2nd (or 3rd) Opinion

[Baker]

I want to take my photography to the next level. For the past few months I have been looking
at purchasing a 7D body with two 8GB CF cards, a battery grip, and an extra
battery. But now that the price of the
7D has increased by several hundred dollars I am thinking that I would be
better served by purchasing a new lens rather than a new camera.


I'm thinking
of either the 70-200mm f/4 IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm would be used for outdoor
portraits and sports such as football, soccer, track & field, and
baseball/softball. The 24-70mm would
also be used for outdoor portraits and sports, but since it is a 2.8 I could
use it for basketball, volleyball, and other indoor sports. Also, both lenses
would probably find work in landscapes as well.


Here is a
list of the total price for each lens with accessories:


~ 70-200mm f/4 IS + BW 67mm CP filter + 67mm ND filter + Tripod
mount = $1,654.40


~ 24-70mm f/2.8 + BW 77mm CP filter + 77mm ND filter =
$1,654.00


~ 7D body + two 8GB CF cards + Battery Grip + Extra Battery =
$2,078.80


My question is which lens would be the best for outdoor
portraits? And which lens would offer
the sharpest images and the highest image quality?


My current setup is: T2i, 18-55mm, 55-250mm, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8.


I would love to hear your opinions, especially if you own
either of these lenses.


-Chris<a name="_GoBack"][/URL]

[neuroanatomist]

Have you considered the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS? IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom lens for a crop body. Just my 2&cent;. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is a fine lens, but not wide angle on a crop body (38mm is just inside the 'normal' range) and it doesn't have IS. The 17-55mm would be a subatantial improvement on the 18-55mm kit lens.

My question is which lens would be the best for outdoor
portraits?

Honestly, for that purpose I'd recommend a lens you already have - the EF 85mm f/1.8. Pair it with a B+W 3-stop ND filter (0.9, #103) so you can open up the aperture as wide as you need. I really like the 85mm focal length for portraits on a crop body. How much? I started with the 85mm f/1.8 on a T1i, then on a 7D. Liked it so much I changed to the 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II. Then I got a 5DII, and while I still use the 85mm f/1.2L a lot, I also got a 135mm f/2L for my 5DII, since that produced equivalent framing and DoF as the 85mm f/1.2L on a crop body.

[iND]

Your better investment right now to get you shooting better is the 70-200


I woud update to a 5D later but Id pick the glass now


but my suggestion is as follows


70-200 f4 nonIS 750


70-200 f4 IS 1300-1400


70-200 f2.8 nonIS 1500


70-200 f2.8 IS 2500


If you can afford the f4 IS then you can afford the 70-200 2.8 nonIS


I shot sports for years with the 70-200 f4 nonIS and was very very pleased, with the exception of indoor low light


the 70-200 f4 has excellent sharpness again excellent sharpness.


When I upgraded to the 70-200 f2.8 I never put the f4 back on, it is excellent the extra stop helped a great deal for lower light


combine that with the ability to use ISO 1600 - 2000 on a 50D and I am more than pleased. The 70-200 also is a great portrait lens as


the longer focal length reduces distortion.


The 24-70 is a wedding lens, you cant get close enough in sports.


You will keep the 70-200 forever


Why nonIS? buy IS if you can afford it I dont use it because:


price is not my issue


it is somewhat slower to autofocus and that is not good for sports


the auto focus does drain battery life


it does make a noise


I DOES NOT HELP WHEN THE OBJECT IS MOVING


IT ONLY HELPS CAMERA SHAKE, So I stabilize, or increase the ISO to keep speed above 1/00


MY VOTE 70-200 F2.8 nonIS if that is your budget


get the camera body later

[Baker]

This is why I love the forum. I had thought of the 17-55mm f/2.8 but for some reason I completely forgot about it while thinking about a new lens. IF that makes sense. I guess I was leaning towards those two lenses partially because I want to replace my 55-250mm. I am really disappointed by my 55-250mm, so much that I try to avoid using it if at all possible.


The 17-55mm f/2.8 with hood, CP filter, and ND filter would be about $1,465. Saving me around $200 to put towards saving for my next lens purchase []

[Fast Glass]

it is somewhat slower to autofocus and that is not good for sports

Actually the IS version has much faster AF. Quote from Canon TechnicalReport,"The AF performance of the EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is up to about twice as fast as that of the EF70-200mm f/2.8L USM by improving the AF drive circuits and AF algorithm of the ring USM drive and inner focus design.". What I think you are noticing is the IS startup time which is 0.5 second when youhalf way press the shutter button. But after that itshould be faster.Now I don't expect it to be twice as fast in all situations, but I would expect it to be at the least as fast at the worst.And most of the time a little better.

I DOES NOT HELP WHEN THE OBJECT IS MOVING

Yes,it does not help if you are trying stop motion. But if you are useing a slower shutter speed and motion bluring the background, such as in sports or aviation photography, IS is very helpfull.


My vote is for the the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS or if you can afford it the IS version. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8OS has gotgood reviews andworth looking into. That sells for about $950 and has four stop OS. JUZA has a good review on it here http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_70-200_os_hsm_review.htm.


Hope that helps,


John.

[Baker]

My budget is $1,700. But that includes things such as CP and ND filters.


Let me rephrase the original question. Which of these three lenses (17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/4 IS) do you think would offer the greatest improvement to my current set up? When I say it like that the 70-200mm f/4 IS immediately jumps out at me because, while the 18-55mm is not the sharpest or fastest lens, my 55-250mm is far worse. When I think about it I don

[Richard Lane]

Out of those 3 lenses, I would definitely pick the 70-200mm f/4 IS, but it really comes down to what your focal length needs are.


These are all very good lenses!


You already have the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, so if you get the 70-200mm, then you will be lacking a high quality wide angle lens, which you could get next time around.


Rich

[Baker]

You already have the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, so if you get the 70-200mm, then you will be lacking a high quality wide angle lens, which you could get next time around.

Very true. I think that I have been limited by my 55-250 more so than my 18-55. And now I see that there is a 70-200 f/2.8 for sale here for $1,050. I might end up going for that, even though it lacks IS.


Ugh. Why can't I just win the lottery and buy all the lenses [H]

[Richard Lane]

I want to take my photography to the next level.


I'm thinking of either the 70-200mm f/4 IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm would be used for outdoor portraits and sports such as football, soccer, track &amp; field, and baseball/softball. The 24-70mm would also be used for outdoor portraits and sports, but since it is a 2.8 I could use it for basketball, volleyball, and other indoor sports. Also, both lenses would probably find work in landscapes as well.


Here is a
list of the total price for each lens with accessories:


~ 70-200mm f/4 IS + BW 67mm CP filter + 67mm ND filter + Tripod
mount = $1,654.40


~ 24-70mm f/2.8 + BW 77mm CP filter + 77mm ND filter =
$1,654.00


~ 7D body + two 8GB CF cards + Battery Grip + Extra Battery =
$2,078.80


My question is which lens would be the best for outdoor
portraits? And which lens would offer
the sharpest images and the highest image quality?


My current setup is: T2i, 18-55mm, 55-250mm, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8.


I would love to hear your opinions, especially if you own
either of these lenses.


-Chris<a name="_GoBack"][/URL]

Hey Chris,


I think you're on the right track with the 7D or 70-200mm. These 2 pieces of equipment will help you take your sports shooting to the next level.


The rebel is a little slow in Auto focusing (it only uses one cross-type sensor vs. 19 cross-type sensors on the 7D), fps, and it lacks a 100% viewfinder. Sports shooting is about, frame rates, auto-focusing, tracking, and wide apertures.


If you get a 7D eventually, it has some weather sealing, whereas the EF-S 17-55mm does not. The 17-55mm is a nice lens and while it's certainly too short for sports, it also won't fit on a Mk III, MKIV or FF body. if you ever go that route. But regardless of weather sealing, I think you should put your money into a 7D or a 70-200mm, because you seem to enjoy shooting sports, and therfore you will need some longer good quality glass.


I understand that there is a budget, but I would just like to point out that if you could eventually get a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, then you would be able to put a 1.4X extender on it and still be at f/4 and 98mm-280mm, the other benefit of the f/2.8 bare is that it will work better indoors, in some gyms with a higher ISO. With the 70-200mm f/4, this will probably not work. The 3rd benefit for a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be for shooting outdoor games at dusk or under the lights at night. In addition the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS includes the tripod mount. This lens was a few hundred dollars less a few months ago, so maybe you should wait until the price drops a bit or until the rebates start again.


Also the 1.4x on a 70-200mm f/4 lens will make it f/5.6 which is too slow for sports plus the 2X want even be an option, unless you want to manually focus at f/8.


Any of the 70-200mm lenses will be great for outdoor portraits.


I think you should keep the 85mm f/1.8 for indoor gyms.


Even though I am recommending the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...


I will be selling one of my 7D's (I bought it approx. 1 year ago, but I haven't used it since football ended in November 2010), as I have 2 of them, in addition to the MK IV. I also have an extra 8GB card and extra battery.


If you're interested you can PM me.





Rich

[Richard Lane]

I want to take my photography to the next level.


I'm thinking of either the 70-200mm f/4 IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm would be used for outdoor portraits and sports such as football, soccer, track &amp; field, and baseball/softball. The 24-70mm would also be used for outdoor portraits and sports, but since it is a 2.8 I could use it for basketball, volleyball, and other indoor sports. Also, both lenses would probably find work in landscapes as well.


Here is a
list of the total price for each lens with accessories:


~ 70-200mm f/4 IS + BW 67mm CP filter + 67mm ND filter + Tripod
mount = $1,654.40


~ 24-70mm f/2.8 + BW 77mm CP filter + 77mm ND filter =
$1,654.00


~ 7D body + two 8GB CF cards + Battery Grip + Extra Battery =
$2,078.80


My question is which lens would be the best for outdoor
portraits? And which lens would offer
the sharpest images and the highest image quality?


My current setup is: T2i, 18-55mm, 55-250mm, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8.


I would love to hear your opinions, especially if you own
either of these lenses.


-Chris<a name="_GoBack"][/URL]

Hey Chris,


I think you're on the right track with the 7D or 70-200mm. These 2 pieces of equipment will help you take your sports shooting to the next level.


The rebel is a little slow in Auto focusing (it only uses one cross-type sensor vs. 19 cross-type sensors on the 7D), fps, and it lacks a 100% viewfinder. Sports shooting is about, frame rates, auto-focusing, tracking, and wide apertures.


If you get a 7D eventually, it has some weather sealing, whereas the EF-S 17-55mm does not. The 17-55mm is a nice lens and while it's certainly too short for sports, it also won't fit on a Mk III, MKIV or FF body. if you ever go that route. But regardless of weather sealing, I think you should put your money into a 7D or a 70-200mm, because you seem to enjoy shooting sports, and therfore you will need some longer good quality glass.


I understand that there is a budget, but I would just like to point out that if you could eventually get a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, then you would be able to put a 1.4X extender on it and still be at f/4 and 98mm-280mm, the other benefit of the f/2.8 bare is that it will work better indoors, in some gyms with a higher ISO. With the 70-200mm f/4, this will probably not work. The 3rd benefit for a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be for shooting outdoor games at dusk or under the lights at night. In addition the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS includes the tripod mount. This lens was a few hundred dollars less a few months ago, so maybe you should wait until the price drops a bit or until the rebates start again.


Also the 1.4x on a 70-200mm f/4 lens will make it f/5.6 which is too slow for sports plus the 2X want even be an option, unless you want to manually focus at f/8.


Any of the 70-200mm lenses will be great for outdoor portraits.


I think you should keep the 85mm f/1.8 for indoor gyms.


Even though I am recommending the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...


I will be selling one of my 7D's (I bought it approx. 1 year ago, but I haven't used it since football ended in November 2010), as I have 2 of them, in addition to the MK IV. I also have an extra 8GB card and extra battery.


If you're interested you can PM me.





Rich