Lens, Help me decide (advice) please.

[Mickeears]

Great Board, Been behind the scenes for quite some time.
Learning a lot, this by no means is a rush decision.

Was going to wait until the new Sony came out, but am going with Canon.

Overview
Main objective, heading on a cruise in Sept.
Family pictures,
some landscape,
Near the water every weekend, sunsets, sailboats, kids on the beach.....Eventually get into some birding photo ops.

Presently have a P&S digital Sony. Nice camera, but no low light and missing too much.
Want to pass it along to my son for the cruise and see what kind of an eye he has so I am purchasing a new camera for myself.


I just purchased XT Body only.

I want to purchase the following:

EF 85 mm f/1.8 usm
Reason, Indoor low light events, Karate, dance.....use for cruise show?
Do you think I can use this for pics on the cruise w no flash?
If so, how many rows back do you think?


70-200 f4 L pro
Reason, I'm not sure, I just like and want this lens.....am I doing the right thing???? Talk me into it....


Third lens...this is where I am coming to you for help........I figure I have 1K above in those 2 lenses, I had budgeted for 2k for camera and lenses and was thinking of an additional $400.00??? for my short end lens.

Other then the basics Bag, cards...how about some other suggestions on what exactly I would need that I may look over.

If I had a weakness area, it would be on filters, please give me a quick overview and steer me in the right direction on which kind to purchase, why & when to use.

Thank you in advance for any other info & tips you can send my way.

 

[0bli0]

the 85 1.8 is a great lens. wonderful for things like dinners, people, etc. and yes, fantastic for karate and other indoor sports. the 70-200 4 L is a good lens. some people will encourage you to get the 2.8. if you get a chance, you may want to rent the lens to see what you think.

you will probably also want something wider. my better half likes the 28-135IS - decent range, image stabilisation, and decent image quality. but even the 28 may not be wide enough for your holiday on the 1.6x body

 

[pisco]

I would suggest you think about the 50 f/1.8 or the 50 f/1.4 over the 85. On the XT the 85 is going to be the equivalent of a 136mm lens. This will be very limiting in medium to smaller size rooms as the angle of view will be pretty short. As for taking shots of an indoor show it should work out just fine. I was able to take some shots of a stage at a dinner I attended with my 50 f/1.8 with no trouble and this was without any actual stage lighting. I would guess the cruise shows would be a fair bit brighter.

As for the short end lens, If you are going for L glass then the obvious choice would be the 17-40 f/4 L. It is a very highly regarded lens and should be close to your price point. Another option would be the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which has a better constant aperture and more reach but is not quite up to the optical or build standards of the L.

 

[Anewman]

To me is seems your lens choices are all pretty specialized and maybe you could use a all around(walk around) lens. Like say a 18-200mm.

 

[NJDad18]

I highly recommend the 85 1.8 for your karate shots. I use mine for gymnastics and it's awesome. I also have the 50 1.8 but it's a little too short for a lot of the gymnastics shots.

 

[handicap18]

I would suggest a wide to medium zoom like the sigma 18-125. Especially if you go with the 85mm over the 50mm. Eventually you'll get to the point where you'll find you want something wider. Remember the crop factor in dSLR's. The sigma will give you a very good all purpose lens for a lot of your basic shots. The 85 (or 50mm) will come in great for low lighting and portrait type pics, and that 70-200 is just well,,,, oh yeah.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Unless you want to get super serious in photography, why bother buying 85 1.8 and 50 1.4? 50 1.8 I can understand because it's dirt cheap, but 50 1.4 for not even half a stop advantage and most probably you won't enlarge your pic larger than 12"x18" anyway. Even then you won't look at the picture closer than arm's length.

For the price of 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 (total about US$700) you can get a 70-200 f/4 L-series PLUS 50 f/1.8.

I second the Sigma 18-125 with both thumbs and toes up.

Don't get trapped in fixed focal-length craze. I used to be a member of that group. Now I use 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 50mm f/1.8 for work, and Sigma 18-125 for work and vacations.

 

[0bli0]

IMHO, the bokeh alone of the 50 1.4 over the 1.8 makes it worth the price. but that's to me. the extra partial stop is completely negligible with sensors today, as has been pointed out. but the extra blades in the diaphram are pretty darn noticable, especially in daylight and long night exposures. again it all boils down to shooting styles. zooms vs. primes. what you shoot, convenience vs. sharpness/distortion.

the 85 1.8 is absolutely one of the sharpest lenses available for EOS mount. its AF is fast and it can't be beat for things like the original poster mentioned (indoor events).

the 70-200 F4 and 50 1.8 combo is a good one - and yes as has been mentioned, the Sigma 18-125 is a great lens. you can also consider the Tamron 28-75 2.8 Xr - this lens is a gem - sharp and pretty much barrel distortion free.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

0bli0,

Although I don't doubt for a second that f/1.8 is great for indoor events, the lack of zoom control is very limiting. This is coming from my personal use of different lenses for concert/ballet/hockey/karate shooting. I find f/2.8 at ISO 800 is suffice to get 1/500 up to 1/800 shutter speed, therefore f/4 at ISO 1600 will yield the same speed and WITH the flexibility to zoom in and out. If the shutter speed is not enough, then push the ISO further to ISO 3200 or 3200-emulation.

Then again, it's just me.

Here are some examples (I've posted before) using f/2.8 70-200 at ISO 1600 and I can achieve up to 1/3200 shutter speed. So I think f/4 should suffice (well, I personally think shutter speed of 1/1600 should suffice for any application).

 

[Kelly Grannell]

some samples taken with 50mm f/1.8

 

[captaincrash]

I was just in ...

... a Sammy's camera store evaluating a 70-200 f2.8 IS and the non-IS version. I shot side by side against my 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. I was not quite aware of how heavy the f2.8 lenses were. It sort of impressed me with the dificulty they would present as a travel lense. That would be one major application for the lense. On the other hand - half of the usual applications would be OK for ise of this lense - as I would sort of set up and not move around much. So - I envision a need for a 2nd lighter lense IF I were to get either f2.8 lense.

The 50mm f1.8 shots look quite nice. No surprise really - except that they were off a $75 lense. I really should get one of those for kicks. Just been so busy with life and running around.

So - back to the thread Q... getting an 85mm f1.8 gives you a medium tele prime at f1.8. This sounds like a deliberate step up from the plastic fantastic 50 f1.8 and far better construction. I would say this gets a for the fast lense in you bag.

The 70-200 f4 is another It was just a few months ago thatg I was anguishing over the 70-200 f4 versus the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. I went the 300 route.

As for the short lense - I cannot really say - except to chime agreement on the 17-40 L. I have gone the cheap route opting for the 20-35 f3.5-4.5. It has a pretty narrow range - but it was dirt cheap for what it is (I got it on eBay for $160). I figure - when I settle into what I really "want" or "need" then I'll have no trouble reselling the 20-35 for near what I paid. No harm there!

In a lot of ways I'm still trying to decide on what I want. It is a bit confusing to me - as there are so many wonderful choices. Just for the record I want to toss out complimets to everyone who contributes opinions, images and ideas on what they like for various applications. It gives me pause to consider. IE - Kellys' images with the 70-200 and 50 look rather nice.

Oh well... I'm gonna go wander around the web a bit then move on to other things...

Have great day folks!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I beg to differ a bit, Captain Crash. Since the OP owns a crop sensor camera, it'll be more advantegous to get 17-55 f/2.8 IS than the 17-40L. I sold my 17-40L after I got the 17-55. Same colour rendition, same sharpness, but the 17-55 have longer rach, f/2.8 and IS. True it's not going to work on an FF sensor camera, but even I seldom use my FF camera (studio use only).

 

[0bli0]

Kelly,

those are great examples. here is another one with the 50 1.8

where there are no highlights or colourful contrasts in the background, it's a great lens. definitely worth the $80 you can pick one up for. if i get a chance, i'll take some shots with both the 1.8 and 1.4 outdoors, to highlight the differences.

here is an example with the 85mm 1.8

for ice hockey, i used to use my 80-200 2.8L, but i now use the 135L (with a 1.4x, if needed). this is mostly due to manual focus. for me, it's easier to concentrate on focus, rather than zoom and focus.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I like the first shot very much. It fits my style. Second shot although there is nothng wrong with it, it's not tight enough for my taste.