need help choosing good glass

[michaelincolour]

Hello everyone,

I am ditching my konica minolta maxxum 7d and jumping into the world of Canon. I need some help deciding what lenses to buy. right now I'm thinking.

canon EF 70-200mm f/4L

and the

canon EF 50 f/1.8canon EF 50 f/1.8


If i make these purchases on ebay i am looking at 600. The issue is everyone is telling me that i will hate f/4 and i need something that will be an f/2.8. my though is that i will have the 50mm with an f/1.8 for all of my indoor/lowlight and i can just use my 70-200 outdoors in better lighting, and f/4 should still be able to blur the background..i think. I am moving to new York city in two months, so add that to the think tank of whats best.

I looked at the Sigma 50 - 150mm f/2.8 however it is a little out of my price range, and i like the thought of getting a canon L series lens.. maybe its just because of the cool name.

Here are some of my recent shots Willismedia I just entered the world of photography in July, so i am looking for some expert advice.

feel free to make any and all suggestions

Thanks for reading

 

[bazooka]

It depends on what you're going to be using it for.

 

[gsgary]

The 70-200F4 is a great lens i have used mine in low light and sports loads of shots i could show you

 

[michaelincolour]

It depends on what you're going to be using it for.

Thanks for commenting Bazooka, I don't like buying cheap things, because i know the value of investing. So i want to get the absolute best lens for around 600 that i can get. Unfortunately that does not leave me with many other lenses therefore i need a good lens that i can use for pretty much everything. I am not doing portrait photography, or wedding, or anything like that, i would say i want to be more of a photojournalist, capturing life as it happens. indoor and outdoor.

 

[michaelincolour]

The 70-200F4 is a great lens i have used mine in low light and sports loads of shots i could show you

Thanks gsgary!

This will be the only quality lens i will have, would this be a good choice?

I checked out your website, very good!! which shots where taken with the 70-200f4?

 

[gsgary]

The 70-200F4 is a great lens i have used mine in low light and sports loads of shots i could show you

Thanks gsgary!

This will be the only quality lens i will have, would this be a good choice?

I checked out your website, very good!! which shots where taken with the 70-200f4?

It's good for potraits, not sure about weddings
Here's a few shot with it
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Sports/Sports-Portfolio/Andrew-Nicholson/568956140_R4i7f-L.jpg

http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Animals/Sues-DeerHound/Image00015/667796622_Edvkq-L-1.jpg

http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Competitions/Miscellaneous/MB5C5943ps/792737034_uLhPr-L.jpg

http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Competitions/Miscellaneous/MB5C8813-after/606373370_gnFQF-L.jpg

 

[michaelincolour]

Thank you, Everything i read and see tells me this will be a great lens. I am not shooting weddings...EVER, haha. so this may be perfect!

 

[gsgary]

Thank you, Everything i read and see tells me this will be a great lens. I am not shooting weddings...EVER, haha. so this may be perfect!

Here's a low light iso1600 on 1Dmk2

 

[bentcountershaft]

Thanks for posting these as I have been seriously considering the the 70-200 F4L as well. I'm going to have to sell off a few coins this week I think.

 

[KenC]

You should consider the 70-300 4/5.6 IS, which should be within budget. The IS works very well and should eliminate the need for larger apertures for speed. As for background blur, I find that in the longer half of the zoom range, the aperture is sufficient to eliminate any not-too-close background. If you check out reviews of this lens online, quite a few people say it's nearly as good as an L lens. Never had an L myself, so I can't confirm, but by giving up the L designation, you get additional zoom range and IS, and I doubt the optical difference will show in any normal print size.

 

[robertwsimpson]

For a walk around lens, you're going to want something wider than a 50mm. I have that lens, and I'm always wishing I had something wider. I just got the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for $350 and I'm pretty sure that the only time I'm going to put the 50mm on the camera is in EXTREME low light from now on. Something to think about. Here is the lens:


Here is a sample of what it can do:


If you want to see more, you can click on the flickr link in my sig. The first 3 or so pages are all taken with that lens.

 

[robertwsimpson]

You should consider the 70-300 4/5.6 IS, which should be within budget. The IS works very well and should eliminate the need for larger apertures for speed. As for background blur, I find that in the longer half of the zoom range, the aperture is sufficient to eliminate any not-too-close background. If you check out reviews of this lens online, quite a few people say it's nearly as good as an L lens. Never had an L myself, so I can't confirm, but by giving up the L designation, you get additional zoom range and IS, and I doubt the optical difference will show in any normal print size.

The IS system does not stop motion blur. Only blur from camera shake. From what he is saying, he's probably concerned with motion blur too.