Need help.. Lens?

[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.