Help me choose the right lenses (sorry)

[UdubBadger]

So let me 1st apologize for the annoying thread ... I'm sure I'll get flamed (or at least should be) but I just would like some opinions from people who know what they are talking about instead of my GF who took photos in HS and still doesn't really know what a "fast lens" means.

Anyway, here is the situ...

I just upgraded my 20d to a 40d and I'm looking for some new lenses (unfortunately on a semi budget). Here is what I currently own.
Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye
Canon 28-135mm IS (kit lens)
Canon 50mm f/1.8

I shoot a lot of things but the 2 I actually make money shooting are Bands, both live and promo work and sports action shots (baseball, basketball and football mostly). I am first looking for a fast lens for the indoor stuff in low light situations as the live band stuff is really the majority of the work I do and a lot of my shots are from a close distance so the 50mm prime doesn't always do the trick.

I have been on Canons website for about 3 days now and I've kind of narrowed it down to these lenses but would like everyones opinion on what might be the best option in addition to what I already have.

Canon 16-35mm 2.8L
or
Canon 24-70mm 2.8L

Then I'd most likely to have to wait till summer to get a 70-200mm 2.8L IS and a 1.4x extender for the sports stuff.
I also considered doing a 20mm f/2.8 prime non L and get the 70-200 at the same time but I feel like thats kinda dumb cuz then I still don't have an L lens for the live indoor shoots.

I dunno, just need some direction right now is all.

Thanks for listening and your comments in advance (unless they are death threats ).


oh 1 last question, on the 70-200mm 2.8 is the IS version really worth the extra $600 bucks? I'd almost rather have that to get a 1.4x or even 2x extender and have like $300 left over but if it really makes a difference then I'd be willing to do it.

 

[UdubBadger]

anyone? I'd appreciate the help a lot.

 

[tirediron]

I shoot Nikon so I can't speak to specifics on the lenses, but I use the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 as my 'daily shooter' and while it's not quite as wide as I'd like on an APS-C sensor, the long end is perfect. IMO, an ideal lens. I think the 16-35 doesn't have quite enough to offer on the tele end.

 

[UdubBadger]

I shoot Nikon so I can't speak to specifics on the lenses, but I use the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 as my 'daily shooter' and while it's not quite as wide as I'd like on an APS-C sensor, the long end is perfect. IMO, an ideal lens. I think the 16-35 doesn't have quite enough to offer on the tele end.

thanks for the reply.... I was also planning on getting the 70-200mm 2.8L but I do see what you are saying. With a 1.6x crop on the 40d though, its more like a 18-40mm than a super wide 16-35

 

[Kegger]

Go for the 24-70, should be about perfect for your needs as well as being fast. It has incredible optics, and is widely regarded as a fantastic piece of glass.

But don't forget, even on a crop sensor that 16mm is gonna be wider than your average 18mm lens.

 

[Big Mike]

There are a lot of factors in choosing a lens...most of them are personal preference. Shorter or longer focal length, for example.

The 17-55mm F2.8 IS is a very good lens and worth considering for your 'normal' range zoom.

I might also consider prime lenses for their speed. For example, the 35mm F1.4 L is a suburb lens, as is the 24mm F1.4 L. Either of them are going to be quite expensive though. I have the Sigma 30mm F1.4 which is a lot cheaper and pretty good.

oh 1 last question, on the 70-200mm 2.8 is the IS version really worth the extra $600 bucks?

To some yes, to others...no. I have the F2.8 IS version and it was painfully expensive...but I'll always know that I have the best tool for the job. If I had skipped the IS...I would always have it in my head that I'm not getting shots that I could have.

 

[Roey]

I agree with Mike on both counts - go for the prime lens and absolutely, positively whenever IS is a choice - that's the one. They offer it for a reason - it's worth it.

Peace,

Roey.