Lenses with 50D camera body for sports/travel/everyday?

[suzanne_s1]

<p>I am upgrading my camera outfit from an archaic Canon 10D and lenses from my Elan 2e days: a 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 usm and a 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 usm. <br>

I have chosen the:</p>

<ul>

<li>50D body</li>

<li>24-105mm f/4L IS USM and</li>

<li>100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS USM</li>

</ul>

<p>and will add the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM sometime down the road so as not to have to carry around the 100-400 when I don't need it. I have looked at the 5D, but it doesn't seem like it gives me much more than the 50D for my purposes, and I've decided to invest it higher quality lenses for the trade-off. <br>

I currently shoot a lot of soccer games (my son plays competitively, and my daughter plays rec), team photos, portraits (sports and other), trips such as Yellowstone and Hawaii, school events for yearbook photos, as well as just everyday family stuff. I've done a couple of weddings and anniversary parties too. <br>

The reason I am upgrading, besides the fact that my current equipment is extremely out-of-date, is that</p>

<ul>

<li>Even though I've tweeked the sharpness setting on the camera, the photographs do not look as crisp as I would like them, and I end up spending a lot of time on Photoshop making fine adjustments.</li>

<li>I need to cross more distance on the soccer field than I have in the past.</li>

<li>I need better options in lower light settings, like dusk on the soccer field, and at large indoor school events where even a big external flash doesn't go far enough or can't be used.</li>

<li>Need a faster shutter and more frames-per-second to capture the action.</li>

</ul>

<p>Am I making good choices based on my needs? If not, suggestions? If you have any of this equipment, are you happy with it? Input please!<br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>Well for any night or indoor games a 70-200 2.8 would be best. As long as you can be on the sidelines and move around it should have good enough reach. If you plan on being stationary the entire game then the 100-400 may be a better option, but be prepared to crank the iso up on the 50d to around 6400 to get good photos in the evening or at night(given the shutter speed necessary and the apature opening on the lens) .</p>

<p>I've shot a night game with my 70-200f4 with my 50d. I had the reach that I needed, I just wish that my lens opened up a bit more.</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>The efs 17-55 2.8is a lens that I would strongly consider or a solid wideangle for travel such as the canon 10-22.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I shoot a lot of soccer with my two kids and as much as I hate to finally admit it, a good zoom lens that stretches out to 400mm on a crop body is ideal. I generally use 135mm, 200mm and 400mm primes. The 100-400 is the obvious choice but I worry too that it may need more excessive sharpening than other possibilities. For similar money you could look at the 70-200/2.8 L IS and 1.4x converter. This would give you lowlight possibilities right away with just the lens. While the 1.4x only stretches it out to 280mm the sharpness increase over the 100-400 and the extra stop of light would likely make up the difference. I currently shoot most of my soccer images on a crop body with a 300/f2.8 lens and it has been very effective and sharp enough that if I need to crop a bit more it works well.</p>

<p>I have used the 70-210mm USM on a 10D so I know the sort of sharpness level you are used to. There are two aspects to consider. Using identical lenses, the 50D will require far less sharpening than the 10D, and using superior lenses will improve your images even more.</p>

<p>From the research that I have done I worry that the image quality of the 24-105/4 L IS would not be significantly better than that of the 28-105. With the f4 L IS you are paying about $600 for the IS option and the fixed aperture and extra 4mm on the short end make up most of the rest of the financial difference. If you end up with a 70-200 it also overlaps a fair bit. Assuming you have IS in one of the 70-200s, I'd forego the 24-105/4 L IS and consider the 24-70/2.8 L for the superior image quality and one extra stop of light for moving subjects.</p>

<p>I would add a 50/1.8, for under $100, to provide an ultra lowlight lens for gymnasium sports/events and other interior family shots. I used this lens with the 10D for school basketball and volleyball games and with the crop factor it worked quite well.</p>

<p>Eventually you would enjoy a true wide angle for your 50D. I prefer to suggest non-EF-S lenses and there are several third party lenses available like the Sigma 12-24 that also work on full frame.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The 24-105 produces images of excellent resolution, do don't worry about it on that count. As to whether or not it is the best choice on a cropped sensor body like the 50D, that is a somewhat different question. (I have used the lens since shortly after it was released, and have done so on both cropped sensor and full frame bodies.)</p>

<p>For many people the 24-105 can be pretty near ideal as a standard zoom lens covering the focal length from decently wide to somewhat long. (It provided a 2:1 focal length range both wider and longer than the "normal" 50mm focal length.) However, on a cropped sensor body you will find that 24mm is not very wide at all, being equivalent to putting a lens of about 38mm FL on an old 35mm film SLR. If that is what you want, then this can be a fine choice, but if you want to more typical all-around normal zoom it is a bit long.</p>

<p>For my purposes (as one who used to shoot crop with the 24-105 and who still relies on this lens now that I use full frame) if I were getting a cropped sensor body my standard lens would be the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. 17mm is a very useful wide angle range on crop, f/2.8 coupled with IS provide excellent low light capabilities. 55mm gets you into the typical "portrait" focal lengths. The lens is a fine optical performer.</p>

<p>I also own the rely greatly on the 100-400mm L lens, but I wonder if this is necessarily the right first telephoto on a cropped sensor body, even for the uses you describe. I think you might get more use initially from one of the 70-200mm L zooms. If money is no object and you dont' mind carrying around a very large lens the f/2.8 IS would obviously cover all possibilities. However, the f/4 IS lens is equally good in optical terms, costs a bit less and is lighter. I'd quite possibly go that route. (The IS won't help much for action sports, but it may be useful in other situations in which camera shake blur is the issue. If you are certaint that this would not be the case in your shooting, you could get the non-IS versions of either lens.)</p>

<p>The 200mm focal length on the 50D with its cropped sensor gives you "reach" (or "angle of view coverage") equivalent to putting a 320mm lens on an old 35mm film SLR camera. If you need longer than that - and you'll only figure this out by shooting this FL - you could add a 1.4x TC (teleconverter) if you only need longer occasionally. This turns the 200mm focal length into an actual 280mm focal length - which, in 35mm film SLR terms, is essentially equivalent to shooting with a 445mm lens.</p>

<p>The 100-400 option has its advantages and disadvantages. (Yes, I use this lens also.) Its flexibility in the 100-400 range is unparalleled since you don't need any TCs, etc. It produces excellent image quality. It is quite large and heavy. So, which is better - the 70-200mm lens (perhaps plus the TC?) or the 100-400? That's for you to figure out - it depends on things like your shooting style, willingness to carry a larger lens or use a TC, budget, and so forth. Here are two options:</p>

<p>EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 70-200mm (f/2.8 or f/4) L IS + TC<br>

EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS</p>

<p>or,</p>

<p>Substitute your 24-105 for the 17-55 and possibly add a third wide angle zoom if you want to cover anything wider than 24mm.</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>All good advice. I do love the 24-105, but I also have a 17-85 that is very similar in reach for the APS-C bodies. In your case, perhaps consider an ultrawide (10-22mm Canon or 10-20mm Sigma) to fill in the wide end.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I used the 17-85 EFS lens on my first cropped sensor body, and I generally cannot recommend it. While it could be a fine one lens solution for someone who prints up to perhaps letter size and/or shares on the web and doesn't want to change lenses, this lens has "issues" that compromise its usefulness. While the focal length range is perhaps ideal for crop it is hampered by softeness, excessive corner softness, excessive corner light fall-off, excessive CA, excessive barrel/pincushion distortion (that one reviewer described as among the worst he had seen), and some significant aperture limitations.</p>

<p>Not that it doesn't have its place, but one needs to be very away of the issues with this lens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>G. Dan, aside from the CA and the barrel distortion, I've never had any other problems of the list you mention for the 17-85mm IS. Have often printed 13x19 from it. Photoshop can fix the two problems it does have with hardly any trouble at all.<br /> The reviews, such as the one at Photozone.de (<a href="http://photozone.de/canon-eos/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review">link</a> ), have praised its sharpness and utility. Pretty much any extreme zooms <em>from a particular period of design</em> , share certain compromises. If you look at the much praised, and properly beloved 24-105mm L lens, it has, in admittedly a lesser degree, some of the same problems of the 17-85mm. I'd be first in line for a redesign of the old 17-85, but in the meantime, it's simply the handiest lens available for the xxD bodies.</p>

<p>In any case, since the OP already has a 24-105, there's no need to worry here. If she gets a ultrawide, she couldn't need the 17mm low end that she misses with the 24-105. It wouldn't make sense to buy a 17-85 just to cover the 17-23mm range.</p>

[suzanne_s1]

<p>Okay, I've been doing more research and thinking about what you've said, and I think I've been approaching this from the wrong angle (no pun intended). It doesn't sould like the 24-105 is going to be the dramatic improvement that I'm looking for, and the 24-70mm f/2.8L is the way to go. It's cost is comparable and the advantages of the 2.8 are what I'm looking for. I've considered an ultra wide in the past, however I haven't really felt the need yet, so it is lower on my priority list right now. <br>

The 70-200mm f/2.8L is my dream lens, but I've always pushed it back because of the cost. It does sound like the lens that is going to take me through the events of the next 10 years. I never considered using a TC with it though, and I am intrigued. I used one on my 70-210 on a trip years ago and was very unhappy with how soft it made the pictures at the long end. If you are actually getting good results with the 1.4x TC, I am seriously going to have to consider this option. I would put the 100-400mm lens off for now, since this would give me a bit more length, and with the considerbly more pixels the 50D will give me. I will probably still do some cropping in Photoshop, but I don't want to spend $1400 on a lens that is not going to solve my issues.<br>

I will have to get 77mm filters--uv and circular polarizer--for these lenses. I have purchased Hoya in the past, though I'm hearing B&W referenced a lot now. Any recommendations?<br>

Thank you for all your input, and please don't stop. You have saved me from making a costly mistake so far, and I really appreciate it.</p>

[markonestudios]

I believe using a 1.4x extender will necessitate you stopping down your lens, so you won't be able to shoot at f/2.8 with it on. Can't have your cake and eat it ;-)

<p>I think the 24-70 f/2.8 is a great lens. It's a bit weighty, if that's a factor. I tried one on a 5DII in a shop earlier this year, and I'm not sure I'd want to lug that around as my walkaround lens (your 50D is appreciably heavier than your 10D) ;-) Optically though, the 24-70L is superb IMHO. Now, where's that 24-105 f/2.8L IS when you need it? ;-)

[suzanne_s1]

<p>Actually, my 10D body is exactly 2 pounds--a full 6 oz more than the 50D body--but with the 24-70, I will be running a full pound heavier than my current set-up. I'm okay with that, I think it will be well worth the trade-off. <br>

I think I'm going to have a transaction with B&H this morning. ;-)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Good luck and have fun with your new gear!</p>

[bard_fosse]

<p>I would get the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS for everyday and travel this is an extremely good lens, there are no equivalent in full frame. standard zoom f/2.8 and IS, it has way less distortion than the 24-105 f/4 IS and in comparison with the massive 24-70 f/2.8 it has IS to boot, and believe me my life before and after IS cannot be compared, the images automatically becomes more sharp when handheld. Just a micron movement even on fast shutter softens the image, so the 17-55 is the king of the castle in my eyes. Lot of Full Frame users wish Canon makes a full frame version namely put IS in the 24-70 f/2.8. So for crop camera the 17-55 rocks, even if you later decide to upgrade to FF guess what I can sell my 17-55 for a tad more than I bought it for, price has gone up, it's highest EFS end IQ money can buy and not that many is sold. So they hold there value better than most other lenses when traded in.</p>

<p>Depending on when you shoot sport I'd get a 70-200 f/4 IS (if evening/night/indoor is not what you do) or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS if you really need the extra stop, just remember the f/2.8 is bigger and way heavier and not exactly travel friendly.</p>

<p>Those two lens combo would be awesome on the 50D, good luck</p>