Lens Help - Canon 70-200's and 17-55 f/2.8 IS

[Bradf35]

Hey guys,


I need a little help making a decision on what lens to get next. I have a Canon 40d. My current lenses are a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Canon 200mm f/2.8. I have about $600 to spend on a lens right now. The Tamron focuses a little slow in low light for my liking, and I would like the versatility of a telephoto zoom instead of the prime. Would you recommend selling the Tamron and getting the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, or selling the Canon 200mm f/2.8 and getting the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (Non IS). Another option is to sell both lenses right now and get the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4. I will be using the telephoto mainly for sports and wildlife. My birthday is coming up on June 1st and I will be getting approximately another $600 to play around with then, but I would like to use that for a macro lens. Thanks for the help.

[Daniel Browning]

I don't think the Canon 17-55 focuses much faster. Have you considered using a focus assist lamp? (Such as what comes with the 430EX or ST-E2.)


The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is an excellent choice for sports, especially because the shutter speeds often make IS unneeded. The image quality on that zoom is almost as good as the prime you shoot now.


However, on APS-C, while I find that 70-200mm is an excellent range for sports, to me it is not long enough for wildlife. The 400mm f/5.6 is better for that purpose, but it's not a zoom, and the 100-400 is $300 over the price range.

[thunder]

Is there a huge difference in price between 24-70 F/2.8 and 17-55 F/2.8 in your country ?

I know there is difference in the focal length, but I'm a sucker for 24-70 F/2.8.

Just an alternative approach.

Best regards

[nrdavis]

I would sell the Tamron and buy the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I've used this lens quite a bit for wedding photography, and it focuses very quickly. I can't compare it directly to the Tamron, but I certainly didn't think the focus was holding anything up. The real factor here is Image Stabilization. This lens is hand-holdable to 1/8 second or less depending on how steady you are. That is just something you can't get anywhere else, even in the 24-70 f/2.8 L. I can attest the Image Stabilization of the Canon lens is phenomenal. Also, the lens is much sharper than I would have ever expected, even wide open.


For your second dilemma, I would hang onto your canon 200 f/2.8 until you've saved up enough for the 70-200. It's up to you whether you get the f/2.8 or the f/4, but again, i wouldn't even consider a non-IS lens. I know the f/2.8 lens is very expensive, I just bought it about a month ago. So if you want to save some money, you could probably get away with the f/4 lens. The IS will make up for the lack of lens speed in most situations. And I've read that the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8, although that would be a tall order, it's the sharpest lens I've ever shot.


Good luck. Just want to make sure you don't end up repeating my mistake of buying inferior lenses just to have the focal length covered, and then going back and selling them to get cash for the lenses I really wanted in the first place.

[KeVancity]

Keep your lenses they are both great lenses. Also the 70-200 4L is sharper than the 2.8. on this website you can compare the 2 lenses, the contrast and sharpness is better on the 4L and 4L IS. Is 1 stop worth it? instead of shooting at 100 iso you can shoot at 200.


for 600 you can get the 70-200 4L non IS.


Get a st-e2 - you can focus in complete darkness - it also lets you fire your canon flashes remotely.


you should tell us what your shooting.

[devsalvi]

Wow! Brad this was going to be my next post, something similar. Just that i dont have any lenses to sell.


I can't decide between the 70-200 f4 non IS, 70-200 f2.8 non Is and the 100-400 f4-5.6 I have used the 100-400 before and had to give up on it for personal reasons. I absolutely loved it. It has great focal range and very good image quality.I have shot birds and portraits with it and with good results(the photograph will be only as good as the photographer)[:P]


The dilemma is I cannot choose between a faster lens and a longer reach or an all together cheaper but excellent lens.


But its time to go shopping again []Just wanted to make sure I buy a lens such that i dont have to look for another lens for few months.


please help!





Thanks,


Dev

[Bradf35]

Looking back at my pictures I shoot a lot less wildlife than I made it sound like I did. I use it more for youth sports (football, basketball, and cheerleading) than anything. I've decided to make myself be happy with the Tamron for a while and go with either the 70-200 f/2.8 Non-IS or 70-200 f/4 IS. How does the 70-200 f/4 IS do in low light sporting conditions? My problem now is that I want the 70-200 f/2.8 for sports and the 70-200 f/4 IS for general purpose. I will get the 1.4X or 2X converter for wildlife depending on what lens I get. I might try to save a little longer and spring for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It would be really nice for the helicopter ride in Hawaii I have in August[:P]. Thanks for the help!

[Daniel Browning]

How does the 70-200 f/4 IS do in low light sporting conditions?

Generally: not good. But it depends on your circumstances. If you're steady enough to go with the typical 1/focal length rule, then anything 1/320 or faster will not benefit from I.S. And 1/320 is usually the minimum required to stop action. Since f/2.8 has twice the amount of light, the noise level is much better. f/4 does not activate the f/2.8 autofocus sensors, either.


One big factor will be the print size you consider usable. Smaller print sizes can get away with more motion blur, more noise, and more missed focus.

[dmckinny]

I have the 70-200 f4 non-IS and I use it primarily for shooting my daughter playing soccer, outdoors. For this, considering the price of the lens, I doubt you can do better. However, it does leave something to be desired in low light conditions. Since my stated goal was to shoot day-light soccer, I did not get an IS version, and I went with the f4. My wife is VERY aware of what I am spending on my hobby so, ultimately, this is the best lens for me.


All that said, I did get some pretty decent shots of the NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships in St. Louis last month. It was not exactly a "good light" situation, and I was pretty high up in the stands, and it was all hand held. Still it is doable, it took a lot of patience and concentration on being still.


Given what you have stated for your goals in the original post here is what *I* would do. Keep both of the lenses you have now and save up for either a 100-400 L or a 400 5.6 L. None of the 200's are going to be worth it for wildlife, doable, but not the best. This way you will have a good general purpose lens in the 17-50, a good sports lens in the 200 2.8. If you added the 100-400 it would do double duty as a good light sports lens and a wildlife lens. The 400 5.6 might be too long, depending on the sport, but it seems to be fabulous for wildlife.