Lens choices.....help!!
For my first post I figured I would ask for some advice on lenses. Currently I am using a Canon 40d with the 24-105mm f/4L lens. That is the only lens I have. I am no pro, but I generally take portraits for family members for fun and I like to shoot sports as well. With my current lens I don’t have the reach I would like to have for sports and I don’t know if my current lens is a good lens for portraits – though I think it is probably a good general purpose lens for walking around.
Now, on to my specific questions….
1 – Would going with the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 85mm 1.8 be better for portraits and general purpose than my current setup?
2 – This is the question I am having the hardest time finding an answer for. I am looking at the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS and the f/2.8 non is. Which one should I go for if I plan on using it at times for portraits, but generally for sports more than anything else. I know IS is great, but if I am shooting at 1/200 and higher, does the IS really make a difference? Or, instead of both of these lenses, should I go with the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS lens?
If you cannot tell, I am little confused on what to do……:scratch
Thanks in advance for the advice!!
Now, on to my specific questions….
1 – Would going with the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 85mm 1.8 be better for portraits and general purpose than my current setup?
2 – This is the question I am having the hardest time finding an answer for. I am looking at the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS and the f/2.8 non is. Which one should I go for if I plan on using it at times for portraits, but generally for sports more than anything else. I know IS is great, but if I am shooting at 1/200 and higher, does the IS really make a difference? Or, instead of both of these lenses, should I go with the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS lens?
If you cannot tell, I am little confused on what to do……:scratch
Thanks in advance for the advice!!
0
Comments
I find both my 70-200/2.8 non-IS and my 24-70/2.8 to be excellent portrait lenses. Your 24-105 should be perfectly fine for that purpose. Personally I wouldn't worry about the 17-55 unless you're encountering some trouble with the range in your current lens. If you want to go wider, I'd suggest looking at the Canon 10-22, or Tokina 12-24/4 or 11-6/2.8.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Generally it will be baseball, sometimes swimming. Mostly, I am shooting my niece and nephew (and when my son is old enough
As as the 24/105 goes, I am looking to be able to have better bokeh for portraits on both the wide and long ends. With my current lens the bokeh at 105 is good if I am close enough to the subject, but I cannot fit much into the frame if I am close enough for realy good bokeh. That is why I was thinking the combo of the 17-55mm and the 85mm may be a little better than the 24-105mm. Again, I could be wrong
Let's start with the sports application. For a nightime or indoor sport, I don't think f4 is fast enough. At times even f2.8 may not be.
For basketball and volleyball I would suggest the Canon EF 135mm, f/2.0L USM.
For (Americal) football (high school level) I rather liked both the performance and the results from the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (non-IS). Daytime performance was spectacular and night games were very nice even wide open. Focus, on a 1D MKII, was fast and accurate. Chris is right that the 200mm is sometimes not enough, but I still found this lens the best overall.
Bucking the popular trend, I like using a full tripod and a video fluid head instead of IS. To get the full benefit of IS the lens needs to "settle" for 1/2 second or so before the shot. There were many times when that was not possible. With the tripod the settle time is nil and stability is fantastic. The camera and lens are always up and I keep the lens pointed at the action. It still gets tiring after a full game but nothing like trying to hold a camera and lens up the full game. Keeping the camera level is another benefit. A monopod is a useful alternative to a tripod.
I also have (just got) the Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM which is part of my travel kit. While it might also be nice for daytime outdoor sports, I doubt that I would use the IS unless I were a spectator in the stands and then the lens is not probably long enough.
I do like the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, F2.8 IS USM for a general purpose standard zoom (on the Canon 40D) and I think I would find the 24-105mm range a bit long for my style of shooting for family stuff, weddings and events. Again the constant aperture f2.8 is an indoor benefit and the focus is very fast and sure.
I do like the Canon EF 50mm, f/1.4 USM for really low light. It also has very shallow DOF for certain types of portraiture. The Canon EF 85mm, f/1.8 USM would be great for a head shot or head-and-shoulders.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I am thinking that the 17-55mm may be a better general purpose lens for me for shooting around the house. I think the 24-105 has a nice reach, but it is not fast enough or wide enough in some cases.
As far as the 70-200 goes, either with the 2.8 or the 4, I was thinking of getting the 1.4x extender so give me a little extra reach. I know that makes the 4 much slower and only drops the 2.8 down to 4, but would adding the extra reach on the lens create more of a need for IS unless I was using a tripod? I generally don’t use a tripod as I like to move around a lot, does that change anything as far as the 2.8 non is vs the 4 is goes?
The 85 is a sweet little lens. My only frustration with it is the minimum focus distance being about 3 feet. I recently got a 50 1.4 to use in closer situations.
I also recently got the 70-200 f/4 L IS. I love how easy to use this lens is, because of its light weight, and the IS really allows you to drop your shutter speed and still get a clear shot, in applicable situations. I can certainly see how certain venues would require a 2.8. I took some shots at church a couple weeks ago...f/4, ISO 1600, 1/60, 121mm. It's a good thing there wasn't much movement on stage!
As much as I really enjoy this version of the 70-200, I can see how a 2.8 would be desirable for sports. If you're not interested in using a tripod, though, you're going to need decent shutter speeds (which you'd want for sports action, too). The 2.8 will be heavier to use but will probably get you closer to your needed speeds. The f/4 will be easier to carry around and use (IMO) and is great for portraits and well lit situations and situations where you can drop your speed and still get a clear shot (such as pictured.)
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
Having said that I will admit that I don't use mine that way. I go to either the 17-55 2.8 or in some cases the 50 1.4. Just depends on how big the group is, both are great lenses!
I use my 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS for daytime sports, lighted nightime sports, plays and concerts. I have never missed not getting the IS version but I do on occasion use a monopod with it. It is a lot easier to handhold than my Sigma 80-400mm OS is.
Hope this helps.
Smugmug site
Blog Portfolio
Facebook
I tried using a 1.4x converter on the f2.8 and for day stuff outdoors it was fine, although a nuisance to change often. For night stuff or indoors I don't think you would like the slower effective aperture or the reduced autofocus speeds. On the f4 version of the lens, I'm not sure I would use for sports at all with the 1.4x converter. I might try something this summer during some practice sessions.
You might consider renting an IS lens and just try it with the IS on and off to see if it works for you better one way or another.
The local newpaper guys use Nikon D2H/D2Hs and they use a Nikkor 80-200mm, f2.8 (no-IS) on one body and a 300mm, f2.8 (no-IS) on another body. For the few images that they take, they do pretty good work. For the night games they usually have a monopod for the 80-200 and a fairly short strap so it just falls to the side when they use the 300mm.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
After having tried a 1.4x TC on one of those IS lenses, I generally don't recommend it. The results were bad enough I stopped before the evening was over & deleted many of the shots--you could see how bad they were even on the 20D's LCD. Under optimal conditions, particularly if the f4 version is used instead results are likeyl to be much better.
For the general-use lens, well if the 24-105 isn't working for your style, then certainly look at the 17-55. It's got a great reputation. You could also look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8--it has an equally good reputation.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
The 17-55 would work for enivronmental and full body portraits while the 70-200 would work for headshots and sports, especially if you use a 1.4x teleconverter if you need more reach for the sports.
If money is a factor, I'd consider a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and a Tamron/Sigma/Canon non IS 70-200mm f2.8.
For portraits and sports, I personally would prefer a f2.8 vs f4.
I have the 17-55 and previously owned the 24-105. I am definitely favoring the 17-55 over the 24-105 I used to have.
Also I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 but will eventually upgrade to the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS when money allows for that.
These two lenses will cover almost anything you'll need.
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus