help me decide

[Master Mason]

So, I have been reading different threads for a week now. I am trying to decide on what I should get, and I am as confused as ever if not more so.

Current Kit
XT
sigma 18-125
Kit lens somewhere in a box
70-200 f/2.8L
50mm f1.8
1.4x converter
430 ex

I am planning on upgrading my body in a couple of months. I really like the idea of FF, but do not like the fps of the current 5D, for my needs, and not ready to spend the money for a 1series. So Most likely it will be either the 30D or its replacement.

I am debating on the following 3 lenses

17-55 f/2.8 IS
24-70 f/2.8L
24-105 f/4L

right now I shoot mostly the kids sports, baseball, basketball, and football. I plan to keep all of my equipment and put together a kit for my youngest son (15) with it, and then take him with me on photo days, either urban or nature or disney type things.

The sigma isn't near as sharp as I would like(I loved it when I got it, but then I got the L lens), and it doesn't have the lower f/ that I would like. If I go with one of the 24's I would use the kit currently for when I really needed a wider angle with a eye to getting a better wide lens after the body upgrade.

So, what would you do? And how much would I miss the 55-70 range if I went with the 17-55?

 

[jann1033]

being in the same boat, i was just looking up canon 17-40mm f4 and considering that to replace my 28-135. i was looking at the 24/28-70 but think i would like the wider angle more than the 50-70mm reach( have 50,100,70-200 so really I would be fine with the 40 i think... crossing my fingers) . i just read a review a few days ago that was saying one of the canon lenses in that range is getting long in the tooth due to resolution (which i didn't really understand and now can't remember the site or the lens which helps tremendously). i think the 17-40 might have a rebate till July( $50) although i don't think i saw it on the canon site, just in a link someone on tmip posted. the 17-55 is just out of my budget if i want to upgrade the body as well.

 

[mabas9395]

Get the 24-70 f/2.8L PLUS the EF-S 10-22 and you are set. The full range of 10-280 covered with some quality glass (except for 23mm).

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

As I'm not a DSLR-guy, I have no advice to give ... I do, however, have a question.

I've noted several times in these "what lens should I take"-type threads that many of the recommendations are to go with wide-angle lenses over zoom lenses. I've noticed several cases where people mention not pulling out their zoom lenses much or at all while at Disney....

Now, I can certainly understand the appeal of those 50mm/1.4 prime lenses, but why wouldn't you want the reach of a good zoom over wide angle, especially at Disney?

For example, if I'm taking pics of Beauty and the Beast at MGM, I want the actors/dancers on the stage, not the backs of the audience's heads; and I can never get close enough with my smaller camera. Wouldn't it be the same with a 24-70 (I'm assuming that those numbers are mm) -- about a 3x zoom with that lens?

When it came to replacing our old P&S, zoom was my *first* criteria because I was always dissatisfied with the 3x and always wanting to be closer and "fill the frame."

The zoom on my S3 is 36mm-432mm equivalent, and I definitely spend more time near 400mm than I do near 36mm. I'd think I'd want the same kind of reach on my lens if I ever did get into a DSLR ... what am I missing?

 

[jann1033]

in the op, he and i both have a 70-200 zoom already, with the 1.4 teleconverter that equals about 280mm and with the rebel1.6 crop that equals ( well not to get into crop factor discussions) sort of close to 440. so the distance end is covered. it's true you'd want a larger range or higher focal length for some things but 70 esp with a 1.6 crop camera is a little long for some photos..esp. at close range. and sometimes you just want the wider angle to take in more of the scene. imo the 70-200 is perfect for at a zoo type setting where you want to get close to something you can't other wise( or shows) but a little to big a focal length for something like a parade with my camera( unless you are really far from the curb) or especially on attractions so i can see wanting something wider for disney
especially with a p&s i to would want the most zoom i could get but since i have options of lens changes now i want something wider.

 

[Master Mason]

In most cases you need the wide end because you can't back up enough to get something big into the frame. examples, the castle, you would have to be halfway down mainstreet. The American exibit at Epcot, you would have to be in the lake. This is with the 70. Also, if I want a picture of the entire body of my son in the house, I don't think I could back up far enough with the walls.

Or if you want a pic of a tall tree, or one that shows how big a lake is etc....

I think my perfect combo is actually the 10-22, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8

my problems are I have heard such good things about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and then I think that the 24-105 f/4L would be good as it covers more range and if I was in the 70-105 range I wouldn't need to change lenses as often.

I do know that on my one trip to WDW I had the 18-55 and the 75-300, and I used the 18-55 mostly and wished I had more range, which is why I got the 18-125...

Everything is a trade off I am finding as there is no perfect lens they all have pluses and minuses

 

[Master Mason]

also, you can always crop down to fill the frame, you can't add in stuff around the middle if your lens won't open enough.

 

[ktulu]

I'd go with L stuff, but that is probably because I really would like to add some L to my gear I think your "perfect combo" would be a good setup.

 

[handicap18]

I go with the 18-55 f/2.8. I don't think you'll miss much from 55-70. I like the wider angle of the 18 vs 24 or 28.

You would think that soon enough one of the companies would come out with an 18-70 f/4 or f/2.8. That would be just about perfect with many telephoto zooms starting at 70.

With the 18-55 & 70-200 f/2.8's you almost wouldn't need the 50 1.8. You could if need be also put the 1.4 TC on the 18-55 giving a 29-88mm f/4 which still isn't bad and the TC isn't very big and should be easy enough to carry around. There now you've covered from 55-70.

Next question please....

 

[jann1033]

I go with the 18-55 f/2.8. I don't think you'll miss much from 55-70. I like the wider angle of the 18 vs 24 or 28.

You would think that soon enough one of the companies would come out with an 18-70 f/4 or f/2.8. That would be just about perfect with many telephoto zooms starting at 70.

With the 18-55 & 70-200 f/2.8's you almost wouldn't need the 50 1.8. You could if need be also put the 1.4 TC on the 18-55 giving a 29-88mm f/4 which still isn't bad and the TC isn't very big and should be easy enough to carry around. There now you've covered from 55-70.

Next question please....

i should probably look this up since when i dont i am usually wrong but i think kenko at least says not to use the teleconverter on less than 100mm and the canon tc you can only use on certain lenses( not sure what converter mm has) so while the idea is great i'm not sure it would work...

not trying to derail but any thoughts on the sigma dx( or what ever those letters are) 18-50f2.8?
http://www.shuttertalk.com/articles/sigma1850ex

 

[Master Mason]

I'll have to check on which lenses the 1.4x works with, I know it did not fit the canon 75-300, which is the other lens I have, but never use anymore.

 

[AZ JazzyJ]

I shoot a lot of sports too and I always carry in my bag

• 17-55mm f/2.8
• 70-200mm f/2.8
• 1.4x Teleconverter

With these three pieces of glass I can get team shots, wide angle full field shots, and up-close and personal shots. Since many of the sports I shoot are night games the fast glass was extremely important to me.

If I am shooting people events I'll take the 17-55mm and a 28-70mm f/2.8. This gives me a good range without having to back up a mile to compose a shot. When I am doing people events I try to get close to the subject and the wide and mid range work well for my shooting style. All my stuff is Nikon so I can't comment on brand recommendations.

Jeff

 

[Groucho]

Not knowing any of the optical properties of them, but just going by focal length and speed, the 17-55mm seems like the best choice to me. 24mm isn't that much narrower, but every bit helps. IS would probably be nice, too.

LPZ_Stitch, I think it's because if you look at the photos that most people come back with from Disney, relatively few are from shows or rides, most are of family/friends, buildings, etc... things that you're more likely to use a wide angle for. There are certainly uses for a long zoom, but I'd take a fast prime over a long zoom any day if I could only have one at WDW. Now, if I could only have one anywhere, that might be a different story.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

am planning on upgrading my body in a couple of months. I really like the idea of FF, but do not like the fps of the current 5D, for my needs, and not ready to spend the money for a 1series. So Most likely it will be either the 30D or its replacement.

If you ever change your mind and go FF, you'll need to sell off any EF-s lenses. I suspect that the 5D replacement will use DIGIC III and have higher FPS, but that's probably still a long way out.

24mm isn't all that wide on a 1.6x body (38mm equiv), so if you go with the 24-70 or the 24-105 you'll still eventually want a wider lens. I use the 17-40 to fill this gap. Having a wide aperture on a wide angle lens isn't all that important to me. You can't really get shallow DOF and freezing action with a wide angle isn't something that I do often.

I don't have any experience with the 17-55. The 24-70 and 24-105 are both outstanding lenses. It's a question of whether you prefer a wider aperture to freeze action and control DOF or you want longer reach and IS. I bought the 24-70 before the 24-105 was out. If I had to replace it, I'm not sure which I'd pick. I'm tempted to get a 24-105 anyway, but I'm also thinking about a T/S lens, a macro lens, a super telephoto lens, and an 8mm fisheye. So many choices and so little time and money.

 

[Marinerbaby]

I think your "perfect combo" would be great. I am really wanting the 70-200 f/2.8 but don't have a good reason to get it as I mostly do portrait photography.

I have the 24-70 f/2.8 and it rarely leaves my camers. It is tack sharp and I love the results.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

LPZ_Stitch, I think it's because if you look at the photos that most people come back with from Disney, relatively few are from shows or rides, most are of family/friends, buildings, etc... things that you're more likely to use a wide angle for. There are certainly uses for a long zoom, but I'd take a fast prime over a long zoom any day if I could only have one at WDW. Now, if I could only have one anywhere, that might be a different story.

I guess I'm just more addicted to zoom than most. I don't think I could be happy with a 50mm prime (*except* for the awesome low-light capabilities), or even one of those 17-55mm "kit" lenses, while on vacation.

Even when I'm shooting buildings I rarely go for the entire building, but for some interesting architectural detail that's caught my eye. If I really want to take in a big expanse, I'll go for a panoramic....

One of my problems with many of the Disney pics I take is all those other people standing around! There's nothing I hate worse than taking what I think is going to be a nice pic and later find "that guy" -- you know, he's hairy, 150lbs overweight with a 2-sizes-too-small T-Shirt that says "No Fat Chicks" -- standing off to the side yelling at his kids....

It probably also stems from the fact that I'm not big on the PP, and would rather get the shot I want with the camera than cropping later.

 

[Master Mason]

So doing more research,

The difference is price after you buy the hood that doesn't come with the 17-55 is about $50 bucks, so at that price it is immaterial.

I am strongly leaning to the 24-70 as I am afraid I will regret not having the L.

My one sticking point at this time, is would the IS allow me to capture pictures in say the Hunted Mansion that the non IS would cause me to miss.

 

[tinksdad]

I shoot a lot of sports too and I always carry in my bag

• 17-55mm f/2.8
• 70-200mm f/2.8
• 1.4x Teleconverter

With these three pieces of glass I can get team shots, wide angle full field shots, and up-close and personal shots. Since many of the sports I shoot are night games the fast glass was extremely important to me.

If I am shooting people events I'll take the 17-55mm and a 28-70mm f/2.8. This gives me a good range without having to back up a mile to compose a shot. When I am doing people events I try to get close to the subject and the wide and mid range work well for my shooting style. All my stuff is Nikon so I can't comment on brand recommendations.

Jeff

How do you like the 17-55mm f/2.8?? That is my next big lens purchase, but it's hard (well, kind of) to justify when I have the focal length.

 

[Steve's Girl]

Not a Canon owner, so can't comment on Canon IS. However my Nikon VR allowed me to get some great low-light photos of non-moving objects.

Inside the TOT

Inside the Great Movie Ride

 

[jann1033]

wrong place sorry