Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 or something else?

[donnman]

Still trying to decide which lens to upgrade to. I was thinking of the canon 100mm f/2 but many people have asked why I want a fixed lens. I want to take photos of my kids in their various sporting activities and many times they are indoors with low light. They are in swimming, cheerleading, competitive cheer, and baseball. From what I have read this lens seems to be built for that. However, many people have asked why I dont invest in a zoom. Im open to this as well but need one that will take shots with little light and quite possibly no flash.


Is there an affordable zoom lens that will do all that the canon 100mm or 135mm will do?


Thanks again,


Don

[Oren]

No there isn't (aperture-wise at least). The closest zoom is the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS), but it's still $250 more than the 135 f/2 and still one stop smaller (= twice less light).

[donnman]

Oren - So for my needs either the 100mm or 135mm should be the way to go? Im new to the DSLR world and Im wanting to upgrade from the kit lens.



Thanks,


Don

[Oren]

So for my needs either the 100mm or 135mm should be the way to go?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

No, I didn't say that. It really depends on your needs and budget as well. If you want the best bokeh with the best IQ (image quality) then the prime/fixed lenses are the way to go, but as you probably understand already, a zoom would be much more versatile. So to sum it up, it's really up to you - it's your decision. With that said, if I were you and money wasn't a concern, I'd get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and if that's too expensive then get the non-IS version which is $1250 (assuming $1250 it's still within the budget since you mentioned the $999 135 f/2 L).


Another option (which I think someone already mentioned) is to get a 70-200 f/4 L (non-Is) + the 100 f/2, since both together will cost you like the 135 f/2 alone.