New lens ($1,200 budget)

[Exquisite]

So as of right now I've got 30D with only a 17-40 f/4 L, and I'm looking to achieve some longer ranges.

As of right now I'm considering the following:

70-200 f/2.8 NON-IS = $1,140 Or

50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 200 f/2.8 = $1,244

Any words of persuasion or suggestions?

Like i said in the subject, I'm looking to keep it close to $1,200.

 

[The Phototron]

I said go with 70-200 f/2.8 if you don't like to carry 3 lens around.

 

[YoungRebel]

yeah, go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 !!!

the 50mm f/1.4 is kinda soft at 1.4 anyway and gets really sharp and crisp at f/2+ , so does the 85mm.

So I'd go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 and you'll save a lot of time changing lenses too....

Have fun with'it

 

[FidelCastrovich]

I like brand lenses as much as the next guy, but if, in any case, your budget doesn't allow the IS version of the Canon, why not go with the Sigma equivalent, and with the change treat yourself to that 50 f1.4? Or the 85?

That's what i would do.

 

[usayit]

The core of your question is primes versus zooms.... kinda hard to answer as thats a personal preference depending on what type of shooting you do. Since you already own a zoom, I would most likely recommend the 70-200mm f2.8.. great lens (a bit heavy).

For my purposes, I would choose the 3 primes over the zoom. Except that I would choose the following 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135 f2L.


"A little soft" someone said... eh... even that nice zoom is "a little softer" at the full wide... it is all relative.

 

[Exquisite]

The core of your question is primes versus zooms.... kinda hard to answer as thats a personal preference depending on what type of shooting you do. Since you already own a zoom, I would most likely recommend the 70-200mm f2.8.. great lens (a bit heavy).

For my purposes, I would choose the 3 primes over the zoom. Except that I would choose the following 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135 f2L.


"A little soft" someone said... eh... even that nice zoom is "a little softer" at the full wide... it is all relative.

I've been considering the 3 primes just because I've always read that if you want optimum sharpness/fast focusing than prime is the way to go. If I knew that there wouldn't be much to gain as far as sharpness/fast focusing than the zoom would likely be my choice.

 

[JIP]

Personally if it were me I would go with the 70-200 2.8 and I would also spend a few extra bucks for the IS (I did actually). The quality of the 70-200 is excellent and the convenience of not carrying 3 lenses to cover that range is priceless. Honestly though you should buy what you want.

 

[Exquisite]

I like brand lenses as much as the next guy, but if, in any case, your budget doesn't allow the IS version of the Canon, why not go with the Sigma equivalent, and with the change treat yourself to that 50 f1.4? Or the 85?

That's what i would do.

I kind of like this idea. I've herd the sigma version is still a very good lens and the results are pretty impressive from what I've seen. I'd likely go for the 50 f1.4 with the sigma 70-200 f/2.8

 

[soylentgreen]

Well, if you are looking for longer range telephoto wise, the 50 & 85 really are not going to do much for you. IQ on them are excellent though. The Canon range of 70-200 lenses are superb pieces of glass. If you go the f/2.8 route, might as well get the IS. Can fill the gap between 40mm & 70mm with a 50 f/1.8 if you want for like $80 more.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

I kind of like this idea. I've herd the sigma version is still a very good lens and the results are pretty impressive from what I've seen. I'd likely go for the 50 f1.4 with the sigma 70-200 f/2.8

I absolutely love it. If you pixel peep, then it may be soft(er) at f2.8 at the long end. But i'm not sure the Canons aren't like that.
I'm attaching two images. One is a 100% crop of the other.
Personally, i don't need "more lens" than this. Some may very well need more, and may be more sensitive or demanding than i am, and they should go ahead and get the Canon.
I'm just saying, i don't.

Shot at 83mm, f2.8, 1/50, handheld.

 

[soylentgreen]

It really does depend on the level of image quality you prefer. In my eyes, if I buy a camera at f/2.8, I expect to be able to use it a f/2.8 with little or no comprimise. Why else did i spend the extra money. The fact that I have to stop down a stop or two for decent results on a "lesser" lens kinda defeats the purpose. Not a cheap shot at them, but you pay for what you get. I was perfectly happy with my 70-200 f/4 L, but when i needed the larger aperature, I went with the more expensive Canon model knowing that I will be using it wide-open. Stopping it down when i do not need the larger aperature, only improves the performance.