Wallet full of $100 bills

[Jon Ruyle]

Personally, I would prefer the lens you already have (17-55 f/2.8 IS) as a general purpose lens to the 24-105 f/4 IS. Okay, the 24-105 has more reach. But I would think the wider angle and smaller f/number of the 17-55 would make it a better walk around lens. Can you remind me why you want the 24-105.


For photos of toddlers, I like the 70-200 range. I think f/4 would be good enough most of the time for this purpose if you like tight protraits, because children are small (so you need to stop down more to get them all in focus than you would for a similar shot of an adult... most people don't take this into account. On the other hand, if you want to do full body shots, though, f/2.8 will be handy at least some of the time. Also, since you mentioned that you don't shoot one type of subject in particular, I think you might want to err on the side of versatility and go for the f/2.8.


Some will say the fast prime is ideal for indoor pics of kids, and sometimes I do use them. But lately I've been leaning toward pics in the f/4 (which would be sort of like f/2.8 on a crop) range with IS (which would favor the 70-200 over the 35mm f/1.4). Your subject must be still for this to work, but at least you have enough DOF to get more than one eye in focus. All depends on what style picture you want to take, I guess.


I think I just babbled instead of giving you an answer.

[neuroanatomist]

Personally, I would prefer the lens you already have (17-55 f/2.8 IS) as a general purpose lens to the 24-105 f/4 IS...Can you remind me why you want the 24-105.

My (tentative) thinking was that the 17-55mm is the indoor general purpose lens, and the 24-105mm is the outdoor general purpose lens (focal length, but also weather sealing). One of my concerns about the 70-200 2.8 II is the size/weight - not for going on a hike, but say, for pics at the playground, where I often need to let the camera/lens dangle from my neck with both hands free to lift the little one onto a slide, etc.


Thanks!

[ddt0725]

My (tentative) thinking was that the 17-55mm is the indoor general purpose lens, and the 24-105mm is the outdoor general purpose lens (focal length, but also weather sealing).

I took some great shots yesterday with my macro lens of the dogs running around the yard, it gives you the length and weather sealing. The 100mm F/2.8 L IS macro is more versatile than it gets credit for. Also, I really love my 50mm f/1.4 and I know you would enjoy it but you already have the 85mm. [^o)] I am thinking of selling my 300mm for the 24-105mm but I'm not even convinced that I need it ...but I'm working on it!

I'm on a monopod kick right now since I was at the park this weekend watching everyone with theirmonopods and the ease of use as I setup my tripod! So considering the frame of mind I'm in at the moment and all the lenses you already have, I'd go with a monopod and save the rest ..maybe snag a good deal or two on craigslist. I know ...BORING! [:P]


Denise

[Jon Ruyle]

One of my concerns about the 70-200 2.8 II is the size/weight - not for going on a hike, but say, for pics at the playground, where I often need to let the camera/lens dangle from my neck with both
hands free to lift the little one onto a slide, etc.

A legit concern. Also, I don't like to draw attention to myself when taking the kids to the park (after all, it's a trip to the park, not a photo session). I take my 24-105 on my 5DII. That's not so different from the 17-55 f/2.8 on a 7D. Not sure I would want something longer and slower, but obviously it's a very personal choice.


Usually, though, I think the 70-200 2.8 is a great outdoor zoom. I used mine (version I) on a rebel for a long time and it was my favorite lens (and remained so through two more cameras until the II came along)


I recommend going for a 70-200 zoom. On full frame, f/4 might be fine but for general purpose (and for many specific uses on a crop body), but for general purpose on a crop body, I would lean toward the more versatile f/2.8.

Keep saving, you are 1/3 of the way to getting a
800mm L.

Imagine dangling that from your neck while lifting the kids onto a slide

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[lynx0069]

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

[bob williams]

One of my concerns about the 70-200 2.8 II is the size/weight - not for going on a hike, but say, for pics at the playground, where I often need to let the camera/lens dangle from my neck with both hands free to lift the little one onto a slide, etc.

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

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, Bob!

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 looked at the BlackRapid system a while back - it looks very appealing and comfortable, but I was reluctant to go that route because of the inconvenience of swapping out the FastenR-2 for the QR plates on the body or tripod foot. Some people apparently just connect the ConnectR-2 to the D-ring on the tripod QR plate, but i'm sure that thumbscrew is not designed to take the weight. I considered using the BR strap just for the white lens(es), attached to the tripod foot, but assuming I get the 695CX monopod, I'd get a 234 QR tilt-head for that, and be looking at a front-heavy monopod when attaching it to the camera, or still swapping plate forFastenR.


However, I think a BlackRapid strap will be a future purchase - according to BlackRapid's forum/blog, in addition to the new FasterR-3 that's now in production (one piece design instead of a D-ring), they're expecting to have FastenR's specifically for QR plates. Once those are available, life will be good!

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

Yeah, it's a bit of a dilemma... But, on the balance I'd rather have too many choices than too few! I'm still grappling a bit with the duplication in the general purpose range (i.e. having the 17-55mm f/2.8 andthe24-105mm f/4L).

[bob williams]

I looked at the BlackRapid system a while back - it looks very appealing and comfortable, but I was reluctant to go that route because of the inconvenience of swapping out the FastenR-2 for the QR plates on the body or tripod foot

Absolutely right, I had a similar problem as well. When I bought my RRS tripod head, I also bought the RRS camera plate---My plate (7D)had a threaded hole in it that accepetd the d-ring swivel on the black rapid strap----works great, and I don't have to remove my camera plate.----Just a thought.


Bob

[Dave Johnston]

Go 5DII + 24-105... That's what I would do. Two good bodies... better than one.





Dave.