Do I need a new lens?

seekcreative · May 5, 2010

I have my T2i with the basic lens kit and the 55mm-200mm IS lens, but for what I am going to doing (youth sports images, portrait shots) I wonder if I need something different.

I was looking at the 50mm 1.8 but, want to make sure, through my fellow peers, that it's going to be better to do that or use one of the lenses I already have?

Thanks in advance.

Josh220 · May 5, 2010

For portraits it will be a huge upgrade. For sports, it won't be that useful.

seekcreative · May 5, 2010

Josh,
That's what I was thinking. I mean, no I wouldnt use it for action shots on the field or what have you, but for the close ups for portraits and staged action shots on the green screen, I figure the 50mm would be perfect.

Gracias! (happy cinco de mayo)

eriqalan · May 5, 2010

The 50 is effectively an 85mm class (35mm equivalent) - it has a large open aperture but most sports are telephoto (you are on the sidelines) the 55 - 200 (or do you mean the 55 - 250 and F 5.6 at 250) would seem a batter choice - with so many pixels on a small sensor you need to try to limit ASA to 400 to keep from getting noise but your depth of field at 200 / 250 isn't very great so you have a struggle there

NOTE: Turn Image Stabilization OFF when shooting action - otherwise it tries to follow the moving object blurring everything

Also note: Digital cameras are, by their very nature, daylight cameras, they do not like night time light levels, have issues autofocusing, etc.

For portraits the 50 1.8 would seem a good choice (85mm class is called "Head and Shoulders" for the shot you get from 6 foot); and F 1.8 gives you lots of light and low depth of field that you want in a portrait

If buying new Abe's of Maine has these just under $100 with shipping included; used I have seen %50 and 60 occasionally on craigslist in larger cities but act fast because others will scoop it up at that price

If you can use preset (no AF, No IS, No Aperture set by camera) you can get even better glass by looking at used Pentax / M42 thread lenses and a $5 adapter (ebay) - Pentax F 1.4's go around $100 (even 40 years old!) but Mamiya goes for less than $50 and is just as good if not better; F 1.8's go cheaper - and (here's a dumb thing) often the camera and lens is cheaper than the lens; I once got a Mamiya 1000 DTL (working) with the F 1.4 for $30 - craigslist or ebay

Personally, unless you have a lot of money try using what you have first

Also consider the old standard portrait lens was roughly 100 / 105 mm; you can get an 85mm F 1.8 that is Macro-focusing (if you have the money) and have that macro ability as well

Vinny · May 5, 2010

The 55 -200 zoom may not be a fast lens but provides most of the coverage you need. As was mentioned 105mm (which is about 85mm in some DSLRs) is what is considered the potrait focal length. Since you have 55mm on the zoom you can experiment if that focal length is what you like for taking portraits. For sports your 200mm is closer to 300mm and that may get you close enough depending on the sport. If it's football and you're at one end it may not be good enough if the play is at the other but may work for baseball.

What you gain by having a fast lens would be better low light performance if you shoot in low light and a shallow depth of field and ultimately a better lens optically.