I think I've got it.

[Mercycreek]

Ok. I gotta share my progress in the seemingly never ending quest for the perfect personal kit.

Back in April I started (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=111670&highlight=mercycreek) the tedious process of figuring out my options for lenses and accessories.

I was going to drop a small amount of money for the sigma or tamron two lense kits just to sort of feel out what I personally needed in focal range and ability before I dropped the bigger dough on better lenses.

It's now January and I've begun to purchase my ideal kit. It consisits of:

- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
- Canon BG-E2 Battery Grip (20D)
- Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM
- Canon 430EX Flash

I purchased the 50mm and the grip last week and will be buying the last two pieces next month. I'm pretty proud of my research. For awhile I was aiming at the 70-200mm L but after much more observation and shot comparison I saw little difference in side by side image comparisons or not enough significant change to see the extra grand being worth it. I wind up with 100mm of extra focal length and 3 stop IS. Setting the "image clarity" debate between the L-series and the 70-300 aside, it's hard to find a reason to drop the extra grand. Even if the L is 2.8 at either end the 4-5.6 still has the added 3 stops of the IS.

Now given the 70-300 has a spinning front element, the barrel extends out pretty far, it looses a bit of sharpness at the long end, and it's build dosen't quite stack up to the L series build, I just feel it's the overall better investment for me. Plus dropping the 2x converter on there and still keeping the IS is an added plus.

Later on I'll probably invest in the 17-85mm for a better wide end lense over the 18-55mm.

It's been a long and tedious last few months swimming over lenses and testing and figuring but I'm all smiles at this point. I just wanted to update on my progression as I'm on my way to having my very own personal perfect kit. Feedback or other suggestions and arguments are welcomed. ;)

Thank you all for your advice, input and suggestions. They have helped tremendiously.

-Brandon-

[jjonsalt]

Go forth then, photographer, and have fun.

[Cadwell]

Sounds like you know what you want and that you have thought things through.

I will ask you one question. What are you going to use the 70-300mm lens to shoot? If it's "action" photography like sports, for example, then your assumptions about gaining three stops through the IS mechanism are invalid. IS helps with blur due to camera shake but it does not help with subject motion blur, only high-ish shutter speed manages that. If you're going to be shooting static subjects then don't worry about it.

[Mercycreek]

Sounds like you know what you want and that you have thought things through.

I will ask you one question. What are you going to use the 70-300mm lens to shoot? If it's "action" photography like sports, for example, then your assumptions about gaining three stops through the IS mechanism are invalid. IS helps with blur due to camera shake but it does not help with subject motion blur, only high-ish shutter speed manages that. If you're going to be shooting static subjects then don't worry about it.

Hmm... Mostly it will be used for static subjects. i.e. potraiture, weddings, etc. I do however intend to use it to cover football as I work for Rivals.com as a designer and photographer and travel the country frequently to cover practices, championship games, combines, and camps. You have posed an interesting point (While I do understand what IS does in relation to camera shake only) and I've been thinking a bit more about a good low light action shot lense (any suggestions are welcome, though for sports I'd say the 70-200mm 2.8 L will be the prime recommendation).

At this stage the 70-300mm will be fine even in low light action scenarios (i.e. night games etc.) simply because our main photography work is web-based and is drastically resized much smaller for articles and database images and because of that I can shoot at a very high ISO (1600 or 3200 if need be.) plus having the 430ex (possibly even the 580ex later on) will aid in that as well. Most of the camps and practices I cover are day events and only in the rare night game case will I have to worry on the low light end with the 4 to 5.6 stop value of the 70-300mm.

Thank you very much for the question. It helped me re-evaluate the priority of the need and reassess the choice. ;)

[Bill Ng]

If you're looking at the 70-200 2.8 (non IS version) ... look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and save yourself a few hundred dollars.

Bill in Brooklyn

[MALI]

Ok. I gotta share my progress in the seemingly never ending quest for the perfect personal kit.

First off, thanks for sharing your experience. This is the kind of stuff that helps people out there most.


For awhile I was aiming at the 70-200mm L but after much more observation and shot comparison I saw little difference in side by side image comparisons or not enough significant change to see the extra grand being worth it.

I know it is a hard call when it is a thou in question but... You know where this is going, doncha? :) I would have great doubts of the f/ on that 70-300... Even if you think you will be working in bright light, I am sure you will encounter a situation -more often than you might think- where you would kill for an extra aperture. Besides, it is good for better bokeh, too.

Plus dropping the 2x converter on there and still keeping the IS is an added plus.

Do not forget, with a 2x on that lens, you will lose AF. You really want that?

It's been a long and tedious last few months swimming over lenses and testing and figuring but I'm all smiles at this point.

Search never ends, don't be happy yet. :)

MALI

[Mercycreek]

First off, thanks for sharing your experience. This is the kind of stuff that helps people out there most.
Thank you much. I'm glad it helps. ;)


I know it is a hard call when it is a thou in question but... You know where this is going, doncha? :) I would have great doubts of the f/ on that 70-300... Even if you think you will be working in bright light, I am sure you will encounter a situation -more often than you might think- where you would kill for an extra aperture. Besides, it is good for better bokeh, too.
This is totally understood. My issue is simple. If I go 70-200L it will be IS and 2.8 no doubt. I'm currently budgeting my kit and I'm in need of the zoom within the next month and a half. I'm not budgeting for $1600 at this stage. Perhaps for early next year. I had a few conversations last night and I even tried on a Quantaray 70-300 for $165 just to see if I could bear the burden until I go for the 70-200 2.8L. That lense was a horid experience, plus the lack of IS made it worthless to me at the tele end.

I have every intention in getting the 2.8L but right now my need outweighs my ability to wait. I know factually at this stage that I will be in situations in the next 2 years where the 2.8 would help me get those good sharp shots in low light but right now I know I can make it with the 70-300 and a 430EX. I've used both and right now I think I'll survive. ;)


Do not forget, with a 2x on that lens, you will lose AF. You really want that?

Meh. The extender would wind up being more of a toy than a serious addition. And we can't forget... the world may be fast paced and blowing by us but back in day manual focus was all they had anyway. I can bear it. ;)



Search never ends, don't be happy yet. :)
Lol. Right now. I'm all smiles. For now this kit is my perfect personal kit. The 70-200 2.8L is on the list but for the moment I can manage. I've worked in enough low lit conditions that I'm sure I'll have a few rabbits to pull from the hat that I can work with.

Still all smiles. Thank you for the feedback. ;)

-Branon-

[mvonditter]

Do not forget, with a 2x on that lens, you will lose AF. You really want that?


Since when? Neither my 1.4 nor my 2.0 cause me to loose auto focus. It's not as good, but it doesn't go away.:)

[Jon]

Do not forget, with a 2x on that lens, you will lose AF. You really want that?

Since when? Neither my 1.4 nor my 2.0 cause me to loose auto focus. It's not as good, but it doesn't go away.:)Are you using them on a 20D with a lens that's already at f/5.6, or on one of your 1D family with an f/2.8 or f/4? OP's talking of a 70-300 f/4.5-f/5.6 on a 20D, which has an AF cutoff of f/5.6. Even with a "dumb" converter which lies about the aperture, the AF will be poor with lots of hunting.

[mvonditter]

Are you using them on a 20D with a lens that's already at f/5.6, or on one of your 1D family with an f/2.8 or f/4? OP's talking of a 70-300 f/4.5-f/5.6 on a 20D, which has an AF cutoff of f/5.6. Even with a "dumb" converter which lies about the aperture, the AF will be poor with lots of hunting.

Hi Jon, you are of course correct, it's on the 1D bodies and the 2.8 glass. The other thing is that the lenses of which I spoke where all primes. The 300 f/2.8 and the 200 f/1.8, although I have had few problems with either the 100-400 or the 70-200.

[MALI]

Since when? Neither my 1.4 nor my 2.0 cause me to loose auto focus. It's not as good, but it doesn't go away.:)

You do not lose AF with 2.8 or faster lenses like the ones you have. The lens in question was a slower lens.

MALI

[rklepper]

You do realize that you do not get 3 stops from the IS. You are stuck with the stops that you have. What this means is that you can hand hold it at 3 stops faster that you would otherwise have been able to do. Common misconception.

[aparmley]

I'll add another thing I've ran across many times in reading others experiences. When shooting football games, if its under the lights it better be a big time game or in a school district with a lot of money, otherwise 2.8 on most highschool and some college fields still isn't fast enough.

IS is a great little tool I suppose, but I still can't believe why its worth another 400 dollars on the 70-200, I mean, it allows you to hand hold at slow shutter speeds, which means you can only shoot stationary objects, well if thats the case, buy your self a quality tripod and still come out ahead on the deal. But I have also had situations that IS would have helped I suppose, low light, people sitting still, don't have the tripod set up, IS can be a saver, but its all relative I suppose. How many times you'll encounter a situation that IS will save you you'll know better than us. But that will be one heck of a nice lens none the less.

[cdifoto]

Hey Parm! (cdi-buy.com from dcresource here).

I agree for the most part. What you can do with IS, you can do better with a good tripod. I would love to have IS on all my lenses, of course, but paying a premium for it when it's useful in few situations (for me) can't be justified. I don't shoot in museums that prohibit tripods or monopods.