Re-thinking Lens Choices... or, If I knew then...

[BryanKing]

My current equipment:


Body: 50D, Lenses: 10-22, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS.


My subjects:

• Bicycling race photograpy (www.bkingfoto.com) pays some bills.
• Family portraits: 6 month old baby girl Julia Anne (www.bkingfoto.com/Julia)
• Travel photography

While I am generally very happy with the 24-105 and the 70-200 I have, I am considering if I would be significantly better off to have f/2.8 glass for the general purpose and 70-200 lenses. I could probably financially justify replacing the 24-105 with either the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8, and replacing my 70-200 f/4 IS with the non-IS f/2.8 version.


Here is my analysis:


Pros: The 2.8 lenses would improve the autofocus for the fast action shots for bike racing, and would be better for available light family portraits of my little girl.


Cons: Cost, hassle, giving up IS, and the physical size of the 70-200 2.8 is a negative for me for a travel lens. I really like that my entire kit fits nicely in a Slingshot 200 bag!


I know a future body will have a better focus system that should benefit my race photography, on the other hand, no matter what body the future brings my way, I assume the focusing would always benefit from having faster glass.

[Brendan7]

If you want faster glass, you might want to consider the 135mm f/2.0l usm. It more or less covers all three of your interest IMHO. If you want a zoom, I suggest waiting on the 17-55 or 24-70 and instead buying an IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8. There are two versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 (I & II), and you can decide which fits your budget.


brednan

[BryanKing]

Actually the 85mm 1.8 is currently at the top of my wish list as an additional lens, but right now I'm more specifically considering trading my existing zooms for the others I mentioned.

[Sheiky]

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes, so in that case you're gonna miss your IS a lot! I don't know about the 85mm...it doesn't have usm, so for sports?? I don't know.


I own the 70-200 f4L non IS, for a sportslens it is absolutely great, but if you want to use it elsewhere, the higher shuttertime to handhold it is a pain in the ass every time again.





17-55 by the way is really great! Although no weathersealing, so for sports...





Good luck with your choice :P

[Keith B]

When I first started out, I had a couple f/4 and a couple fixed f/1.4. I found myself struggling on commercial shoots. I tried to use my fixed lenses but I was constantly changing between them. The f/4 usually didn't give me shallow enough DOF. So I pretty much sold every thing and went 2.8 with 16-35 II, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS.


The 24-70 is the workhorse for what I do. I tried to make the 16-35 "My" lens but I found I was still limited by 2.8 and the 50 1.4 just wasn't fun and didn't have that something, something. So now I have the 35 1.4 and I'm hoping it will have that something, something.


So, I'm of the mind to have the fastest apertures on the most versatile. I usually don't find myself needing IS on short lenses, even when I had the 24-105 I almost always had the IS turned off. 70-200 I find it to be a must have, so I'd say keep the 70-200 f/4 IS if the 2.8 IS is not in the cards.

[ShutterbugJohan]

I don't know about the 85mm...it doesn't have usm

It does have USM, actually.

[Brendan7]

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes

completely agree 110%. Never thought of that[:P]

[wickerprints]

One stop isn't all that much. Now if we were talking 2-3 stops, that would be something else entirely, which means you should look into primes. I know you would rather switch out your existing gear rather than supplement with additional lenses, but I really think you need to consider the benefits of primes for your subject.


If your goal is indoor shots in low light, the IS will be effective for more stops of stabilization than the one-stop increase in aperture from f/4 to f/2.8. If your subject is moving quickly and you need a fast shutter speed at low ISO, then what you would really want is a prime like the 135/2L or even the 100/2 which is much cheaper. You can go even faster if you are willing to forgo some focal length; e.g., 85/1.8, 85/1.2L II, or 50/1.4 (but keep in mind this last lens is quite soft at f/1.4, but it is three full stops faster than f/4).


Just throwing some suggestions out there for you to consider. Personally, I keep going back and forth on the value of my 24-105/4L IS. There are times when I absolutely hate the f/4 and feel like it limits me, or I hate the extending zoom design; and then there are times when I love using this lens because the IS just works so well, and it is the only EF lens that has IS in this focal length range (I'm unable to use EF-S).

[jnort002]

I had my 2.8 non-IS and 40D at the London stage of the Tour of Britain 2009 and was very happy I had the extra stop as the finish line was partly in the shade and I wanted to freeze the action. Below is one of my fave pics from that day. I dont agree that freezing the action takes away the emotion as some of the best pics I have seen of sprint finishes have all had high shutter speeds and the emotion is definitely there, especially the pain and when the drop of sweat is frozen. Its probably a more photojournalistic approach then creative but each to their own. I have also added a finish line (intermediate) sprint as an example. I dont find the 40D autofocus limiting though I did come from a Rebel.....


I am not going to pretend that the F2.8 isnt a monster to carry for long periods. I love what it can do with sports/wildlife but when it comes to your other uses listed I would take the 70-200 F4 IS any day. My father has it and I will be borrowing it (and returning it) when I go back to Oz for a friends wedding soon.


My take on the topic is that family and travel are less likely to be moving subjects so the F4 IS versions are going to be more useful (excl the 17-55 from the discussion which is best of both worlds) for your needs (in my opinion). For the cycling the stop would be handy but I personally dont think its worth giving up for the other uses. You are doing quite all right as you are at the moment. I would only say that you could experiment a bit on the composition or shooting angle of the racing shots a bit more. I try to look at lots of pro pics from races, especially the iconic ones to get ideas





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.91/IMG_5F00_4763a.JPG[/img]


40D, 70-200 F2.8 non-IS, F2.8, 1/1600, ISO400, Centre focus point


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.91/IMG_5F00_4863a.JPG[/img]


40D, 70-200 F2.8 non-IS, F2.8, 1/1600, ISO400, Centre focus point

[Keith B]

Don't do it!!!!


Yes the f2.8 gives you one stop extra...but I always think bicycle shots, like motorsports, don't show much emotion and speed when you stop them. I really like the panning effect with bikes

completely agree 110%. Never thought of that[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

24-105 only has one mode IS. No panning mode.