Re-thinking Lens Choices... or, If I knew then...

[BryanKing]

My current equipment:


Body: 50D, Lenses: 10-22, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS.


My subjects:

• Bicycling race photograpy (www.bkingfoto.com) pays some bills.
• Family portraits: 6 month old baby girl Julia Anne (www.bkingfoto.com/Julia)
• Travel photography

While I am generally very happy with the 24-105 and the 70-200 I have, I am considering if I would be significantly better off to have f/2.8 glass for the general purpose and 70-200 lenses. I could probably financially justify replacing the 24-105 with either the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8, and replacing my 70-200 f/4 IS with the non-IS f/2.8 version.


Here is my analysis:


Pros: The 2.8 lenses would improve the autofocus for the fast action shots for bike racing, and would be better for available light family portraits of my little girl.


Cons: Cost, hassle, giving up IS, and the physical size of the 70-200 2.8 is a negative for me for a travel lens. I really like that my entire kit fits nicely in a Slingshot 200 bag!


I know a future body will have a better focus system that should benefit my race photography, on the other hand, no matter what body the future brings my way, I assume the focusing would always benefit from having faster glass.

[Brendan7]

If you want faster glass, you might want to consider the 135mm f/2.0l usm. It more or less covers all three of your interest IMHO. If you want a zoom, I suggest waiting on the 17-55 or 24-70 and instead buying an IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8. There are two versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 (I & II), and you can decide which fits your budget.


brednan

[BryanKing]

Actually the 85mm 1.8 is currently at the top of my wish list as an additional lens, but right now I'm more specifically considering trading my existing zooms for the others I mentioned.

[Sheiky]

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes, so in that case you're gonna miss your IS a lot! I don't know about the 85mm...it doesn't have usm, so for sports?? I don't know.


I own the 70-200 f4L non IS, for a sportslens it is absolutely great, but if you want to use it elsewhere, the higher shuttertime to handhold it is a pain in the ass every time again.





17-55 by the way is really great! Although no weathersealing, so for sports...





Good luck with your choice :P

[ShutterbugJohan]

I don't know about the 85mm...it doesn't have usm

It does have USM, actually.

[Brendan7]

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes

completely agree 110%. Never thought of that[:P]

[Keith B]

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes

completely agree 110%. Never thought of that[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

24-105 only has one mode IS. No panning mode.

[Keith B]

When I first started out, I had a couple f/4 and a couple fixed f/1.4. I found myself struggling on commercial shoots. I tried to use my fixed lenses but I was constantly changing between them. The f/4 usually didn't give me shallow enough DOF. So I pretty much sold every thing and went 2.8 with 16-35 II, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS.


The 24-70 is the workhorse for what I do. I tried to make the 16-35 "My" lens but I found I was still limited by 2.8 and the 50 1.4 just wasn't fun and didn't have that something, something. So now I have the 35 1.4 and I'm hoping it will have that something, something.


So, I'm of the mind to have the fastest apertures on the most versatile. I usually don't find myself needing IS on short lenses, even when I had the 24-105 I almost always had the IS turned off. 70-200 I find it to be a must have, so I'd say keep the 70-200 f/4 IS if the 2.8 IS is not in the cards.

[Colin]

I like the something something on the 35 1.4...


the 85 1.2 has something something wicked, but I use it a lot less. heavy, slow, and the angle of view itself is less interesting than the 35mm.. But, I should probably break it out. It does some nasty nice things.

[Keith B]

I like the something something on the 35 1.4...


the 85 1.2 has something something wicked, but I use it a lot less. heavy, slow, and the angle of view itself is less interesting than the 35mm.. But, I should probably break it out. It does some nasty nice things.

Yeah I was shooting with the 35 1.4 today. Noting important just trying to feel out the lens and I'm kind of feeling that something something. I for got how nice 1.4 can be. I'd shoot with the 50 1.4 and I just never got too excited about the images. I don't know if it was that the images were too soft at 1.4 but the 35 is tact sharp at 1.4. And the Bokeh is pretty sublime.


If and when I get a new lens it will be the 85 1.2 II.