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.

[robodad]

Is the 70-200 sharp enough to take a photo and crop in to the size I want and still remain fairly sharp ?? I know the closer the better but in some cases like a football game there is no way to get real close without a super zoom lens !! 

[huntnphool]

Now you are talking 300-600mm f/4 primes, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[huntnphool]

that lens at 200mm coupled with the 1.4x should get you some pretty close shots in highschool games, not enough when you have to sit in the stands though, get down on the sidelines.

[robodad]

that lens at 200mm coupled with the 1.4x should get you some pretty close shots in highschool games, not enough when you have to sit in the stands though, get down on the sidelines.

This conversation is starting to cost way too much now besides it's someone elses thread.

Thanks for your opinion HP looks like I need to get more $$$ before I start shopping !!!

[tlbradford]

Robo, you can also add extension tubes to the 70-200 to get a better minimum focusing distance.  Since you are adding glass you will lose a couple of stops, but for macro photography you are stopped down most of the time anyway, or you can control your angle enough to still get a blurred background.

[Craig]

Still trying to decide. Had to make sure my definition and my wife's definition of " A Good camera " was the same.

working on the body right now. this is what i have found so far.
new 50D for $899 shipped (body only)
used 40D for $550-$600  (body only )
used 40D with 17-85 IS for $750

[robodad]

Robo, you can also add extension tubes to the 70-200 to get a better minimum focusing distance.  Since you are adding glass you will lose a couple of stops, but for macro photography you are stopped down most of the time anyway, or you can control your angle enough to still get a blurred background.

Thats true, I had not given that any thought, I was also thinking I have the ring to screw my 50mm onto my 18-55mm kit lens for super macro if I needed it too !!!

I have never played around with the tubes or the screw on close-up lenses (Like filters) so maybe it's time to figure that stuff out a little bit ??

[robodad]

Still trying to decide. Had to make sure my definition and my wife's definition of " A Good camera " was the same.

working on the body right now. this is what i have found so far.
new 50D for $899 shipped (body only)
used 40D for $550-$600  (body only )
used 40D with 17-85 IS for $750

If you end up needing a sterter lens, I have a 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS I'll sell you for cheap !!

[tlbradford]

I haven't ordered the tubes yet either, so I am only regurgitating what I have read and been told.  I mispoke when I said that it added glass.  They are just tubes with the electronics to deliver the message between your lens and body.  I know Shawn reccommended the Kenko tubes since optical quality doesn't apply. 

[whacker1]

I love these threads about spending someone else's money. 

[Craig]

I went used. I bought from Cameraland from MM. I bought a couple rifle scopes from them in the past. They had a used ( great shape ) 40D, 17-85 IS lens, canon BG-E2N battery grip. Shipped for $750. I was going to go with the 50D but I'm a rookie and i'm sure the 40D will be plenty of camera for me. Plus going used left me with money for another good lens. 

[whacker1]

I think you will be very happy with the 40D

[Tom Reichner]

 

I think you will be very happy with the 40D

I've spoken with a few wildlife photographers who "upgraded" from their 40D to a 50D - when the 50D first came out.  They did not like the 50D at all.  2 of the guys sold their 50Ds and just kept shooting with the 40D instead.  I think you made a wise choice.

As for lenses, the lens you got with the body will get you started.  Considering that you said you will be shooting 90% family stuff, I think a lens like the 70-200 is not suitable for such all-around use.  70mm on a crop body is just way too much magnification for regular everyday people shots and family event pics.  I think (if you have the $) the Canon 24-105 f4 IS is just about perfect for the type of everyday shooting you plan to do.  I know it's not on your initial list of choices, but it does seem to be the perfect focal length range for what you want to shoot 90% of the time.   And it's a few hundred $ less than the 24-70 f2.8 that was on your list.

As you said, you plan to add wildlife lenses later, so having "reach" doesn't seem important for you now.  I agree - it's better to wait 'till later and get a real wildlife lens, rather than trying to get one lens that will kinda/sorta "do it all".   The "do it all" options are just a compromise at everything, and will leave you less than satisfied with the results.