My first Lens suggestion thread

[CW Jones]

Hey I know there are a LOT of these types of threads floating around, But mine will be short and simple I hope! haha

I am torn between 2 lenses right now, the first being the 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM. the second being the 70-200 F4L no IS.

How important is the IS when I am at 200mm? I don't want to regret getting the non IS one... however I don't have the money for the IS one haha The 28-135 is more affordable, but I have heard good and bad and very bad about it haha. The F4L I have heard nothing bad about minus it lacking the image stabilizer.

The reason I want a new lens, well I am sick of the 18-55mm non IS lens and want something sharper that produces better image quality. I would like something with more reach to do sports. I coach a soccer team and would like a nice lens to take pictures for the players. I also like doing portraits or friends and such. I usually shoot outdoors, I do some landscapes so I will keep the 18-55 for those. I guess what I am trying to decide is if I NEED the IS or not.... someone help!

-Collin

 

[nickisonfire]

you said you don't have enough money for the IS one so I don't see the conflict, buy what your budget allows.

 

[CW Jones]

right but the 28-135mm IS USM is still an option.... its that which is cheaper than the 70-200mm F4L

 

[ErectedGryphon]

you said you don't have enough money for the IS one so I don't see the conflict, buy what your budget allows.

:thumbup::thumbup:

I have a Canon 28-135 IS, and I think it's awesome, I bought it before they started including it on the xxD series as a kit. The only complaint I have about it is that its not a 2.8, it is a great general purpose zoom lens.

 

[nickisonfire]

you really can't compare them, two different lenses, two different purposes. It's your decision depending on what you shoot

 

[syphlix]

are you always shooting handheld?

are your games always day games?

are they sunny?

i'm sure all those would factor in...

 

[Felix0890]

You only need the IS if you do a lot of handheld shooting. If you use a tripod often, you don't need it. Do you do any indoor/lowlight shooting? Do you like to use flash in these situations?

You said you wanted to do portraits and like to shoot sports. I'd suggest a faster lens than the ones you have listed. A faster lens will give you a better blurred background when shooting portraits and also allow you to keep your shutter speed high for freezing those sports shots. There are some great fast lenses in your price range (I'm using the price of the 2 lenses you listed as your price range) from Canon and Tamron.

 

[JayCanon]

How important is the IS when I am at 200mm?

It all depends on what you're shooting. For shooting soccer games - no, you don't need it. I won't go so far as to say stabilizers are overrated, but there are certain situations where they can be less than helpful - subjects that aren't completely still, for example. I always say that photography has thrived just fine for a long time before stabilizers ever hit the market. There are no images that are impossible to capture without a stabilizer. And there is no real substitute for a good tripod and/or fast glass. I would base the decision mostly on whether you feel you're going to do a lot of low light, slow shutter speed shooting and can't use a tripod.

I have one stabilized lens - the Canon 18-55 IS that I bought pretty much exclusively for shooting the North American International Auto Show every January. I like the lens, it serves it's purpose better than the non-IS kit lens, and the stabilizer does help in the right situations. I did have a long winded explanation of why and how you have to master a stabilizer for it to be effective, but decided not to post all that right now. I will just say that a stabilized lens doesn't have any effect on your meter, so you still have to judge whether your shutter speed is fast enough to stop motion - like the cars on revolving turntables at the auto show.

So a stabilizer is a nice tool to have, but it's definitely not an absolute necessity. In my opinion, you'd have to do a heck of a lot of shooting in situations where you'd have IS switched on to justify all the extra money it adds to the price tag of a lens. If you're choosing between the two lenses you mentioned, I'd go with the 70-200 f4. It is faster, zooms further, and you already have the 18-55 for your wider end.

I hoped that actually helped, and didn't do anything to make the decision harder...

 

[CW Jones]

ok let me try to answer all the questions. I generally hand hold for sporting events that I shoot, probably just do to lack of a good mono-pod, which I know won't stop camera shake. There are always going to be over case days and what not, I get that so to say it is always sunny would be a stretch. Primarily I am still looking for what interests me the MOST in photography. I have gotten some small kick-backs from some of my sports photographys, but I also really like shooting people too, as well as some landscapes haha I know there is no magical lens that does it all ( I wish tho!)

I like the 70-200 because I know it will be superior optical quality over the 28-135 but the F/4 with no IS kinda scares me to be honest....

Felix what other lenses would you suggest in this rough range?

 

[ssnxp]

I'm keeping my eye on this thread, because I'm also looking for my "first lens" after the kit. I actually have the 28-135 and I love it. I was also thinking about the 70-200, but I was kind of stuck on not having the IS, like you.

 

[CW Jones]

yup haha glad to know I am not the only one that is having a hard time. If you have any other questions to add please feel free, you won't offend me at all.

 

[ssnxp]

Thanks! But I don't want to hijack your thread, because I'm leaning towards more of a wide angle or prime right now for portraits. Those are much less expensive than a great zoom lens! Different topic, I would think

 

[ruaslacker2]

I have both of the lens you are referring to. If you have the money go with the 70-200mm f4L. I have not regretted not having IS. It is a great lens, super sharp.

Jerry

 

[ErectedGryphon]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8L without IS, and I use it handheld, you just need to find the right technique of holding it stable. Do I use it on 2.8, sometimes, mostly around f/8 though, so you'll probably be fine with the f/4 model.

 

[CW Jones]

Thanks! But I don't want to hijack your thread, because I'm leaning towards more of a wide angle or prime right now for portraits. Those are much less expensive than a great zoom lens! Different topic, I would think

eh I am not too worried about it, just throw a "70-200" in your question and feel free to post away. I have been on enough forums to know they are for the common good, and if its easier to just add to someone elses topic then go for it, more information in a single place. So again, feel free haha :thumbup: