Pleading for help on canon lens comparison!

[michelina01]

I own a Canon 40D with kit lens (28-135 IS). In addition, purchased the EF24-70mm f/2.8 L series lens about a month ago.

After using the kit lens with the IS, then using the 24-70 L series I am finding that I really miss the IS feature, even though the 24-70 is a much better lens. I just can't seem to get the sharp images, so I tend to use my kit lens more, which I know is a waste. I am shooting mostly babies and children, so using a tripod is too difficult (I tend to follow them around with the camera a lot to get those candid shots). I also prefer to shoot in mostly natural light whenever possible.

I have 2 more days in which I can return the lens. I am considering exchanging for the 70-200mm 2.8 L lens with IS. It is about $600 more than the 24-70 (I paid about $1,060). But I feel like I need the IS to comfortably take photos without a tripod. However, I am concerned about the weight of the lens using it as a hand-held. Also Canon also has a 17-85 IS lens that is NOT an L-series. I am really torn about what I should do.

I am wondering if perhaps my technique is not up to par for my 24-70, as I know this is a favorite and considered a "tack-sharp" lens, but I am not experiencing that. I hate to spend the extra $$$ if I don't have to. I just have "fear" of using that lens without the IS because I have worked with IS and seen the images it produces.

Based on the type of photography I am doing, can anyone offer me advice? Anyone have experience with any of the above mentioned lenses? I really need some advice here. THANK YOU in advance!

 

[bango707]

is there anyway that you could use a monopod? That might help a bit.

 

[TCimages]

This is an incredibly sharp lens. What kind of shutter speeds are you getting? At 2.8 you should easily get speeds capable of handholding. Also, Don't be afraid to pump up the ISO, the 40D takes great pictures at very high ISO.

Can you post an example in which you are unhappy? Maybe we can take a look at your settings to help

 

[Sideburns]

faster shutter speed and raise your ISO.
The 40D has great high ISO performance...you'll never notice. ISO 400 should help.

Also, there's no advantage to using IS on a moving child. It doesn't stop action...only camera shake. You must have really really low light to have such a long shutter speed...

 

[FidelCastrovich]

I own a Canon 40D with kit lens (28-135 IS). In addition, purchased the EF24-70mm f/2.8 L series lens about a month ago.

After using the kit lens with the IS, then using the 24-70 L series I am finding that I really miss the IS feature, even though the 24-70 is a much better lens. I just can't seem to get the sharp images, so I tend to use my kit lens more, which I know is a waste. I am shooting mostly babies and children, so using a tripod is too difficult (I tend to follow them around with the camera a lot to get those candid shots). I also prefer to shoot in mostly natural light whenever possible.

I have 2 more days in which I can return the lens. I am considering exchanging for the 70-200mm 2.8 L lens with IS. It is about $600 more than the 24-70 (I paid about $1,060). But I feel like I need the IS to comfortably take photos without a tripod. However, I am concerned about the weight of the lens using it as a hand-held. Also Canon also has a 17-85 IS lens that is NOT an L-series. I am really torn about what I should do.

I am wondering if perhaps my technique is not up to par for my 24-70, as I know this is a favorite and considered a "tack-sharp" lens, but I am not experiencing that. I hate to spend the extra $$$ if I don't have to. I just have "fear" of using that lens without the IS because I have worked with IS and seen the images it produces.

Based on the type of photography I am doing, can anyone offer me advice? Anyone have experience with any of the above mentioned lenses? I really need some advice here. THANK YOU in advance!

People were taking sharp pictures in low light conditions, long before the appearance of the IS. Seems to me you need to work on your technique. Plus, don't forget that taking pictures of moving objects in low light, usually results in subject movement - blur, regardless of camera stability.

Consider the 17-55 f2.8 IS. I have it, it's marvelous. And would give you the extra reach on the wide end.

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is a monster and not so fun to lug around.

Plus, i doubt you need that kind of lens for shooting children. A telephoto lens detaches you from the subject. You want to be able to get upclose and personal. If anything, you might want to go wider, like the 10-22.
Children are not self-conscious, as are adults, and you can get away with sticking a camera in their face - again, a vote against the 70-200.

my $0.02.

 

[Iron Flatline]

There's people here who recommend a prime as a solution to all your photographic problems... I'm not one of them. BUT: nothing like a 50mm f/1.4 for shooting kids!

The 70-200mm is a monster, don't do it.

The 24-70mm is a brilliant lens - I will repeat what everyone else is saying: put it in Av Mode, open wide, take ISO to 800, and shoot away. Unless you're shooting in a cave that should easily give you 1/60th of a sec shutter speed, probably faster.

...but if you have a shooting-style that you like, then yes: get rid of the 24-70mm, and get that 17-85mm IS. Btw, on a cropped sensor that's about a 28-135mm. Augment that with the fast 50mm, and you'll have some nice gear.

Merry Christmas.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yeah, keep the 24-70 and bump up the ISO to increase shutter speed. ISO 800 is quite usable on the 40D. If anything, also look into a flash and difuser. I guess is your shutter speed is too low, 1/30th and under at ISO 100. I had the same problem at one time. Love that ISO 100!
The 70-200 f/2.8 Is will really not address your problem as it will your wallet. Great lens though.

 

[michelina01]

THANK YOU to everyone who responded. Your input has helped me, and I do think I need to work on my technique a little. I still think the IS will help me with camera shake while hand-holding, esp with such a heavy lens as the 24-70. Do all agree with the rule of thumb that you should never use a shutter speed less than the mm lens (ie - no shutter speed below 70th second) to avoid blur.
Also, would you all agree that I should use a higher ISO to help even though lower ISO is said to produce a better quality image?

I think I do just need to work more with this lens and not be so afraid of it!

 

[soylentgreen]

If you are pining for IS and a large aperature, the only comprimise is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Though you will still need to use a higher ISO for indoor and low-light shots. I rather keep the 24-70 f/2.8 and get a EF 50 f/1.4 like Iron suggested. Regardless, bump up the ISO and see what shutterspeed you can obtain to get sharp images. With a steady stance, good technique or leaning against a wall, etc. You should be able to get usable shots at slower shutterspeeds. You really do need to practice with the lens to get a handle for it. Took me a while to get use to the wieght of the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.