Need help.. Lens?

[Craig]

I got the go ahead from the boss ( Wife ) for a good camera. I am going to buy the Canon 40D or 50D body. Now I need some help with lens.

 The camera will be used 90% of the time for family vacation, kids sports ( soccer, t ball type stuff ), everyday kid pictures and stuff like that. Later on I will try and add wildlife type lenses. After looking at different post and topics I have come up with a few lenses that sound like they would work for my situation.

What do you think about these? any other suggestions or comments?

All Canon lenses

17-55 F2.8 IS
24-70 F2.8L
70-200 F4L
70-200 F4L IS

Thanks

[MikeWalking]

I've got a 70-300 on my Nikon.  No good for Family type stuff unless they're a block away.  You can put a doubler or tripler on most lenses as a cheap way to get good zoom.  I have a 2x for mine.  The only drawback is at that power the Autofocus wont work, too little light, you have to manually focus.

[jackelope]

70-200 f4L...not sure if i would want to spend the extra $$ for the IS. i've been thinking about this for a while now....(too long)
you could always add the 1.4x convertor if you want to stretch out later.

[whacker1]

We were talking about this yesterday on a different thread.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,41404.msg519326.html#msg519326

I would buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS.  and 1.4 extender.  It allows you the versatility for all the stuff around the family, sports and with the extender - you can get your feet wet with wildlife.
I am not in the market, but this would be what I would buy.

PM sent for lens

[boneaddict]

70-200 2.8 IS.   

[jackelope]

70-200 2.8 IS.   

Hey!!! that wasn't one of the choices!! otherwise i would have said that one too...

[Craig]

I looked at the 70-200 2.8. Real nice But If i got that lens ( $$$$ ) I might end up living in the Wall tent in the back yard.

[huntnphool]

70-200mm f2.8 IS + 1.4X

[huntnphool]

I looked at the 70-200 2.8. Real nice But If i got that lens ( $$$$ ) I might end up living in the Wall tent in the back yard.

 I'd rather ask for forgiveness than permission Besides, if it means having to wait a month or two for the difference I think you will be much better off in the long run

 If the extra $ is an issue then get a 20D instead and use the $300+ for the difference in the lens.

 

[tlbradford]

My wife crapped when I bought my equipment.  I worked really hard to get halfway decent at the beginning so I was churning out nice photos after a month or so of practice.  Now all I hear is, "it sure was worth it getting that camera." 

[huntnphool]

 

[robodad]

I too am tearing my hair out between the 70-200mm F2.8L IS and the 100mm F2.8L IS Macro.

I know they are not anything alike but I'm wondering if I want to shoot more long distances or close ups ??

Fast is important and SUPER sharp is equally important to me but I have to choose either near or far cause I can't afford both 

Anyone use the 100mm for anything other then SUPER close-ups ??

[huntnphool]

I dont see you using a 100mm for much actually Robo, I think you would use the 70-200 much more, including for the things you would be using the 100mm for.

[robodad]

I dont see you using a 100mm for much actually Robo, I think you would use the 70-200 much more, including for the things you would be using the 100mm for.

I think your right but some day I really want a decent macro lens.

What is your opinion on the IS version, is it worth the extra $$$ ?? also what about the F4, I mean are there so many times I would NEED F2.8 to justify the extra expense ??

Just fishing for opinions !!!

[huntnphool]

JMO, but I prefer the IS over non, in anything over 100mm. Any help you can get to stabilize the shot is a bonus. I have had several shots that turned out good but would have been excellent if only I had IS on the lens.

Also, if you have the $ I would always choose the faster lens as well. The draw back of the 70-200 is its not long enough in a lot of situations, this is where the 1.4x can really help you out. Now adding the 1.4x will give you more reach but at the same time you're increasing another stop. If you start with the 2.8, add the 1.4x you are increasing to f/4, still okay for most shots and lighting situations. If you are starting at f/4 or 5.6 and add the 1.4x you are now moving up to 5.6 or 6.3, you are going to have to increase ISO to compensate just to keep your shutter speed. As you know increasing ISO is also increasing noise to some extent. For me the faster lens is the way to go as long as the benjamins are there.