Sooo.... what Canon-compatible lens (or other gear) should I buy?

usayit · Aug 23, 2006

I think you guys are confusing with what you want (or have) with what fits "Iron_Flatline"'s wants/needs.

read >> I'm not really a forests and wildlife guy, mainly because I can't seem to get out of the city<<

Those that want fast/IS without regard to weight, size, purpose, and price would take the 70-200mm f2.8 over the f4 thats no brainer. (I'd take ferrari over my 4-door commuter.. but should I?) The question is it right for "Iron_Flatline".. a fellow who doesn't want weight, budgeted $2000, shoots heavily in the city (doesn't do much wildlife) and shoots a lot of architectural. I think we are not doing him any good by telling an person with architectural interests to pass up a tilt-shift lens specific for that purpose for some long telephoto zoom no matter how good it is.

Its simple... given any choice... most will say.. sell everything.. all you need is a 16-35mm f2.8L + 24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM + <some other really freakin expensive long 400mm+ prime zoom that some guy in the city will somehow manage to use to shoot up at some lady up on a balcony 30 stories up>. Then say... problem solved. It ain't that simple.

Digital Matt · Aug 23, 2006

Who says you can't use a 70-200mm f/2.8 in the city? Who says you can't use a tilt and shift lens in the woods? I'm recommending what I think is lacking in his setup, and it's my opinion.

For architectural photography, I'd recommend a 4x5 view camera with front and back movements.

fightheheathens · Aug 23, 2006

looking at what you shoot, i would say get the 50mm.

I have a 50mm f/1.7 and despite the fact that i love shooting wildlife and land scape, the 50mm lens gets the most use by far.
If you shoot alot, you may as well get the f/1.4, there have been times, not many but a few when i needed that tiny little extra bit of light.
I would go for the 50mm

on the other hand, i also use my 200 mm lens quite a bit for people pictures. When i shoot bands and plays or stuff, its nice not to have to get up in peoples faces. All the band pictures presently in the general allery by me were done with an 85-200mm f/5.6 lens(granted it was at 3200 iso)

Iron Flatline · Aug 23, 2006

I appreciate your input, usayit. But now that my kids are older and starting to do team sports, a nice 70-200 isn't that far off either.

To add to that: this purchase is NOT only about what I need, it's about buying myself something ridiculuous I would ordinarily not allow myself to buy - being the border-line rational, grounded salt-of-the-earth type that I am. In so far as those types of people wear suits.

ALL this advice is great. Keep it coming.

usayit · Aug 23, 2006

For outdoor sports, you'll like the 100-400mm focal range much better.

Big Mike · Aug 24, 2006

Trouble with the 100-400 is that it's not very fast (I think it's F4-5.6). Even if you get the IS version, it won't help to freeze subject movement. A wide aperture is your best friend for shooting sports or moving kids in general.

I'm still voting for the 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM.... :drool:

danalec99 · Aug 24, 2006

My suggestion:

70-200/2.8L - 1,659.95
50/1.4 (for your wife) - 304.95

Total = USD 1,964.90 (B&H 'Imported' price, excluding tax)

964 · Aug 24, 2006

Iron Flatline said:
Why??

Hehehe... I see you have it, and I assume you're really loving it. Really, tell me a little about your experience. I've never really had a "long" lens like that, and there's been many times when I wish I had that kind of focal length.

Hmmm.... I love my 24-70. I do a lot of indoor photography and prefer having the speed over the IS - but maybe I will borrow the 24-105 and see if I can make it work for me.

Well, for my use its one of the lenses that is more on the camera than some of the others. I guess we can go into the sharpness, the speed of focus and all that - but I can see you are based at least part-time in Berlin. If you are ever in the UK sometime and have a camera with you - you can just mount up the 70-200 and go and have some fun for a day. It is a pretty heavy lens, but man......

964 · Aug 24, 2006

Big Mike said:
Trouble with the 100-400 is that it's not very fast (I think it's F4-5.6). Even if you get the IS version, it won't help to freeze subject movement. A wide aperture is your best friend for shooting sports or moving kids in general.

I'm still voting for the 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM....

yep me too, with the 2x TC I get 400 and f5.6 anyway...

usayit · Aug 24, 2006

Big Mike said:
Trouble with the 100-400 is that it's not very fast (I think it's F4-5.6). Even if you get the IS version, it won't help to freeze subject movement. A wide aperture is your best friend for shooting sports or moving kids in general.

I'm still voting for the 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM....

Hence outdoors use. I have never had any problem with obtaining a fast enough shutter speed. Common.. we talking at worst f5.6 outdoors. Even in cloudy days with ISO 200, you should have no problem getting enough shutter. 100-400 + 1.4x teleconverter on a 1 series body is a very common bird photographer's basic setup. Its easy to carry very versatile. At the 400mm f5.6, I personally would find DOF a bit too shallow for sports.

I once shot a polo match using a 100-400mm lens on a relatively bright sunny day with clouds coming in and out. I was using two bodies with ISO 200 and ISO400. I rarely went under f8 except for those shots in between plays in which I wanted a shallower DOF to bring focus to the persons expression... which is in essense a portrait. Even at 400mm focal length, the sheer size of the field made it necessary for me to borrow a buddy's 1.4 teleconverter.

As I said...

Its simple... given any choice... most will say.. sell everything.. all you need is a 16-35mm f2.8L + 24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM + <some other really freakin expensive long 400mm+ prime zoom that some guy in the city will somehow manage to use to shoot up at some lady up on a balcony 30 stories up>. Then say... problem solved. It ain't that simple.

Iron Flatline · Aug 24, 2006

Now what?

New L lenses from Canon

The powerful and fast EF50mm f/1.2L USM lens will be available in November for an estimated selling price of $1,599. The compact and universal EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM will also be available in November for an estimated selling price of $1,249.

Wow. That's gotta be a record price for 50mm on a small format camera. Anyway, I've always wanted that 85mm 1.2 really badly, but maybe a 50mm 1.2 is more versatile?

And you guys have me really thinking about the 70-200, though I think I might be more interested in the f2.8 than the f4.

Do I wait till November?

Iron Flatline · Aug 24, 2006

Digital Matt said:
Imho, the 70-200 2.8 IS from Canon (if you can afford it) is well worth it, and I recommend it above the f/4 L, and the Sigma f/2.8.

I'll tell you why. 1 extra stop over the f/4 is an obvious plus, and while it seems there is no benefit over the Sigma, the addition of IS is like basically adding 3 stops of "handheld" f/stop. If you are like me, and cannot handheld anything below 1/focal length, then you can't shoot any slower than 1/200. Well, even in daylight, if you are shooting something in shade, that may require bumping up the ISO to 200, if not 400. With IS, (I have the f/4 so I can't attest personally) I've heard that you can handhold safely at 1/60, and still get a great sharp shot. That could make or break a great shot, in lowlight.

If I had it to do over again, I'd have saved a bit more and gotten the f/2.8 IS.

That's my $0.02.

By the way, this makes a lot of sense to me. I need to be able to use it handheld or it won't get enough use. Having the speed AND the IS is a pretty compelling argument when evaluating 70-200mm lenses.

usayit · Aug 24, 2006

Iron Flatline said:
Now what?

That's gotta be a record price for 50mm on a small format camera.

Sure hope its better than the Canon 50mm f1.0 a while back.

Big Mike · Aug 25, 2006

Iron Flatline said:
By the way, this makes a lot of sense to me. I need to be able to use it handheld or it won't get enough use. Having the speed AND the IS is a pretty compelling argument when evaluating 70-200mm lenses.

Yes, IS seems to be the wave of the future. Especially with other companies making DSLR cameras with in-camera-stabilization. Canon & Nikon are probably kicking themselves that they didn't think of that instead of putting IS in only some of the lenses. (or maybe they make a huge profit on IS lenses and they aren't kicking themselves). If shooting hand held is what you will be doing most...IS is the way to go.

Iron Flatline · Aug 25, 2006

I dunno, this process is not going well for me.

I think the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L is just too heavy. It is almost twice as heavy as my 24-70mm. The newly announced 70-200 f4 IS L is only half as heavy (and lighter than my 24-70!) and I think that will be a major factor. I may have to wait for November.

The other lens I really wanted is the 85mm f1.2 L, but no matter how frivolous I wanted my purchase to be, I am concerned that I simply can't justify the price vs. my skills. I'd like to own a Ferrari, but it doesn't need to be the Enzo.

Oh, the agony.

I'm leaving for B&H in an hour. If I get good service there I might end up with a special lens. If the place is overrun (it's Friday) and I get one of the less-friendly guys, I may end up feeling good about having saved some money by NOT buying anything.