Decisions, AGAIN - Aperture vs. IS? Zoom vs. Prime?

boulderNardo

Helloooo everybody again!
Well, it's been a while since I had to make my last purchase/gear decisions, and it's that time of the year again

Just to recap, I've been shooting with a 20D and a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 mostly, but also had a 35/2 and a 50/1.4 in my repertoire which I've recently sold. I shoot all kinds of subjects, but lately (since I moved to Colorado) I've been mostly shooting skiing, and that's truly very my heart lies - skiing, mountain biking, action sports in general, plus lots of beautiful scenics in the mountains.

I've already decided to trade my 24-70/2.8 for a 24-105/4IS. Several reasons for this decision. First and foremost, I find myself shooting at f/5.6-8 most of the time anyway when I do skiing. Second, the extra 35mm are going to be extremely useful for saving time, since when I do use the 70-200 I'm mostly in the 70-120mm range anyway. Third, I want IS - I'm not yet sure how much of an effect it will have, but I've been really paranoid about getting tack sharp images, and the majority of images I've taken so far (even those shot at 1/400 or faster) are not tack sharp. I'm hoping IS will help me out there.

The next decision I have to make is whether to keep or trade the 70-200/2.8 - again, I'm shooting mostly at f/5.6 or smaller, so I'm really not using the f/2.8 expect for the rare occasion I do portraits. I do wish to do more portraits later on in the season as I get better with my gear, but I think a good prime would be the best choice for that and I should keep my gear 'focused' on what I'm currently doing - i.e. sports. I'm therefore thinking of getting a 70-200/4IS instead of the 2.8, for the same reasons as above. I'm a little itchy about this decision though - the fact that the IS almost doubles the price of the 70-200/4. Do I really need it? Can I do without? If it does offer some advantage, would I be better off getting a sturdy, realiable & quick-to-use tripod for the same price-range as the "IS-feature"??

The third decision (which related to #2): Buy a 300/4IS when I have the budget (in ~2 weeks) OR buy a 2x Tele, keep the 70-200/2.8, and combine the two?
The reason I want the 300mm's is so I can take better closeup shots of skiers by placing myself more strategically away from their path. I have a bunch of shots/angles in mind which I really want to try with the 300/4IS. Again, the question here is, is the IS worth it, is it IQ-wise worth it to have a prime (yes I'm sure I would use that range quite a lot once I have it!) vs. having an L-zoom with 1.4x/2x Tele???

Wow, so much to write, so much indecision
Help me out guys!
-bernardo

PS: Go to bernardo.smugmug.com for some examples of the kind of shooting I've been doing with the two lenses I currently own...
EDIT-PPS: btw, I am also planning the purchase of new bodies coming this Spring - my ideal setup is going to be 1D Mk IIN, 5D, and 40D.
I'm going to start by buying either a brand new 40D or a used 1D MkIIN in ~2 months.

claudermilk

Jumt my $0.02. If you aren't getting sharp enough images at 1/400 I honestly don't think IS will do anything to help you. It's more for getting slower than the 1/focal length rule of thumb shutter speed. Perhaps sending the lens for calibration will do more for you.

For the second, the 70-200/4 IS is reputed to be the sahrpest of the family, so it's probably just what you're looking for. Only you can answer the question of whether the IS cost is worth it to you.

On the third, I would go for the prime over a 2x TC on the 70-200. In fact, that's exactly my plan: get a 300/4L IS when funds allow. I will likeyl get a TC, but for use on the prime, not on the zoom. My experience has been the 70-200/2.8IS does not take a TC well--BTDT, stopped quickly. YMMV.

gtc

300mm
Do you really need IS in the snow?

It's usually pretty bright and mostly you will either be panning or head on and if it's darker bump up the ISO.

How about a usd 300mm/f4.0 non IS(from those people who are upgrading to IS) and with the savings get some extra gear.

Sold your 50mm/f1.4? How are you going to shoot shallow DOF portraits after the skiing is over?

boulderNardo

claudermilk wrote:

Jumt my $0.02. If you aren't getting sharp enough images at 1/400 I honestly don't think IS will do anything to help you. It's more for getting slower than the 1/focal length rule of thumb shutter speed. Perhaps sending the lens for calibration will do more for you.

For the second, the 70-200/4 IS is reputed to be the sahrpest of the family, so it's probably just what you're looking for. Only you can answer the question of whether the IS cost is worth it to you.

On the third, I would go for the prime over a 2x TC on the 70-200. In fact, that's exactly my plan: get a 300/4L IS when funds allow. I will likeyl get a TC, but for use on the prime, not on the zoom. My experience has been the 70-200/2.8IS does not take a TC well--BTDT, stopped quickly. YMMV.

clauder, your advice has been extremely helpful so far in all my other threads! Again, you deliver
I did send the 70-200/2.8 in once for a checkup, Canon fixed some issue with the mount-bajonet part for cheap and I got it back - I guess I should send the lens in with the body to have it calibrated to it.

I'm very very tempted to go for the 70-200/4 WITHOUT IS - it's also supposedly one of the sharpest lenses in the lineup, and at $550 new it's a killer deal which leaves me plenty of money for a good tripod.

gtc wrote:

Do you really need IS in the snow?

It's usually pretty bright and mostly you will either be panning or head on and if it's darker bump up the ISO.

How about a usd 300mm/f4.0 non IS(from those people who are upgrading to IS) and with the savings get some extra gear.

Sold your 50mm/f1.4? How are you going to shoot shallow DOF portraits after the skiing is over?

Indeed I did not even think about the 300mm f/4.0 non-IS! I will start looking for used ones. I assume optically they are just as sharp as the newer IS versions?

50mm f/1.4 sold pending shipment I honestly do not need it now and won't need it until there's lots of snow, which this season means well into April/May. I need the money now, and I can later afford to waste $40 bucks by buying it new vs. keeping my used one now. Plus, with the kind of money I make on my new software engineering job, I might just go for the 50mm/1.2L !!!

thanks for the advice so far folks!
-bernardo

claudermilk

Check out photozone--he's got reviews & MTF numbers on both the 300/4L and 300/4L IS. The IS version has slightly better numbers, but I'll bet we would be hard-pressed to see the difference in side-by-side images. Both came out with extremely good results. I'm leaning strongly to grabbing a used copy of either one of these to fill my long telephoto needs.