Upgrading from kit lenses....

[DanPower]

Hi all, first post here... been lurking for a while and gotten some great information but it's time to get into it

I bought my first SLR, a 550D with kit lenses, 6 months ago and I already feel like I have outgrown the lenses and possibly the camera, so I'm looking at lens upgrades at the moment. I've sold several photos to magazines and ski resorts (hence I have a few bucks to splash out with ) but looking at those photos I know that I've done the best I could but they could be a lot better.

I'm leaning towards EF lenses solely for future-proofing, as *one day* I may purchase a full-frame. I will probably upgrade in the next 12 months, although I am much more likely to go with a 7D rather than a 5D or 1D as I shoot mainly snow sports and the high framerate and fast AF on the 7D have pretty much won me over. But I haven't made up my mind and there is always the chance of going to the full frame at some point in the future so I think I would like to go mainly with EF lenses.

I'm currently leaning towards the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 for my regular lens, only because I don't think the focal lengths around 28-70 would cut it without buying a shorter lens to go with it, I also shoot a lot of travel/city stuff and find myself using the short end of my 18-55 a lot in the city so I'd rather not have to buy two lenses for regular shooting and be changing all the time.. I'm also looking at the 70-200 f/4L for longer shots. After that I would be looking at specialised lenses, like a super fish-eye (always a good effect for snow shots) and maybe a really long tele, which I would get in EF mounts.. the idea here is that if I do ever go to an FF body I only have to replace the one EF-S lens.

Money is not a huge issue but I'm not exactly swimming in cash... I can swing $1500 which is enough to get the 17-55 and the 70-200, but any more than that is out of my reach at the moment. I'm happy to consider buying a more expensive short lens and saving for a few more weeks for the longer lens but it looks like the 17-55 is about as good as I'm going to get in that FL.

I have considered primes but I travel 10 months of the year and portability is a big issue, so I think a set of zoom lenses is the way to go. Happy to be corrected on this one though.

Does anyone have experience with the lenses I've mentioned or suggestions for other lenses I should be looking at? The reviews for the two lenses I'm considering are exceptional but I would like to hear real world opinions. Do you think I should be looking at other lenses? I'm not fussy about buying Canon over other manufacturers, it's just that the 17-55 seems like an amazing lens and the 70-200 appears to be excellent value for what it is (definitely can't spring for the 2.8 but I would probably be using it with lots of light so that's ok). I'm more than happy to consider Sigma or Tamron etc etc, I just want the best lens I can get for the money I have available and these seem to fit the bill.

Also do you think there is an issue with having a gap between 55-70mm? Personally I don't think there will be, if I think about it I don't use the short end of my 55-250 much at all, it's mainly for longer shots. If anything I would miss the 200-250 range that I would lose by buying the 70-200 which I could correct by buying a 300mm prime down the track...

Thanks!!

Dan.

 

[Overread]

It sounds like you've already done a good amount of research yourself and come to some pretty solid conclusions. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 should suit your needs as a good upgrade on your current kit lens, though there are a few other options in this area (I'm not well versed in these options though so I can't recommend alternatives to consider). That said its a sound choice to go with EFS here if you know that you want that wider angle without having to change lenses.

On the longer end you say you shoot sports a lot, you might want to consider one of the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses over the f4 version. The wider maximum aperture means that you've the option of using f2.8 and having a faster shutter speed when in lower light and also providing more light for the AF sensors to work with in dimmer conditions. The lens is bigger and heavier than the f4 version; however the f2.8 is of a size and weight that; whilst rather intimating when you first use it; is quite easy to grow accustomed to through some regular use.
Costs will go up here - but if given the option remember - faster AF is a combo of lens and camera body; the 7D gives you advantages, but if the lens can't perform to the standard then you won't see those gains. Of versions in f2.8 you've got the base without IS; the older IS edition (now sold only second hand, but still a top range unit) and the new IS MII which carries a very high price tag (whilst offering the best optical performance).

 

[Dao]

I have the 70-200mm f/4L and that is a one fine lens! That lens and my 85mm is my favorite lens. For the standard zoom, I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

And I do not have anything in between 50mm and 70mm and I do not have any problem with missing that focal range at all. NONE. For walk around, I usually carry 2 lenses. A standard zoom with a prime. That could be 50mm, 85mm or 100mm. But sometimes, if I feel like I am going to take some bird photos, I will bring the telephoto zoom.

 

[DanPower]

Thanks for the quick responses guys!

Overread you're right in that I've done plenty of research, and I think I've narrowed it down to what I want. I'd just like a bit of reassurance before blowing a week's pay on a couple of little bits of glass! Also the reviews I've seen on these lenses are stellar so I'd like some real-world input to back those reviews up...

The 70-200 f/2.8 is outside my budget... the f/4 is around $700, the 2.8 is nearly $2500. I don't mind spending a few dollars but that's just way over what I can spend right now.

I have been shooting local baseball games and I have the opportunity to hire a 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 so I think I'll do that and compare the two... but it would take some serious difference to convince me to stretch the extra coin!!!

Dao - thanks for that input, I don't think I would miss the 55-70mm range either... if I think about it, I tend to use the 18-55 at the short end and the 55-250 at the long end... nice to hear you have good experiences with the 70-200, thanks

 

[joaopsr]

The 17-55 f2.8 shoud be good. I use the Nikon equivalent and it's very nice. I assume they're quite alike.
I wouldn't buy this lens if you're considering upgrading to full-frame in a near future. It's not an easy-to-sell lens.
Concerning the 70-200, you have a 2.8 non-IS version that is way cheaper than the $2500 you mention.

I'd tell you to get a 24-105/24-70 + 70-200. Keep the kit lens for wider angles, or consider purchasing an used Sigma 10-20, if you can find a good deal.
That should blow-up your budget, though

 

[Overread]

When it comes to the 70-200mm L lenses the reviews don't lie - they are all 5 top level options. A lot of the choice will come down to personal budget as well as the size/weight factor when comparing the f2.8 and f4 versions. In fact the f4, whilst being cheaper, have generally been the sharper at wide open (f4) over the f2.8 (of course the difference there is that the f4 can't shoot as wide as the f2.8).
The MII IS (which I think is the $2500 one you've quoted) is currently the top pick being the newest make and thus having all the top options. However there is a no IS version and a MI IS (second hand) which would offer cheaper prices, but still having that f2.8 aperture. For indoor, evening or even just dull day sports that is a major advantage - it saves you a whole ISO stop when you'll already likely be pushing a higher ISO.


Rental is also a great option - do indeed rent and give them a try (just don't be put off by size/weight of the f2.8 when you try it)

 

[jcskeeter]

I've used the 17-55 and liked it. It's pretty big and heavy but not in a bad way really. I've read some reviews saying that it should almost have a red ring on it because the optical quality is pretty close to L series. (That's what a website said, not me. Don't know if that's true.) Your other options in that range are the 17-40 f4L (~$800) or the 16-35 f2.8L (~$1600). So you either spend a little less and lose a stop, lose the IS nut gain FF capability. Or spend more and keep the 2.8, lose the IS but gain FF capability. You gain "L" status on both of them though. To me, IS isn't a huge deal on a wide-angle like that.

I would maybe consider this: Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 as a different idea for a long lens. I demoed it at a cam shop and it seemed pretty solid. Not sure how it compares optically or if it matters for what you do. Build quality felt nice and it's got f/2.8 and OS (Sigma's IS equivalent.) For ~$1200 it's a nice piece of glass, I think. Then again I don't know how it performs in the real world though.

 

[DanPower]

The 17-55 f2.8 shoud be good. I use the Nikon equivalent and it's very nice. I assume they're quite alike.
I wouldn't buy this lens if you're considering upgrading to full-frame in a near future. It's not an easy-to-sell lens.
Concerning the 70-200, you have a 2.8 non-IS version that is way cheaper than the $2500 you mention.

I'd tell you to get a 24-105/24-70 + 70-200. Keep the kit lens for wider angles, or consider purchasing an used Sigma 10-20, if you can find a good deal.
That should blow-up your budget, though

Thanks joaopsr, re: the 70-200 the reviews are awesome but this is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for. Canon claim 3-stops on the IS so for my purposes would the f/4 IS be better than the f/2.8 non-IS, considering that I will be handholding this lens most of the time? Or should I still look at the 2.8 non-IS?

Regarding the 24-70 etc and keeping the kit lens (or buying a short one) the issue is changing lenses... I find myself using all of the 18-55 range a lot in the city so I would like to keep that. If I went to an FF camera then I'd sell the 17-55 for a 24-70ish + short lens but I like the 17-55 FL with my 550d....

The resale price on the 17-55 Canon seems pretty good (good enough that I'll buy a new one rather than an old one) so I'm ok with that. I don't see myself going FF anytime in the near future but it'd be nice to have the option, hence only looking at the 17-55 EF-S and the rest EF....

 

[Overread]

To be fair EFS is strongest in the shorter ranges - the only long EFS lenses that come to my mind are the cheaper end of the market ones; after that all the 100mm+ options are EF anyway. Some of the EFS are very good and the only reason they don't carry the L is that they are not fullframe compatible.


On the IS front remember IS is only countering the motion of your body, not the motion of your subjects. If you're shooting sports your shutter speed is likely 1/400sec or faster anyway and the rough rule of thumb for handholding is a speed of at least 1/(focal length * crop factor)

So for a 200mm on 1.6 crop its:
1/(200*1.6) = 1/320sec.

Of course that is only the rule of thumb and in practice the values will differ - good standing posture will help a lot and if you can kneel down or lean on something you'll often pick up a shutter speed or two as well. Plus you can always pick up a monopod for help as well, if needed.
IS has one other aid and that is helping to give a smoother viewfinder image when composing a shot - again more help with longer lenses over shorter ones.

For sports IS isn't a necessity, I've also read arguments that some sports shooters never use it even when hand holding, because the IS needs to have a moment to "spin up" to enable its countering, so if you're randomly shooting fast and sudden the IS can cause softness because its not yet sped up when you take the shot.


Thus IS is a help, but its not essential for action based photography, where the speeds inwhich IS helps most are generally not used because they'd cause blur in the motion of the subjects.

 

[joaopsr]

Regarding teh f4 IS vs f2.8 non-IS, you should keep this in mind:

On the IS front remember IS is only countering the motion of your body, not the motion of your subjects

The IS won't do you any good when shooting moving people (sports, live shows, etc.).
The extra stop given by the f2.8 is, in most situations, a much better "crutch"

But, in the end, it depends on the kind of shooting you'll be doing.

 

[DanPower]

Thanks Overread, that gave me a lot to think about. I hadn't really considered that but now I hear what you're saying, it makes sense. I'm shooting the local baseball this weekend so I think I'll switch my IS off for the day and see what happens.

The 70-200 f/2.8 non-is is still 1200 bucks.... but I could maybe get that money together if it was truly worth it. Here's the important question... I can rent the 70-200 f/2.8 IS but not the non-IS, if I rent the former and switch the IS off will it essentially be the same lens as the non-IS or are they physically different?

 

[Overread]

Physically (size, weight and shape) they are petty much identical. I think the IS has some slight refinements in optics, but overall the differences are marginal and won't really show up with real world shooting and processing. So turning the IS off should give you pretty much the same experience as using the non-IS edition.

The only big difference in performance with the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses comes with the IS MII which makes a big jump in wide open optical quality - esp at the 200mm end. However even with those changes the experience of shooting with it is still the same as the others in the range (same build and size and weight).

 

[DanPower]

Sorry when I said physically different I meant construction... size/weight/shape isn't really an issue I was more thinking of the optics. But from what you say there the 2.8 IS with IS switched off will be pretty much the same as the non-IS, so I might try that lens out. It costs $60 a day to hire these lenses (not cheap around here!!) so I have to make sure I'm getting my money's worth

The more I think about it though, I tend to shoot at higher apertures because narrow DOF makes focusing on my subjects difficult... they are usually heading towards me at speed so I think higher aperture makes it easier to catch them while they're in focus. The 550D + kit lenses autofocus is dreadful though so I am currently shooting exclusively in manual focus.. maybe better lenses would help that?

I have read about lower aperture lenses giving faster AF, now comes the important question.... if I have the lens stopped down to say f/16 do I still get the AF benefits of more light coming through the bigger aperture (f/2.8 vs f/4 for example) or are the two lenses going to perform the same way because i have them stopped down? I'm thinking the 2.8 will focus faster because the lens is at full aperture until it is stopped down by the camera when I hit the shutter button, but I really don't know what I'm talking about now so that is just a guess...

The 2.8 IS MII is the one that's $2500... so that's definitely out of my price range! I would consider the older non-IS version, but this newer version is definitely beyond what I want to spend...

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Just out of interest Dan, will be making using of the 2.8 aperture of the 17-55? If not, then you may be better off keeping the 18-55 and putting the money elsewhere. The 18-55 IS is a fine lens optically from the reviews I have seen, I can't see how the 17-55 would beat it at F8.

 

[DanPower]

The 18-55 might be ok optically (TBH I have gotten some lovely shots with it) but it is a very poorly built lens.... focusing is very difficult because the barrel has heaps of play, so you turn the focus to where you want it but when you let go it shifts... IF then moves it again which throws your focus out more (I have resorted to shooting with IF off with that lens).

The lens is just terribly built.. it takes awesome tripod photos (http://www.danpower.co.nz/wp-content/gallery/otaru-canal/img_9877.jpg) but when you have to adjust things while you're shooting it's no good.