Choice of lenses: 70-200 f2.8L non-IS vs 85 + 135 primes

[rickvandenberg]

Hi - I'm scrimping and saving for a 5D. I want a camera & lens kit

that will last me a long time, and I believe the 5D is that camera.

(My old N**** digicam really has turned out to be piece of cr*p.)

 

I have three kids (all toddlers) that will be the target of much of

my photography. They're fast moving and when I pull out a camera,

they're right up to it in a second. I need something that will I can

frame, focus and fire PDQ.

 

I also prefer available light over an on-camera flash, but I don't

mind a _little_ fill here & there.

 

Secondary uses will be amateur portraits for friends or neighbours,

some nature and whatnot.

 

I'm leaning strongly towards the 70-200 zoom for the first lens I

buy. I think it will be _very_ useful with the kids. I like fairly

tight shots of them, and I need a little length for outside

activities/swimming lessons/etc.

 

I'd prefer the larger aperture of the primes for inside shots, but I

think f2.8 is still pretty reasonable, especially given the good

noise characteristics of the camera.

 

I'm a sucker for sharpness, but will I even notice the difference

between this zoom and good primes?

[rodney_gold1]

I would get the 30d rather than 5d and get the 70-200 2.8 IS with the savings. For your applications the 30d is just fine , there is no real need for the FF sensor on the 5d and the 30d does have a pop up flash for those little "fill" occasions. The 70-200 is a stellar lens , it's pin sharp and I doubt you would really notice any difference with primes , its a super snappy AF'er as well. It will aloo work with a Canon 1.4x TC whereas the primes might not. Even with a 1.4x TC , you hardly sacrifice quality. You will need another lens other than the 70-200 and with the money you saved on the 5d vs 30d , you could also get the 17-85 IS which is a fantastic all purpose lens.

[rickvandenberg]

Thanks for the advice Rodney. I've already had the 30D/5D debate with myself. I think for the long term (10+ years), the 5D will be a better investment (for me). I do have aspirations that need the FF sensor & pixels.

 

But I great appreciate the confirmation about the 70-200's AF performance.

 

Thanks again.

[aaron_lam]

Personally, I think the 70-200 f2.8 flavors are a lot to haul around to take pictures of your kids. What about the 70-200 f4 and a fast prime? The 135mm f2 is an amazing lens. I also think that the 50 f1.4 is a great lens... esp for the money. The 50 f1.4 on a 1.6 crop camera is a great. I am just not sure you need to sink $2.8K into a camera where you aren't taking advantage of the wide angle lens.

 

Best regards,

 

 

aaron

[gluteal cleft]

The 70-200 will give you plenty of sharpness. The primes may give you a bit more, but you're splitting hairs. The biggest question is whether you want the convenience of the zoom or not.

 

The downside of the 70-200, which may be a deal-killer for you, is that the minimum focusing distance is almost 5 feet, so if your kids rush the camera, it's useless. The primes will focus noticeably closer, 3 feet, or just a bit under.

 

steve

[rodney_gold1]

Richard , I think looking at a dslr as a 10 yr investment or as having a 10 yr lifespan is a little too long.

Undoubtedly it will last that long and will give you all the image quality you are ever likely to need, but a DSLR is not the same as a film camera in that the digital Camera itself is the film and has to be treated in some way as a disposable or consumable. 10 years in DSLRS is a lifetime , I forsee even in the next 2 years vast price drops and increased functionality, resolution , IQ etc and albeit I have a 5d , do not see it as a value camera.

[mark u]

I'd pick the primes. For indoor work, with fast moving subjects, the extra stop really comes in handy - as does the extra background blur of household clutter that otherwise can reduce the charm of a shot that captures the moment. It will allow you to work without flash that can slow down your shooting waiting for it to recharge. Also, the lenses are less obtrusive and much easier to wield. As they get older, the extra speed will also be very handy for capturing school performances - whether artistic or sporting - indoors in light that can leave an f/2.8 lens providing inadequate shutter speeds.

[thomas_sullivan]

I shoot my twin grandsons (18 months old). I have a 1.6x DSLR (20D). I use (and you'll have to convert to full frame for your application) a 17-40 f/4, 20mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, 100mm f/2, 70-200mm f/2.8.........heh, my entire EOS lens collection in other words. And wouldn't sell any of them with respect to shooting them two kids. They all come in handy at one time or another.

[andrew_carlson]

This made me stop and think for a moment. An 85 + 135mm primes instead of the 70-200 f/2.8. Then I looked up the prices. For a cheap 85mm prime f/1.8 bh has it for under $400. The 135 is about $900. I'm rounding up for shipping & handling and such. So overal about $1100. About the same cost wise as for a 70-200 f/2.8L

 

What made me stop is this, I got the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens for sports. I've noticed that on my 20D most of my shots are really right around 85 and 135mm. The next grouping is right at the 200mm and 70mm. I could almost say that its a fair trade the one or both lenses. Yet to have something a little lower than 70mm and a little above 135mm is nice also. I wouldn't want 4 lenses crowding together in my bag. Toss in a 35mm, 50mm, and a nice telephoto at 300 or more and you're carrying a lot. Plus, you mentioned being able to quickly catch a shot of the kid. Does that include changing lenses? Will they wait for you to move to the longer/shorter lens?

 

Then there is cost. I've seen a fair number of people say the 85mm f/ 1.8 is a good lens. I would probably one the f/1.2 though and at $2000 its not realistic. The 135mm I've not heard much about. The 70-200 f/2.8 or any of them really, get a lot of positive comments here and elsewhere. As far as resale value - I feel confident that I could get what I paid for for my 70-200 if I had to. Could I get that for an 85mm? Or a 135mm? I don't know.

[thomas_sullivan]

by the way....in all honesty, for toddlers, I have found that the two lenses I like the most, on full frame, would be the 35mm f/2 and the 50mm f/1.8 (on a 1.6x dslr that would be 20mm and 35mm, apprx). You have three kids, you need wide angle to get all three in the shot if you are in your living room. Toddler's faces are smaller than adults, so the 50mm is actually the better head and shoulder shot lens for them compared to 85 or 135 for adults....IMHO. Plus these two lenses, 35 and 50, have very close focusing distances....I think my 35mm f/2 closest focus distance is 0.8 feet.

 

just some thoughts.

[roisin_murphy]

i would get the cheapest possible body that performs, and that for me is 350d, forget about 20d/30d, and only get 5d if you need FF for wideangles or the extra stop you get with 5d's better ISO. 70-200 zooms are the bomb, but they are all just too heavy for my wrists, so i got a 200mm prime instead. If you dont want the IS version, you might also save some money and get the sigma 70-200, which opticaly is as good imho, although to be future.proof, you might want to only invest in canon gear.

[eric merrill]

The minimum focus distance on the 70-200/2.8 is almost 5 feet. You'll probably have a hard time maintaining that minimum with small kids.

 

Plus, the 70-200/2.8 is big and heavy.

 

Most of my shots inside with kids are with the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8.

[jim_larson1]

As I read this thread, I too question the 5D/30D decision.

 

The 5D sensor brings two practical advantages over the 30D.

 

1st advantage is 'mo pixels. More pixels is more pixels. And that is a good thing. You are, however, paying a real premium for those pixels.

 

2nd advantage is "full frame". Besides revealing all the edge flaws of your lenses, full frame will provide a narrower DOF for a given field of view. . . .of course, if you combine a FF sensor with a F4 lens. . .then you are clearly going the wrong way.

 

For a first lens. . .the 70-200 would not be my choice. Simply too long for indoor work. On my cropped camera, I rarely use my 50 prime. I think a 24-105/IS is right up your alley on a 5D. On a 30D. . then go 17-40/4L.

 

As for the second issue raised in this thread. . .I don't photograph kids much. . but I think you have to have zooms for this work. If you get primes. . then I think you need handcuffs.

 

I have the 85/1.8 -> this lens is simply joy to use. I use it far more than my 70-200/4L these days. Small enough to carry everyday (which the 70-200/4L is not). I have no desire for the 1.2L version. Simply too hacking big. And I just simply *never* need a DOF that small. . .

[thomas_sullivan]

"...but I think you have to have zooms for this work..."....actually, Jim......it's 6 of one, half a dozen of another with zooms and primes with toddlers. They are FAST. I've shot youth hockey and close in street shots at 7 feet. And sometimes I think they are in slow motion compared to an 18 month old at less than 10 feet away....let alone twins at that age.......his three would be a nightmare........heh. In my experience sometimes just the act of turning the zoom ring loses the shot.....and other times, when they are a little more settled, it's a great thing to be able to zoom. As in most things in photography, it depends.....

[rickvandenberg]

Steve -- thanks for first pointing out the minimum focusing distance of the zoom. It's not a deal breaker, but it does limit me somewhat.

 

Mark's (and others') points about the speed of the primes and their smaller DOF is a good one. I did some metering of typical spots this evening and they range from ~ EV 5 to EV 7. At f/2.8, that means I need an ISO of 800 to 1600, or a little fill. Certainly the primes would help there.

 

Thomas: funny about the 18 month old twins -- mine are 18 months and named Ashley & Olivia. Maybe the 4 of them could double-date :) The oldest is 3 (Emma). The way the run off in different directions, a fisheye lens might be better to keep them all in the picture.

 

You made a good point about the wider angle lenses, so I went over the exif data from a pile of my digicam pictures. The majority are 80-115mm. Where I used 35-50mm are mostly overhead pictures of the kids laying on the floor, or birthday party shots of the kids around the table. I'd certainly need 40-50mm to get all three kids on the couch under most circumstances.

 

Jim's - I think the 24-105 f/4L IS is too slow for the light I have in the house, except on sunny day, unless I use more flash. It would be ideal for my wife, assuming, of course, that she wouldn't kill me first for buying all this stuff.

 

I may yet decide to get the 85/1.8, and the 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8. Certainly over the course of a year or so it'll undoubtedly happen. The 100 f/2.8 macro really interests me as well.

 

I guess the thing I need to decide is whether or not my dream of little or no flash is realistic. Even the primes I'm looking at are only one stop (or so: f/1.8 or f/2 vs f/2.8) faster than the zoom. Unless I was to just stick with the 50 f/1.4 indoors, but I think the framing ability that the zoom gives me might outweigh my aversion to flash.

 

Anyways - thanks everyone. I needed that reality check.

[digitmstr]

I use a 24-70L with my 5D when "snappng" my children and it's a great combo! I like to get them in their "natural" enviroment (i.e. playing in their rooms, etc...) and get at their level. For that, the wide angle is great. When I want to step back a bit the 24-70 allows to keep the distance with the turn of a ring and still be in the action.

 

I have a 70-200 as well and I have never used it with my kids, unless it was *outdoor*. Even though I could have enough room to use it I have found the size of it cumbersome for these types of indoor shoots. Kids run around, change direction suddenly, walk about, etc... and I got tired of having to get the lens out of the way :) Again, outdoor is different.

 

The primes are an excellent choice as well. In fact you can get the 24-70 and the 85 for about the same price (or less) of the longer zoom.

[gluteal cleft]

"I guess the thing I need to decide is whether or not my dream of little or no flash is realistic."

 

Just because you're using a flash doesn't mean that it has to give you a washed-out, deer-in-the-headlights sort of look. Aim the flash behind and to the side of you, preferably into a corner of the room.

 

If I'm going to be moving around a lot, and won't have time to keep the flash aimed at a good spot like that, I'll point it straight up at the ceiling, and also pull out the diffuser plate. It's not as good as the above technique, but it's still not bad. Here's a shot that I took like that...<div></div>

[terry_smith2]

Somthing like the 28-135 on full frame of the 17-85 on 1.6 would probably work better overall for the moment. Remember that your kids won't be toddlers for much longer... Also suggest a good bounce flash like the 430EX. Given that little ones can move in unpredictable ways and at any time, primes (no matter how fast or how good) or long zooms won't always work. A wide to tele zoom gives you the flexibility you need to keep up without changing either position or lenses.

[acedigital]

Sounds like MAJOR "paralysis by analysis". Unless you are a professional photographer (or have unlimited budget), I would recommend a 20/30D and the 50mm 1.8 ($80). I also have the Canon 17-40L (great lens) and Canon 70-200 2.8L (no IS) awesome for sports. Better to save on the camera and spend more on the glass. I have blown up sports action shots 16x20 and they are very clear from the 20D. Unless you really need WIDE stuff, the 1.6 is not as limiting as you may think. As for available light, the 20/30D can shoot practically in the dark at ISO 800/1600 with still very good picture quality. Just MHO. JUST DO IT, you will be glad you did.

[fourfa]

one option to bring in the close focus on the 70-200 is a 12mm extension ring. I have the Kenko version, works great. Not sure it would work in a fast-moving environment though, you'd likely exceed the maximum focus distance pretty often. Works great for portraits and still kids.

[rickvandenberg]

One of the reasons I keep getting drawn back to the 70-200 zoom is because years ago, I used an AE-1 & a Vivitar Series 1 70-210. The original, heavy one. I loved it. I didn't mind the weight at all, and it turned out to be my primary lens for just about everything. I had a 50 which I used sparingly, and a 28 or 35 (can't remember) which I never used. But I didn't have kids either :)

 

As far as bounce flash goes, I use it all the time with my digicam. I have a bracket and a couple of 285's. Works great, but my wife hates the setup (too big/bulky/top-heavy), so I tend to leave the camera by itself with it's little pop-up flash unless I'm going to be doing all the shots for some planned event. That way, both my wife and my 3-year-old can grab it and take pictures as they see fit.

 

I appreciate all the cost-saving suggestions from everyone. There are lots of much cheaper consumer zooms that would probably do well, especially if I'll be using a flash anyways. But one of the things that rules them out for me is the variable wide-open aperture. I have that now with my digicam. I hate it. I hate it more and more every time I use the thing. So I'm prepared to spend a little extra on a system that I will love more and more each time I pick it up. Overcompensation? Absolutely.

 

I know the 5D is way too expensive for my current needs, but it should last me 5 or more years, whereas I believe I would want to replace the 30D after about 3 years. I don't think over the 5 year+ term that the 5D will wind up costing me more. It's just that I'm front-loading the system costs, in return for immediate gains in pixel count and whatnot.

 

So I've resolved that I need a prime or two. Probably a 35/2 and a 50/1.4. But I think the 70-200/2.8 is a must have for me for all the other uses besides indoors. So I'll go for that, and add the primes a few months from now.

 

Thanks to everyone.

[mark u]

If you really are thinking of going with a 70-200, then I think you should hold back before committing. Sigma have recently announced a close focussing version of their 70-200 f/2.8 - a highly regarded lens. It will get down to 1 metre at all focal lengths. It will probably hit the stores in June.

[roger.a]

135/20 - one of the best lenses by any maker.

85/1.8 - very good.

 

Both quicker to use than a zoom. You can take the 5D and one of the primes with you all the time. The zoom makes a much bigger package.

 

I don't have a flash, and don't miss it.