can afford is the 24-70 ....


Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[Joel Eade]

Maybe take a look at extending your focal length with the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM....based on your description it might "fit the bill" just right and this lens gets great reviews.

[IAMB]

I've had some pretty good results with the 24-105 on my backup body (30D) for basketball in poorly lit gyms... it works fine as long as you're not afraid to turn the ISO up. The 24-70 might be heavy, but I think you'd get used to it pretty fast once you saw the results.

[Mark Elberson]

I've found my 18-55 a bit short and I am unable to get a shot of my kid on the rides with his mom.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

I was also unable to use the 18-55 at his first birthday party as it was indoors and to avoid using flash I ended up mounting the 30mm 1.4.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

With the 30mm I was able to get most of the group shots but none of the candid close ups.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

My budget is about $1300 CDN

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

In all seriousness, it sounds to me like you need more reach but not at the expense of speed. I would have recommended the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS but, with your budgetthis lens fits the bill!

[hotsecretary]

You really have 3 options... IMO


24-70 is a great lens if you think it'll be enough reach, best best is to honestly maybe rent it and try it.. or just go into a store and bring your camera and try it out.


24-105 is the next best thing and others will argue possibly better, especially with the IS if you're moving around trying to capture the moving child.


70-200 4 IS is about your budget currently, before taxes.. same with the rest of them really.


2.8IS is great ... but it's way over your budget and might be too heavy for you to carry around all day at the park, etc. But I love mine





But those are pretty much your options IMO for the price. The 2.8IS is $1800 use if you're lucky.. and well over $2k if you buy it new.. + taxes.

[George Slusher]

In all seriousness, it sounds to me like you need more reach but not at the expense of speed. I would have recommended the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS but, with your budgetthis lens fits the bill

Well, sorta. First, let me say that I own and use a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, but I've found that it is overkill for many uses. It's expensive, heavy (3.5 pounds!), bulky, and requires 77mm filters (more expensive--a good 77mm CPL can cost $85-225). It's not as "good" a lens as the 70-200mm f/4L and especially the f/4L IS (both of which I've used--I still use the f/4L IS), which is actually cheaper than the non-IS f/2.8L

I've found my 18-55 a bit short and I am unable to get a shot of my kid on the rides with his mom.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

That would work, but, as it's outdoors, f/2.8 probably isn't needed. See below.

I was also unable to use the 18-55 at his first birthday party as it was indoors and to avoid using flash I ended up mounting the 30mm 1.4.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

With the 30mm I was able to get most of the group shots but none of the candid close ups.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

The 70-200mm may be too long for that use. On holeysox's XSi, that would be equivalent to 112-420mm. 112mm could be too long for most indoor shots, unless the room is large. Also, f/2.8 may be a bit slow, depending upon the circumstances. His (assuming that holeysox is male--he referred to "my kid" and "his mom" on a ride) 30mm and 50mm lenses are 2 stops faster than the 70-200mm f/2.8L.

My budget is about $1300 CDN

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

I don't know what the price would be in Canada. The 70-200mm f/2.8L (non IS) is $US 1330 at B&H. Converting that comes to $CDN 1376. The 70-200mm f/4L IS is $US 1210, $CDN 1252, for example.


It sounds like holeysox needs a longer lens for outdoors, but not a fast long lens, unless he needs to stop action in dim light. (I use my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS only for indoor horse shows. For outdoor shows, it stays home and I use the much lighter (and better quality!) 70-200mm f/4L IS or, if circumstances require, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, plus a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS.


Here are some possibilities, with prices at B&H in $US and their weight in oz (without tripod collars), in addition to those that holeysox listed:

• EF-S 18-200mm IS f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $595; 21 oz
  
• new EF-S 18-135mm IS f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $500; 16.1 oz
  
• EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM @ 200; 13.2 oz
  
• EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM @ $410; 19.1 oz
  
• EF 70-200mm f/4L @ $660; 24.9 oz
  
• EF 70-200mm f/4L IS @ $1210; 26.8 oz
  

Each has advantages and disadvantages, of course. Some considerations that may or may not be important for holeysox:

• Weight & convenience. It can be a pain to carry a big, heavy lens, especially if you also have to carry another shorter lens. You can easily lose a great shot in the time it takes to change lenses. That would make the 18-135mm & 18-200mm quite attractive for trips to the park, zoo, etc. The 18-200mm can also be a great lens for travel or any other time you want to carry only one lens.
  
• Image quality would be an advantage of the L lenses, but at the expense of cost, weight, and convenience.
• Full-time manual focus is not available on the two EF-S lenses.
• IS can be a real help.
• Filter size might be an issue, though only the 28-105mm uses the same size filter (58mm) as any of holeysox's current lenses (50mm f/1.4)
• If full-frame compatibility is an issue (e.g.., if holeysox is considering a 5D), then the EF lenses would be better choices than the EF-S.

I'm not sure if holeysox really needs a much longer lens for his indoor shots--his 50mm f/1.4 lens might do the trick, plus there's also a little trick called "cropping."[] If he does need a bit more length and fast speed, the 85mm f/1.8 ($439) might fit the bill, though, like the 70-200mm, it could be too long for his needs.


If holeysox needs a flash that rotates (helps with bouncing--that's about all), the Canon 430EX II at $280 would be a good choice. Slightly cheaper and a bit more powerful and flexible is the Sigma EF-530 DG Super, at $219.


Here are possible choices that fit within holeysox's budget ($CDN 1300 = $US 1258)

• EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $410 for outdoors
  
• EF 85mm f/1.8 @ $439 for tight/longer shots indoors (including some indoor sports) if he really needs it
  
• 430EX II @ $280 - better flash
  
• Total = $1129

• EF 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $595 for outdoors (well, actually, most anything in good light)
  
  
• EF 85mm f/1.8 @ $439
  
  
• Sigma EF-530 DG Super @ $219 - cheaper than 430EX II
  
  
• Total = $1253

Check Bryan's reviews of these lenses. If holeysox wants to "replace" his kit lens for everyday use, he might choose the new 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS instead of the 28-135mm, but I'd wait until we see thorough reviews, as this is a brand-new design.


One last thing: while the "L" lenses usually (not always!*) have better image quality and are noted for their sturdiness, they may not be the best choice for everyone. They're expensive, heavy, expensive, bulky, expensive, and usually need large filters (72-77mm)--and, did I mention that they're expensive? For many people, the mid-range (in cost) lenses can provide a significant step up from the kit lens at a much lower cost and lighter weight, especially for 1.6x body users.


*One exception, according to Bryan's reviews, is the EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which appears to have as good or even better image quality than the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L or 17-40mm f/4L or even the 24-70mm f/2.8L at comparable lengths and apertures. It uses the same glass as L lenses, but in a less-sturdy body. It's one of my favorite lenses.

[Chuck Lee]

It's not as "good" a lens as the 70-200mm f/4L

George, be careful


We 70-200 f2.8L non IS and IS users are watching you...[]


That's a very difficult statement to substaintiate. It really depends on what you consider to be "good". If it's the lighter weight, tack sharp imaging @ f4 and resonable price tag then you may have somewhat of an argument. Unfortunately, you'll never gain a full stop of speed in low light shooting nor ever see the bokeh and isolation that af2.8 aperture can provide. Bang for the absolute buck, I'll pick the f2.8L over the f4L any day. But that's me. It is the portrait zoom of portrait zooms. If I shoot zoomed landcscapes @ f8 then yeah the f4L version would be better than adequate.

[George Slusher]

It's not as "good" a lens as the 70-200mm f/4L

George, be careful


We 70-200 f2.8L non IS and IS users are watching you...[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]


That's a very difficult statement to substaintiate. It really depends on what you consider to be "good". If it's the lighter weight, tack sharp imaging @ f4 and resonable price tag then you may have somewhat of an argument. Unfortunately, you'll never gain a full stop of speed in low light shooting nor ever see the bokeh and isolation that af2.8 aperture can provide. Bang for the absolute buck, I'll pick the f2.8L over the f4L any day. But that's me. It is the portrait zoom of portrait zooms. If I shoot zoomed landcscapes @ f8 then yeah the f4L version would be better than adequate.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Chuck, did you note that I said that I own and use both a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS? I've shot over 500 images with each lens, so I have some idea of what they do and the advantages/disadvantages of each. (Have you used both extensively?) If I have a choice, I'll use the f/4L IS. I can actually refute one of your statements, about low light shooting--see below. Again, if you haven't actually used both lenses, you may not realize the major difference in IS performance. Remember that the f/2.8L IS was introduced in 2001, the f/4L IS in 2006, so it benefitted from 5 years advance in technology.


Where the f/2.8L IS has an advantage:

1. Action-stopping in low light. That's why I got the f/2.8L IS, as I often shoot horse shows in poorly-lit indoor arenas. I need 1/400 sec or faster to get a galloping horse's legs to not be noticeably blurred. I can keep the body from blurring by panning with the horse, but the legs move quite fast relative to the horse's body. Even so, it's not fast enough for some arenas, so I use faster primes.
   
2. Isolation, as you said, but that depends upon what you shoot. It may or may not be that useful and depends a lot upon the distance (well, actually upon the size of the image of the subject). The f/4 lens may be just fine at longer distances. For portraits, 70mm @ 8 ft and f/2.8 with a 1.6x body gives a DOF of 0.42 ft (5 inches). That's great for isolation, but it can put part of the person out of focus, as well. In the same situation, f/4 gives a DOF of 0.59 ft or 7 inches. That's a small difference. FWIW, backing off and using a longer focal length will give you the SAME DOF. 140mm @ 16 ft also gives 0.42 ft at f/2.8, 0.59 ft at f/4.
   
3. Bokeh. The background will be a bit more out of focus with the f/2.8L IS @ f/2.8, but how often do you use f/2.8?
4. Ruggedness. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is a tank (and weighs almost as much as one!).
   
5. Autofocus in low light.

If you are really serious, #s 1, 2, 3, and 5 above would be good arguments for fast primes. I've read that serious wedding photographers like the 85mm f/1.2L, for example, and indoor sports can benefit from fast primes, if the distance doesn't change very much. In photographing games (barrel racing, pole bending, etc) at horse shows, I usually choose one spot on the course to shot and pick the lens (and my location, as much as I can) to fit. Up in the stands, I've used 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2. I have gone down to the floor level and used 35mm f.2 and 50m f/1.8. (I need to try out my 30m f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 for this.)


Where the f/4L IS has an advantage:

1. Handheld in low light with stationary subjects. I'm not the only one who has found that the f/4L IS can get good results at lower shutter speeds than the f/2.8L IS does. I've made direct comparisons--same subject, same light (within minutes), same camera, same techniques, etc. I was able to get at least one stop (often more) slower shutter speeds with the f/4L IS at f/4 than with the f/2.8L IS at f/2.8, so it more than makes up that stop. Check Ken Rockwell's results for the f/4L IS @ f/4 and f/2.8L IS @ f/2.8. Ken gives the slowest shutter speed where he got at least 50% "perfectly sharp" images. At 70mm, it was 1/8 sec for the f/2.8L IS, 1/3 sec for the f/4L IS. That's more than 1 stop better. At 200mm, it was 1/30 sec for the f/2.8L IS but 1/11 sec for the f/4L IS, again, more than one stop better. One other advantage: the f/4L IS is tripod-sensing; the f/2.8L IS is not. You need to remember to turn it off when it's on a tripod or you can get some odd results.
   
2. Sharpness. The 70-200mm f/4L IS is reported to be the sharpest zoom Canon makes and may be the sharpest zoom, period. See Ken's review as well as Bryan's.
   
3. Carrying it around. The f/2.8L IS weighs roughly 56 oz, the f/4L IS about 26 oz, nearly 2 pounds difference. (If you add in the hood and tripod ring, the difference becomes a bit greater.) This is non-trivial, especially if you carry the camera on a strap around your neck. (I have a way that makes it less of a burden, necessitated by walking around with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at horse shows and the almost-as-heavy (6 oz less) 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS for nature/wildlife photography.)
   
4. Ergonomics. It's easy to spin the zoom ring on the f/4L IS with the fingers of my right hand on my 30D + battery grip. Can't do that with the f/2.8L IS. It's also easier to handle because the balance point isn't so far forward.
   
5. Minimum focus distance. f/2.8L IS is 51", magnification 0.17; f.4L IS is 47" and 0.21. Neither is a "macro" lens, but the f/4L is a tiny bit better in this regard. It can be useful if I'm shooting an outdoor horse show and find an interesting flower. When I'm trekking around for nature photography, I'll have either a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens or a Canon 77mm 500D close-up lens (and step-up ring).
   
6. Autofocus speed is a bit faster and more stable for me with the f/4L IS, given adequate light, but the difference is minor.
   

Which lens is "better" will, thus, depend upon what you're using it for, irrespective of the cost. For example, when shooting outdoor horse shows, f/2.8 would provide better isolation, but it might also make it harder to ensure good focus over the main subject, which can easily be 8+ feet long/deep and moving a up to 20 mph.

[holeysox]

<div>



<div>





<span>Thanks to everyone who provided comments. They are all
useful and in some cases you folks have offered an option I haven't thought
about ... such as purchasing a EFS 18-200 3.5-5.6 IS along with a EF 85 1.8 and
a new flash. =)<o></o>


<span>I'm afraid after reading all the comments, I've narrowed it down
to the "classic" choice between the 24-70 and the 24-105. And
I'm heavily favoring the 24-70 because of the f2.8 ...<o></o>


<span>Now, I know there have been countless threads on comparing the two
so I won't take you guys down that road again ... but here are my reasons:<o></o>


<span>1) I don't mind changing lens while I'm at an indoor location.
Having different lenses is the reason why I bought a DSLR. I usually
set up my "base" in some corner and go through the various lenses
I've brought with me and get a different style of shot throughout the day.
This does mean thatoccasionallyI will miss a candid shot here
and there because I don't have the right lens on my camera. Hence, my original
comment about using the 30 1.4 at my kids birthday.<o></o>


<span>I do, however, hate changing lenses when I am outdoors and running
about with my kid. <o></o>


<span>This means I cannot consider any of the 70-200 lenses for this
particular purchase. It will probably be the purchase after this one and
use it for when he starts playing hockey! =) And I will probably be saving up
for the 2.8LIS ... <o></o>


<span>2) Having to go to a f5.6 or f6.3 on the long end is also out of
the question. Although my kid is not as fast as a horse around a track or
a basketball player on the court, he RARELY sits still. The lighting is
also rarely adequate in places like the local McDonalds indoor playground or
the theme park at dusk. I will need something faster than a f5.6. I
guess in some cases even f2.8 won't be enough.<o></o>


<span>When you couple that reason with the fact that I hate to change
lenses when I'm out and about, that means that the option of EFS 18-200, 15-85,
17-85 combo with long prime is out of the question. Although they are all
excellent focal lengths, I&rsquo;m afraid they are just not fast enough.<o></o>


<span>3) For what I'm shooting, I don't need it to be wider than 24mm;
that&rsquo;s even when considering my 1.6X crop factor. The reason I came to
this conclusion is because I find my 30mm adequate for most of the group shots
of my family and friends. Any wider than 24mm would be for when I'm
travelling with my wife and taking architectural or landscapes shots during the
day ... and that is rare enough that I'm willing to live with my 18-55 IS.
I know it's a kit lens and all, but I really find the sharpness to be
adequate for my amateur landscape photography. The only regret is buying
a $100 CPL filter for a $100 kit lens; just doesn't seem worth it ... but
that's another thread. <o></o>


<span>This means the 24-70 is wide enough and adds another (70X1.6 -
55X1.6) 22mm on the long end compared to my kit lens. I just wish there
were places where I can rent lenses in Vancouver .... because I need to find
out if (70X1.6) 112mm is long enough for what I'm shooting.<o></o>


<span>My only remaining questions is to IAMB since he/she has had a
positive experience in using the 24-105 in a poorly lit gym shooting a
basketball game .... is it really good enough for stop action indoor
photography? I know for sure that f5.6 is too slow but is f4 fast enough?<span> If it is, I wouldn&rsquo;t mind getting the extra
(35X1.6) 56mm beyond the 24-70.<o></o>


<span>Thanks again to all who have posted!<o></o>

</div>



</div>

[Chuck Lee]

Chuck, did you note that I said that I own and use both a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS? I've shot over 500 images with each lens, so I have some idea of what they do and the advantages/disadvantages of each. (Have you used both extensively?) If I have a choice, I'll use the f/4L IS. I can actually refute one of your statements, about low light shooting--see below. Again, if you haven't actually used both lenses, you may not realize the major difference in IS performance. Remember that the f/2.8L IS was introduced in 2001, the f/4L IS in 2006, so it benefitted from 5 years advance in technology.

George,


I stand officially refuted.


Thanks for your in-depth comparison. When I decide to step up to a IS version of the 70-200 I will definitely give the f4 version much more consideration. It may possibly be the betterchoice for a 5D FF body. I do shoot alot at f2.8 with my non-IS version but prefer f4 asthe default.