Opinions needed on several lenses

[Ranger_Chris61]

<div id="post_message_3065056"]I have been shooting closplay photos now for the last three years and I am beging to see many of the limitations of the equipment that I currently have. Right now I am shooting with a Canon Rebel XT + 18-55 f3.5-5.6 kit lense with a 550EX Speedlite flash for the majority of my photos, and a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS for long range shooting, such as in panels and Masqurade. The lense that came with my Camera has thus far been my workhorse of my photography but I have started to get ot the point where I feel I need a better lense.

Right now I am heavily leaning towards the 24-70 f2.8, as one of the major problems I have noticed in a majority of my shots is that they are really dark. As such I reason that getting a lens with a large appature will solve this problem, as I can't increase the ISO on my camera more than I currently have it at without my shots being destroyed by chroma noise. Additionaly, I am leaning towards this lense becuase during my recent trip to Anime Expo 09' just about everyone and his brother was shooting with it, suggesting that if that many people are using it than it must be a good lense for cosplay. So what I am wanting to know is: is this a good lense for general cosplay photography, at cons in otherwise not ideal lighting, and any other opinions or lense suggestions people have.

Now for the longer range shooting is where I am having the most difficulty as far a choice of a good lense. I am split between the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS and the 70-200 f2.8, and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. The primary reason for this split is becuase of another thing that I do some shooting of, Airshows. Initialy I was looking exclusivly at the 100-400 as on my Camera that gives me a great amount of zoom. However, while at Anime Expo I started considering other posibilities, specificaly ones where I could get more out a the lense that I chose. While the 100-400 is a good lense, its relatively small max apature, 4.5-5.6, is really not that good for cosplay shots in poor lighting. So I started to look at the 70-200 in both flavors, with the idea of getting the 2X Extender for when I need a longer reach. However after reading some reviews I am now really unsure of my options. So what I am trying to learn here is what have people's experiences have been with both the 100-400 and the 70-200, and if the IS is worth the extra money for 70-200 IS over the cheaper non IS version.

I am also, as a more distant purches thinking about getting the 50 f1.4 for the time when I want to do close up portrait shots. Any opinions on this lense and its f1.2 and f1.8 brothers would be greatly appreciated.</div>

[Gian Luca]

If most of your pictures are dark you have a metering problem, and not a lens problem. You can blame the lens for sharpness, details, colors, but the amount of light you enter in the camera depends on the exposure. So check if your camera is metering properly, check if you are using the right set up, in case they are still dark, try to overexpose step by step to evaluate the right amount of underexposing of your camera.


For your question on the lenses I think the pest way to start to have an opinion is to read Bryan reviews.

[Ranger_Chris61]

I have read the reviews, and it is becuase of his reviews that I have narrowed my search down to these lenses.At the end of the day however there is no substitute to hearing people's impresions of how a lens performs in the field.

[1st-Insp]

I'm in a similar situation. I have a Rebel xti with an EF-S 10-22, 85 1.8 and the 24-70L 2.8. I have recently borrowed a friends 50D and 70-200L IS 2.8. I shoot a lot of real estate (that is why I have the 10-22) and I want to do more sports and stage work.


What I have found out is that the 70-200 is very long on the 1.6x FOVCF. My next lens will be the 70-200L IS 2.8, then the 135L 2.0.


However, after shooting with the 50D at an indoor chuch function with a 50 1.8 (ok lens) at elevated iso settings (1600-2500), I realized how poor my Rebel is at just ISO 800. I was able to shoot in the church without a flash and the pictures looked like I had full daylight. Well almost.


Since I need a longer lens I will buy it first, but I am saving for the 50D and even considering the 5Dmk2. Pros and cons with each, but the common pro is their low light abilities.


Good luck.

[Chuck Lee]

Ranger Chris,


Welcome to the forum.

Right now I am heavily leaning towards the 24-70 f2.8

Your leaning in the right direction. Especially if you want the best low light capable zoom on the planet. There is a reason everyone has them.

The primary reason for this split is becuase of another thing that I do some shooting of, Airshows

Airshows are always a compromise. I see guys and gals with the push-pull 100-400, folks with huge primes. I shoot with a 70-200 f2.8L on a 40D and always seem to get very good shots. I can also use the lens indoors, handheld if need be. It's a great lens for non intrusive candid photography. IMHO. That's the second most owned lens by Canon shooters.


If money is an issue or your just not sure if you want to jump into all that there are some really good alternatives:


Prime lenses are also good in low light. In fact, better. A EF 50mm f:1.4 @ f2.0 has a one stop advantage over the 24-70 @ f2.8 with the same or better IQ. On your XT, that gives you an equivalent 85mm lens on FF. For indoor event shooting even the thrifty-fifty, the EF50mm f1.8 would probably be OK because inside the bokeh of a lens dosen't seem to matter as much. Would be an easy try for around 100 USD. Last but not least is the EF 85mm f1.8. That'd be like using a 135mm on FF. Give you some extra reach at those larger halls. Check em out if you haven't. The 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8are less than 400 USD each.


Those primes would leave you at somewhat of a deficit on the wide side, but wait!! You've got a kit lens.If you did need wide angle shots your kit lens will give youa good 20mm at f4 That's at least as handholdableas a 85 at f2.0. Maybe, we'll here the arguments shortly.


Otherwise, zooms are just so incredibly versatile!!


That's my take....have fun,


Chuck