Help with buyers remorse

arkphotos

First - Thanks for all the info everyone contributes here - I have spent WAY too many hours reading & learning when I can't be shooting.

I jumped into the DSLR world with a canon 40D and have been shooting with the 28-135 and 50/1.4 for 6 months. My main subjects are family, kids sports (indoor), and kids concerts. Low light. Low, Low light.

I finally decided it was time to pick up some new lenses. I ordered a canon 17-55 f/2.8 to get wider, for primary walk around & indoor family stuff. I ordered the canon 135L to try and tame the kids concerts, basketball & volleyball. Concerts are especially challenging - at 2.0/1600, shutter speeds are around 1/40. I was afraid a 2.8 would leave me with too much motion blur.

Now, I am obsessing over complaints warning of IS problems on the 17-55 and praises of the 70-200 f/2.8 (really wanted this - but big, 1 stop slower than the f/2.0).

Did I do the right thing?
Would the 70-200 f/2.8 IS have been a better choice for my low light dilema?
If I can manage to pick up the canon 50-250 for zoo trips - will that be enought to get me over my 70-200 regret?

I will be fine when my lenses arrive. In the meantime, I am just going crazy with buyers remorse ...

Tommyboy

They're all good lenses. Don't worry. You definitely got what you paid for.

If you're concerned about stability on the 135, why not try a monopod?

First I've heard about IS issues on the 17-55. Mine is flawless.

Good luck. You'll be fine.

ziggy53

arkphotos wrote:

...

I finally decided it was time to pick up some new lenses. I ordered a canon 17-55 f/2.8 to get wider, for primary walk around & indoor family stuff. I ordered the canon 135L to try and tame the kids concerts, basketball & volleyball. Concerts are especially challenging - at 2.0/1600, shutter speeds are around 1/40. I was afraid a 2.8 would leave me with too much motion blur.

Now, I am obsessing over complaints warning of IS problems on the 17-55 and praises of the 70-200 f/2.8 (really wanted this - but big, 1 stop slower than the f/2.0).

Did I do the right thing?
Would the 70-200 f/2.8 IS have been a better choice for my low light dilema?
If I can manage to pick up the canon 50-250 for zoo trips - will that be enought to get me over my 70-200 regret?

I will be fine when my lenses arrive. In the meantime, I am just going crazy with buyers remorse ...

Welcome to the Digital Grin.

Funny, you have "buyers remorse" and I have terminal lens envy.

I do have the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM and it's a great lens, but the EF 135mm, f2L is to die for as a sports lens, and probably as a concert and theatre lens too.

Ya done good. Stay the course.

arkphotos

ziggy53 wrote:

Welcome to the Digital Grin.

Funny, you have "buyers remorse" and I have terminal lens envy.

I do have the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM and it's a great lens, but the EF 135mm, f2L is to die for as a sports lens, and probably as a concert and theatre lens too.

Ya done good. Stay the course.

Thanks - I know i'll love 'em - just paying for them & waiting for them thats hard.

This is my first foray into photography - my mid-life crisis I think (cheaper than a sports car ... maybe). I naively thought buying the camera would give me great photos. Now I realize its a lot of skill, quite a bit of creativity, and good glass helps .

I am still just making nicer snapshots but hope to someday learn enough to create a photograph I can hang on my wall.

ian408

that 135 has beautiful bokeh!

mrcoons

Don't worry everything will be fine!

Both are great lenses. I use my 135 for concerts all the time, once you get used to it you will love it. I have never needed my monopod when using, no matter how dark the auditorium was. My 135 is probably my favorite lens, it produces stunning images.

I love my 17-55 as well, it's a great portrait lens and is certainly wide enough for me. f/2.8 can be fast enough for my concert photos depending upon the venue.

Enjoy your new lenses!!

Moogle Pepper

ziggy53 wrote:

Welcome to the Digital Grin.

Funny, you have "buyers remorse" and I have terminal lens envy.

I do have the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM and it's a great lens, but the EF 135mm, f2L is to die for as a sports lens, and probably as a concert and theatre lens too.

Ya done good. Stay the course.

I am ... in the same boat as Ziggy. The unyielding, dangerous, terminal lens envy. There is no cure nor vaccine for that ...issue. wink:D

You made some really good choices already. the 17-55 is a great sharp lens, I don't own one, but there are tons of members here who swear by it. For low lights, why not go for primes? 50 f/1.4 and that sort! I love my 50mm!

claudermilk

arkphotos wrote:

Thanks - I know i'll love 'em - just paying for them & waiting for them thats hard.

This is my first foray into photography - my mid-life crisis I think (cheaper than a sports car ... maybe). I naively thought buying the camera would give me great photos. Now I realize its a lot of skill, quite a bit of creativity, and good glass helps .

I am still just making nicer snapshots but hope to someday learn enough to create a photograph I can hang on my wall.

HeeHee. Wrong on both counts. It's about even between cars & cameras. Now that you have top-line gear, you cannot blame it for the image quality, and have already discovered it's the computer 6" behind the viewfinder that makes the most difference.

I wouldn't worry about the lens purchases. Both are very highly regarded. One thing I see that you are doing that might be making life harder: you're sticking with ISO1600 for the low light. Don't be afraid of ISO3200--I run my 20D there all the time with my 70-200/2.8 and get great results. You will need to set a custom function to allow that setting, and it will read "H" rather than "3200." Hit the image with some noise reduction in post processing and you should have perfectly usable images.

Tee Why

If you are shooting people at ISO 1600 1/40 sec at f2.0, getting a 70-200mm and shooting at ISO 1600 at f2.8 will yield a shutter speed of 1/20. IS should stabilize the lens but I'd think you would get subject movement blur, even if they are relatively still.

I think the 135mm f2 or a 85mm f1.8 is the better way to go.

Pindy

the 17-55 is probably the single best EF-S lens available and the IS works a treat. The 135mm is one the best lenses Canon makes—bar only a handful. I own the 135mm and just traded the 17-55 when I bought a 5D. You have chosen wisely!

I second the monopod statement. My school event outfit is the 135mm and a monopod, ISO 1600 or 3200.

Pindy

claudermilk wrote:

Now that you have top-line gear, you cannot blame it for the image quality

This is precisely the reason I buy nice gear. I need to be challenged or I'm not having fun. Gear that shows up your abilities is great for growth. I hate feeling like I have to make excuses for the equipment.