Grad student seeking Lens Help

[eric_staufer]

I've been reading this forum for a little while now, and I've

decided to register and post for some advice. I'm a beginner to

photography, and I'm seeking some advice as to what lens(es) I

should buy for my Digital Rebel. Currently, I have the following

accessories/lenses: EF-S 18-55, EF 17-40 f/4L (replaced the kit

lens), EF 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 USM II lens, Speedlite 440EX, battery

grip, and Canon 200-series tripod. Proudly, I'm up to shot 8300 on

my Rebel since I've purchased it in February. Love the hobby and

love the camera. :-)

 

I'm seeking two main objectives: 1.) I want to shoot indoor action

sports (bball and volleyball) and 2.) be able to have the capability

to shoot low-light indoor portraits.

 

I'll be graduating this December, and I plan on spending about

$1,000 of my loan money on some lenses -- might as well do it now

because I won't have the money later. :-)

 

After reading reviews and this forum, I'm debating about the

following scenarios:

 

1.) Canon 70-200 f/2.8L - $1,060... And that's it.

 

or

 

1.) Canon 70-200 f/4L - $570

2.) Canon 85mm f/1.8 - $320

 

or

 

1.) Canon 70-200 f/4L - $570

2.) Canon 50mm f/1.4 - $300

 

I'd probably sell my 55-200 lens to recoup some costs, but does

anyone have any suggestions or alternatives to my needs and my

budget?

 

Thanks!

Eric

[bob_bell]

You will definately need the larger aperture for indoor sports so you might want to find a used 70-200/2.8 in great shape from KEH/B&H/ adorama and buy a 50mm/1.8 the 1.8 version is very good and is only $70 bux or so. That way you can take portraits in the tradition range (50, 85, 100, 135) and be able to keep up with fast paced sports.

[rick_helmke]

I'd get the 70-200 2.8L and the 50mm 1.8. Sell off the 55-200. The L zoom will be a lifetime purchase or damn near. I think you should always get the best glass you can afford and if you found a good used 70-200 well, nothing wrong with used equipment.

 

Rick H.

[citizensmith]

I'm just going to agree with the other posters. I personally went for your option of a 70-200 f/4L and an 85 f/1.8 but I'm more interested in portrait and nature shots, and almost never do indoor action. For that a 70-200 f/2.8 has an edge due to the extra speed. Course the IS version would be great, but also too expensive. I also agree, sell the 55-200. Not sure I'd bother with a 50 f/1.8. It's not like you'd be lacking in quality glass so maybe hold off on that one and see if you really think you'd need it. I had one for a while but sold it in the end as it got almost no use.

[lotsawa]

I use the 50 mm lens a lot for portraits indoors with my 300D, a lot more than the 85 mm. Somehow I feel its easier to go nearer to your subject than to break a hole in the wall behind you to have enough distance.

 

I have the 50/1.4, but I would get the 50/1.8 for budget reasons, everybody says its a very good lens.

 

The 85 mm lens is a classical portrait lens on a film body, so the logical replacement for that on the 300D seems to be a 50 mm lens. For the longer range you'll have the zoom.

 

The 85/1.8 USM is indeed a beautiful lens, light weight, fast, superb image quality. But you need to zoom, so the 50 mm seems to be a better companion for the 70-200.

[timothy_peterson]

These are all great suggestions. I was able to find a mint condition 50 f1.8 mk 1 for a little over $100. You get most of the fuctionality of the f1.4 for a MUCH lower price.

[mark u]

Shooting indoor sports requires fast lenses. On the other hand, volleyball and basketball don't require the longer focal lengths that are essential for field sports - at least provided that you are going to have courtside access, rather than shooting from the rafters. So I'd pick a 50 f/1.4 or 1.8 and an 85 f/1.8. Losing 2+ stops with the 70-200 f/4 will cost too much in shutter speed when you'll likely be needing 1600 ISO to be fast enough to freeze action. You need to be able to shoot without flash a) because it may not be allowed, b) because you may get lynched by the players after the game if it causes them to miss a key ball, and c) because with the inverse square law, you don't want some washed out player in the foreground and a dark background.

[les]

Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM can be had for about $800 if you are not worried about potential compatibility problems (Yakim, I already said that, so you don't have to say it again ;)

 

It is a good lens, somewhat cheaper than Canon, good AF, excellent optics. My 2c.

[mike t.]

Eric,

 

I second the suggestion of the Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM. I have shot sports with both the Canon L 70-200mm f/2.8 IS version and the Sigma EX recently. ALthough it's probably hard to believe due to the deserved reputation of the Canon, I have shown some of my prints to shop folks and they cannot tell which came from which lens. The AF on the Canon seems slightly faster (it has amazing speed), but the Sigma is plenty fast for my youth soccer shooting. 'Round here, the Sigma is about $400 less than the Canon non-IS version and over $1,000 less than the IS. For my money, I kept the Sigma. But then I'm lacking in disposable income ...

 

Otherwise, do opt for the f/2.8 rather than the f/4 if you plan to try indoor sports, whatever brand you buy. You'll not regret the low light capability and speed and improved bokeh. Also, keep in mind that the AF will be more responsive with the f/2.8, esp. as you lose light.

 

Good luck!

[sheldonnalos]

I'm going to be a little counter to the popular sentiments and suggest another lens, even though it's probably a little too specialized and would eat up a big chunk of your budget...

 

If you're really shooting a lot of indoor sports and need a little more length than the 85mm f/1.8 offers, but also want to maintain the fast aperature as well as own one of Canon's absolutely sharpest lenses - try the 135mm f/2 L prime. It would be the an amazing lens, if possibly a little long for indoor shots. It would also leave just enough room in your budget for a 50mm f/1.8 prime.

 

But dont listen to me, I bought the 70-200mm f/4 L and the 50mm f/1.4 prime!

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

[andrew_certain]

I have the 2.8 IS and I love it, but given your budget, I'd go with option 2. Actually, I would

probably drop the 70-200 f4. It's a great lens, but it doesn't serve either of your

purposes. The key question in my mind is when you say "low-light portraits," are you

willing to use a tripod. If so, the 85 f/1.8 is probably a good choice. If not, you really

need something with IS.

 

Andrew

[eric_staufer]

Thanks to everybody who responded with their suggestions. The majority seemed to have stated I should probably buy the 70-200 f/2.8L lens and the 50mm f/1.8 II lens for $70. I will most likely sell off my 55-200 lens once I get the new lens, hopefully next month.

 

As for the suggestion for the Sigma 2.8 lens, I'll do some more research on this lens before making my ultimate decision.

 

Thanks again!

-Eric

[beeman458]

If you can, borrow a 70-200mm lense, either f/2.8 or f/4.0. You might find the lense is to much lense for the venue if you're in the up front rows. Remember, a 70mm lense on a 1.6x crop factor sensor, becomes a 2x equivalent; 112mm. And with seating as a limitation, changing your focal length, for wide, team including action shots, one becomes limited out (FOV) mighty fast.

 

Based upon very limited experience, a Canon 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 would be the lenses of choice, considering your budgetary restrictions; especially if my other choice was an f/4.0 lense of any choice.

 

You should pick up a book on the subject, or check out websites which discuss indoor sports related photography because you're gonna find the lighting very frustrating also. And if you're not adequately prepared, because of the overhead lighting problems, your images will suffer accordingly.

 

Wishing you the best.

[rayn]

Eric, as a former grad student who spent WAY too much loan money on lenses, let me

suggest you set your sights a little lower.

 

Keep the 17-40 and ebay the rest of your lenses.

 

Buy a 85/1.8 and see how you like it. This will only be around $325. Get the hood. It will

be equal to 136/1.8 in film terms. That is a good universal length if you had to pick just

one. 136 (equivalent) is long enough for indoor sports (plus you can crop a little), and

excellent for portraits provided you can step back from your subject a little.

 

Zooms are great but they are a little over-rated IMO and you will get used to shooting with

the 85/1.8 after a while. It is tiny compared to the 70-200 honker and will be a joy to

use.

 

Use the rest of your loan money on food or just don't take it at all. It can be rough coming

out of college with a lot of debt. Just speaking from experience here. Best of luck!

 

Dr. Ray