I just noticed that your 70-200 f/2.8 II option includes a 50mm f/1.4. On a crop body, this is my favorite fast prime for indoor portraits (I admit this is *very* personal). So this option definitely gets my vote.
I just noticed that your 70-200 f/2.8 II option includes a 50mm f/1.4. On a crop body, this is my favorite fast prime for indoor portraits (I admit this is *very* personal). So this option definitely gets my vote.
John, if you are still undecided........i will gladly accept your $100 bills, all 33 of them as a donation for my 7D, 100f/2.8L macro fund. and right now, it doesnt matter if they are american or canadian $100 bills lol
jim
Originally Posted by wickerprints
I tried to answer John's post but I found that wicker said everything I wanted to say much more eloquently. I second everything in wicker's post. 100%.
Denise, those shots of your dogs running are really fantastic. Try to avoid shadows, use fill flash but do not overexpose...
brendan
Originally Posted by bburns223
Thanks Brendan. These are some of my first shots of them outside with this camera without snow on the ground and the sun shining! One minute they are in the shade of the fence and in a blink they are in direct sunlight. As soon as I adjust settings, white dog is gone and black dog is running at me which calls for more adjusting ...challenging but fun! []
Denise
John,
I'd go with 5DII+24-105f/4L.Havingboth FF and APS-C body will get more out your EF lenses in terms of focal length. Having 85mm, 100mm and 200mmwillactually cover 85mm, 100mm, 136mm,160mm, 200mm, and 320mm, depending on thebody you have it on, and that is a pretty impressive range in decent increments. If you like 135 f/2L (on APS-C equivalent to 216mm and f/around4), the 200mm 2.8L on FF should be even better. Also,using 2 bodiessimultaneously should significantlydecrease your lens swapping time. Just a few thoughts...
I wouldthink aboutgetting the EF 50mm 1.4 down the road.
Also, whathever your decision is, consider renting and trying what you are interested in.
Good luck.
Pete
<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<span><o>
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]I'd keep saving and get a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"]Canon EF 300mm f/2.8[/b]<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"] L<span style="color: #000000;"] IS USM[/b]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]!!!<u1></u1><o></o>
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]...but given the options you presented I'dtake #3 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"] L<span style="color: #222222;"] IS II USM[/b] & <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt;"]Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.[/b]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt;"]<o></o>
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"](I liked the red "<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #ff0000; font-size: 11pt;"]L[/b]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]"s so much I stole 'em!!!)<u1></u1><o></o>
</o>
T3i, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 L, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 430ex (x2), 580ex
13.3" MacBook Pro (late '11 model) w/8GB Ram & 1TB HD, Aperture 3 & Photoshop Elements 9
Originally Posted by wickerprints
I don't have any aversion to gaps or overlaps in focal lengths. If I did, I'd be looking at the EF 28-300mm lens, instead! What I do have an aversion to is missing shots because of a need to change lenses when a particular lens doesn't have the right coverage for what I'm shooting.
Originally Posted by wickerprints
LOL - too late! I sold my 300mm f/4L IS and bought the 100-400mm instead, precisely for the reason above. Most of my shots were at f/5.6 anyway, and I missed some because I was too close, and more because I was a little to far. An extra 8 oz. on a 3 pound lens isn't that much, I think, and I find myself much happier with the zoom range when out on a hike. If my goal was to shoot birds in flight, and only birds in flight, the 100-400mm would be the wrong lens and I'd have the 400mm f/5.6L. But my interests are more varied. The prime was a nice lens, but I was hampered by it's lack of versatility for what I was shooting. It helped that I bought the 300mm prime used (Craigslist), and at such a good price that I actually made $150 when I sold it. [:#]
<div></div>Originally Posted by wickerprints
<div></div>
<div></div>
It's notreally about 'covering' the gap - it's about getting from wider than that to tighter than that quickly and without changing lenses.
To your other points, yes, I have a 430EX II with a diffuser and I pretty much always bounce it indoors, and our ceilings are white. I get shots with that and the 17-55mm that I really like. But, sometimes I prefer the ambience of natural indoor light.
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>I'd also like to future-proof myself to the extent possible - I have a two year old girl, and she's already doing ballet, gymsters, music classes, etc. - recitals, gymnastics, etc., are very likely coming soon (much sooner that I'd like, actually!). Thus the f/2.8 zoom or the even faster primes.</div>
<div></div>Originally Posted by bburns223
<div>The EF 24-105mm for outdoor general use - outside, I almost always have room to back up, so I can forego the 17-24mm range. But I often find I want to get tighter framing quicker than my feet will allow, and 55mm isn't enough on the long end. But, I don't want to give up the wide end, and the 100mm Macro, which Denise points out is a very useful lens, has shown me that I don't need longer than that for 'everyday' use. An example would be standing a short way away from my wife and daughter, taking a shot of my wife watching our daughter doing something adorable, then zooming in for a close up of my daughter. Unless my goal is outdoor portraits, I'd be at f/4 or narrower anyway, and if my goal was portraits, I'd be using the 85mm f/1.8, probably, with an ND filter if necessary for a shallow DOF.</div>
<div>The EF 35mm f/1.4L would be for low light, indoor family shots with ambient light. The 50mm f/1.4 is a cheaper substitute for that, and I'm a bit concerned that it's too close to the 85mm f/1.8, which I absolutely love for indoor portraits (and outdoor ones, too!). But, the 85mm is too long for group shots indoors, and 30mm seems like a good 'compromise' length. 50mm is 'normal' for a reason.</div>
<div>The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II would be for outdoor use for now, until those indoor events like gymnastics start cropping up. It would provide a high-quality, faster zoom with weather sealing (compared to the 100-400mm) (good for low-light winter days), and with a the 1.4x II Extender, an f/4 ~100-300mm weather-sealed zoom with excellent IQ. I'd still want the extra reach of the 100-400mm on a brightly lit day, though. My reasons for considering the f/4 IS version boil down to cost (getting other lenses concurrently) and the size/weight of the f/2.8 version. It's a compromise, and frankly I suspect that if I get the f/4 now, I'll find myself wanting the f/2.8 down the line. I don't know that I agree with Wickerprints' suggestion that I'd have no use for the 200mm f/2.8 prime if I has the 70-200mm zoom. On an outing where pictures weren't the primary reason, I could see tossing the 200mm prime in the bag just in case I needed something long - at half the size and weight of the 70-200 zoom, that would work (I've done it already). The 70-200 f/2.8 and 100-400mm aren't lenses to 'bring along in case' - I (and everyone else) will know they're there.</div>
<div>The 135mm f/2L, honestly, I just want it. It's not at the top of my list, so it's one of those that would likely be an opportunistic Craigslist purchase rather than ordering a new one.</div>
<div>One more very minor point in favor of the 24-105 + 35L - it puts off a choice of a different kind. Right now, I can probably find a way to fit those two additional lenses into my Flipside 400AW, and carry all my lenses on my back. There's no way that's going to work with two big, white zoom lenses...</div>
<div>Wickerprints, I think you summed it up nicely:</div>
<div></div>Originally Posted by wickerprints
<div>So, to take that to its logical extension, if I want good optical quality, and I'm going to engage in a wide variety of types of photography (casual memories, portraits, landscapes, travel, animals, birds, flowers, macro, etc.), then I'm going to need a wide variety of lenses. Right?</div>
I'll sell 100-400mm and 200mm2.8 and get 300mm2.8, I also think you might need a second body, 35mm1,4L is nice but you already have 17-55mm, I guess you don't use your 85mm 1.8 a lot, but I'll still keep it since it's so sharp and inexpensive. just my 2 cents.
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I want to laugh at a clear case of the L disease but I have to admit I also want this lens badly for no reason other than its awesome
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
John, If you do decide on the 70-200 II, one of the black rapid straps would solve your problems regarding keeping your hands available for "quick toddler grabs". I use mine with a 100-400 and it works great and is very comfortable.
I also like your #4 Line up. The 24-104 is ideal for outdoor walkaround on a crop body--I have one and love it. The 135L provides that beautiful bokeh and outstanding IQ for those special and artistic moments and the 50 gives you the low-light ability when needed.----But.......It would be very hard for me to pass up the 70-200 II if I was in your position [:S].
Good luck,
Bob
Bob