A REAL "for the pros" question!! Please advise.

[OneManArmy]

I would really like the advice of some seasoned pros on this very, very tough decision. I keep going "back and forth" and I just CANNOT decide!

I feel like I'm at my second real "pinnacle" in my photographic endeavors; meaning, I have a fairly major decision to make,and it can only go one way, with pretty big consequences. My first was whether to go with Canon or Nikon. We know I did the right thing there ;)

The second is, I need to decide whether to go full-bore with primes, or to convert to zooms. I currently have a 50mm 1.4 and a couple of cheap zooms, which don't matter and are irrelevant.

I had been thinking I would go with the 24-70L and 70-200L and be done. Then, I was suprised to read this review: http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/ that "claims" the image quality of the 50 1.4 is noticably better than the 24-70. This review seems to think the 24-70 is quite close to primes: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Now, I realize there are other important things, maybe just as important for me since I often shoot sports, and that is the autofocus speed; the 50 1.4 isn't that great, but that's another issue. I'm currently concerned with these, #1 being the most important:

1) Low light ability - meaning, I shoot a lot of sports like boxing matches, karate tournaments in gymnasiums, inside martial arts schools etc. I fear that 2.8 might not be enough and, even if it is, that at 2.8 he 24-70 might be less than a great quality image. On the other hand, I'm thinking this may be offest by the really great focus speed compared to, say, the 50/1.4

2) Image quality - sharpness, contrastyness, etc. since I plan on buying a lighting kit and doing a lot more portraiture - that's my real goal long term to focus most of my attention on

3) autofocus speed, since I often shoot sports. I seem to be losing a # of shots with the 50 1.4 After research, I found out fast autofocus isn't it's forte, esp. compared to a 24-70

As far as I can tell, I have two options:

1) 24-70 and 70-200L - around $2100.

2) 35L, 85 1.8, 135 2.0L - around $2300

I'm really stuck on the flexibility of the zoom vs. the low light performance and clarity of the primes. THe idea of having to "switch" lenses quickly sounds like missing a shot. On the other hand, trying to "zoom" during shooting takes time as well, when if you're using a prime you just have to shoot and nothing else, perhaps cropping afterward.

I've often heard that pro's only use primes...

So pros... any of you die-hard zoom fans?

Please, I would appreciate your thoughts. i want to do the right thing here. My plan is to within the next year start charging people for portraiture. I already make a small amount on sports.

Thanks so much.

[Vegas Poboy]

I understand your fears & I've also gone through that process of what to buy & came up with both. It seems we shoot in the same area of sports and I'm not sure of which camera you're using I do know that the 20D does a lot better with the ISO settings in low light than the 10D.

My current inventory for my bag is:
17-40 f/4 always using flash & hardly with any sports except large team shots

28-70mm Sigma f/2.8 catches most of my high action indoor shots for Martail Arts (No Flash) Just ordered the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 to replace the Sigma

70-200mm f/4 never use indoors in low light, zoom is too long. Did football with it this past fall & wished I had the F2.8 but for high school sports it got the job done (No Flash)

50mm F/1.8 works for those gyms with the ugly gym lighting

Trying to decide on the 85 f/1.8 only to take advantage of Canons rebates since I placed the other order

Overall all the ready and research I've done most of the bigtime Pros use a combo of primes & zooms just has to pick what works for you. The last 5 months I've been choosing my equipment more carefully & making sure I'm going to use it for what I do not just to say I have it.

Hopefully some of this will help you decide

[OneManArmy]

I could possibly try a combination of zoom and primes... maybe the tamron 28-75 xr di. I really need a very high quality, fast zooming lense in the 35-70 range, be it prime or zoom, hence why I was looking at the 24-70. I read that zooms=more glass which causes more lense flair than primes also. Maybe I should get the tamron for my zooming (it's about $300 I think) and the 35 1.4L for fast focusing, low light fairly close distance shooting (like karate), and also ge the 85 1.8, and the 135L 2.0, and keep my 50 1.4? Then later on I can get the 70-200 2.8L.

I currently have a Simga 70-200F4 that produces decent quality images but focuses VERY slowly and is horrible in low light. It was about $150 :) I don't need fast focusing for portraiture, just good quality optics.

I just worry that 2.8 might not be enough for indoor sports when I need at least a 250 shutter speed, maybe more like 320.

Oh yeah, sorry, using a 20d here. :cool:

[mikesd]

I am certanly not a seasoned pro but I have found it keeps getting harder and harder to take the Tamron 28-75 off and put the 50mm on.

[leony]

I'd go for zooms. THe good ones, and skip the cheap ones. If you don't work in Canon R&D labs, you will be hard pressed to see quality issues in their lenses from the top shelf.

If you light situation is THAT bad, why not invest in a flash?

Nuff said.

[charlesu]

You want the kind of advice a tough, working pro might offer?

Quit worrying over primes versus zooms and just shoot. Sell your work. Make your $$ and let the lenses come as they may.

[PhotosGuy]

The last time someone asked me what I shot with, I told him, "I dunno. I got it out of a box of cereal." ;) ;) :)

[OneManArmy]

If you light situation is THAT bad, why not invest in a flash?

Nuff said.
Because they aren't allowed maybe?? I shoot a LOT of sporting events where you can't flash a light in someone's eyes...

You want the kind of advice a tough, working pro might offer?

Quit worrying over primes versus zooms and just shoot. Sell your work. Make your $$ and let the lenses come as they may.
Charles, with all due respect, what kind of advice is that?? I'm about to spend about 2G on lenses and I'm trying to decide whether to go prime or zoom. I listed the situations I shoot in and my future plans. I figured maybe some pros could tell me what they shoot with and their opinions on why. Is this the ask the pros forum? Maybe I have the wrong one? Thanks

[ENIAC]

i'm a photojournalist and i do a lot of all kinds of shooting everyday.... i use 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200L. I also shoot in a low light envirements and sometimes i do need that one f-stop, but one stop can always be fixed in postproduction. so if you ask me - go for zooms :)

[OneManArmy]

i'm a photojournalist and i do a lot of all kinds of shooting everyday.... i use 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200L. I also shoot in a low light envirements and sometimes i do need that one f-stop, but one stop can always be fixed in postproduction. so if you ask me - go for zooms http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gifOk, thanks Eniac. These are the kinds of responses I would request getting from pros out there... that's what is good about this "ask the pros" forum, thanks. Anyone on the prime side?

The FM mentioned actually that photojournalists might not be as concerned with utmost clarity etc. as say, a portraiturist would. So your comment is right in line with that. what interested me was, the FM article disagreed with the one I read from "the digital picture" and reviews from the latter have always been good. I wonder if the photos taken in the FM review were possibly skewed or inapporpritate, and other photos might show very little diff between the zooms and primes. Who knows.

For the landscape photographer who believes that every little detail counts, primes are still the way to go. The same is not true for photojournalism where getting the picture is more important than the small image quality edge.

[jonniewalton]

For sports the 50 1.4 is nice piece of kit. At a boxing ring though you may need a wider lens depending on how close you can get to the ring itself. One of the things to consider though is the quality of the output that your client base need. As you probably know, the noise on digital cameras has an effect given the ISO but in action shots for martial arts/boxing, it doesnt matter that much. Sports photographers like Eamon McCabe often used 1600 ASA in boxing situations and could produce at A4 size a very acceptable piece of work (to say the least!). The grain added to the picture. When i started shooting sports stuff in the 1980's, you wouldn't consider a zoom at all because the prime lens was much better. Things have changed though. I use a 16-35L and the IS 70-200L and these stay on my camera's all the time along. Very occasionally i feel the need to switch to a prime lense but its usually i lighting issue where no flash is allowed and i am lucky enough to have a few prime L lenses as well but overall the zoom lenses will do the trick.

The other issue is that you dont state how many camera bodies you have. Assuming its just one, if you keep an 85mm lens on the one body, you may miss an opportunity because you don't have the flexibility that say the 24-70 would give you. As an example when covering boxing the angle could be anything from 16mm to 85mm after considering the x1.6 issue.

At A4 i think the zooms are the answer at A3 you would notice a difference (in my opinion).

For portraits, i think the zooms are a little softer and in all honesty for many people that you may photograph, thats a good thing! Canon had a prime 135 soft focus lense which i have and this has three settings at one extreme the setting is very detailed and sharp, the other extreme is a sort of blurry, even out of focus kind of look. The middle setting is medium ground and was the one i used the most for a nice soft affect. ( I am not a portrait photograher though!)

I have never tried other manufacturers lenses as i am lucky enough to afford Canon stuff but look at the reviews on the web of tamron and sigma etc, you may feel that you could get those as zoom lenses which may leave enough money for the 50mm canon lens

[OneManArmy]

I have never tried other manufacturers lenses as i am lucky enough to afford Canon stuff but look at the reviews on the web of tamron and sigma etc, you may feel that you could get those as zoom lenses which may leave enough money for the 50mm canon lens
I already hte the 50mm 1.4 For boxing, it is excellent in terms of focal length and light - however, it focuses slow compares to the 24-70 for example. I often get soft shots due to that.

At this point, I was considering keeping my 50 1.4 and getting the tamron 28-80 xr di, and also the 70-200L 2.8L I'll probably change my mind tomorrow.

[DeeplyDigital]

My camera bodies have black tape over the logo.

Same here...

Zoom or prime - it is a personal thing. Best is to try out, experience what they do for you and what YOU can get out of them, then get rid of what you don't need.

I really only use two lenses, the others mostly stay at home.

J.

[KennyG]

I think you need to have a mix of zooms and primes and be very choosy about which you have. I try hard, honestly, to avoid adding more lenses to my collection and ask the simple questions, will it do better than I have now and will it pay for itself. Unless both are yes, I move along to the next shelf in the camera store.

However, even in my rather narrow field I have found the 85 1.8 to be the most useful of the shorter primes. If you look at my lens list in the sig, apart from the big guns, that and the 50 1.4 are the only two I use. If Canon made a 70-200 1.8 then I probably wouldn't have the 85 in the bag as its main benefit for me is the wider aperture and nice bokeh. It gets used far less than my 70-200 2.8IS for sure which, next to my 300 2.8IS, is a lens that I'll probably insist on being buried with.

[OneManArmy]

I think you need to have a mix of zooms and primes and be very choosy about which you have. I try hard, honestly, to avoid adding more lenses to my collection and ask the simple questions, will it do better than I have now and will it pay for itself. Unless both are yes, I move along to the next shelf in the camera store.

However, even in my rather narrow field I have found the 85 1.8 to be the most useful of the shorter primes. If you look at my lens list in the sig, apart from the big guns, that and the 50 1.4 are the only two I use. If Canon made a 70-200 1.8 then I probably wouldn't have the 85 in the bag as its main benefit for me is the wider aperture and nice bokeh. It gets used far less than my 70-200 2.8IS for sure which, next to my 300 2.8IS, is a lens that I'll probably insist on being buried with.
Kenny, thanks for the advice on the 70-200; I plan on getting that one for sure. I'm likely to get the Tamron and the 70-200. Later I may get the 135 F/2. I think I'm keeping my 50/1.4 because I just might need it in certain situations. I can't afford the 24-70 and 70-200 without selling me 50 1.4.

Other opinions?

Bloo Dog, no problem. Thanks

[sGu]

Kenny said it, you need a mixture of both if you tend to shoot sports, especially if you wanna be an all sports shooter.

There is a list of must have for sports shooter, well, glasses that I would love to have:
1. 16-35mm/17-40mm
2. 24-70mm 2.8*
3. 70-200mm 2.8 IS
4. 50mm 1.4
5. 85mm 1.8
6. 135mm 2**
7. 200mm 1.8(if you can find one and can afford one)***
8. 300mm 2.8 IS (motorsport, indoor/outdoor sport)
9. 400mm 2.8 IS (for football, rugby, hockey lacrosse etc.)**
10. 600mm 4 IS (cricket, motorsport, boating, surfing etc.)**

Oh, you'll need to get a 15mm fisheye if you like to shoot extreme sport.

They would cost your life, however, with quality they deliver, it's worth every penny. My next lens would be 24-70mm, really miss it ... god damn thief!

* The lens I'm getting next, whenever that would be
** The lens I really want and will have eventually ... before I die
*** Lovely lens, but I don't want one, and I especially DON'T wanna try it!

[jonniewalton]

sGu has nearly got it but dont forget the 1.4x and the 2x extender. Even with the 1.6x factor they are necessary. I was shooting surfing in Cornwall between Christmas and the new year for fun. I have a 300f2.8 but needed a 2x converter to fill about half the frame!!

The Canon converters can only be used with the "white" canon lenses (read L lenses) but in all seriousness, depending on your f stop and ISO you may get away with a third party 1.4 extenders for some of the sports you may shoot. Some shots i took with the 300mm lens with the 2x converter still managed a shutter speed of 1/2000 with ISO at 400. I have the 70 200lIS and this works well with teleconverters.

[bachscuttler]

Respect to CharlesU,

For giving his honest opinion based on experience and not throwing bricks out of his pram when his advice is questioned (no disrespect to OneManArmy, you have a difficult decision) and turning the thread into a blood bath!
His end product says much more about him than his equipment.

A true Pro in my opinion! ;)

[sGu]

sGu has nearly got it but dont forget the 1.4x and the 2x extender. Even with the 1.6x factor they are necessary. I was shooting surfing in Cornwall between Christmas and the new year for fun. I have a 300f2.8 but needed a 2x converter to fill about half the frame!!

The Canon converters can only be used with the "white" canon lenses (read L lenses) but in all seriousness, depending on your f stop and ISO you may get away with a third party 1.4 extenders for some of the sports you may shoot. Some shots i took with the 300mm lens with the 2x converter still managed a shutter speed of 1/2000 with ISO at 400. I have the 70 200lIS and this works well with teleconverters.

I knew I forgot something! Thanks for mentioning them ... and yes, I have them both :D

[Ferdinand]

I started life in photography a year ago with 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I found that the 24-70 f/2.8 isnt wide enough and have recently acquire at 16-35 f/2.8 and is loving it, I shoot the 20D and 10D by the way. So I am going to leave the 24-70 f/2.8 for studio work.

---Ferdinand

[charlesu]

Charles, with all due respect, what kind of advice is that?? I'm about to spend about 2G on lenses and I'm trying to decide whether to go prime or zoom. I listed the situations I shoot in and my future plans. I figured maybe some pros could tell me what they shoot with and their opinions on why. Is this the ask the pros forum? Maybe I have the wrong one? Thanks

Hey I didn't mean to be flippant. I'm trying to say not to get mired down in what they call analisys paralisys. If you really want my thoughts on the lenses here they are:

I'd go for these in the following order and mostly because budget is such an issue.

24-70 2.8 Screw the test results. This lens is good and it handles well and will cover much of the range you need it to unless you're shooting from long distance. It's also relatively addordable if you shop around.

70-200 2.8 IS L Second lens. This will give you the extra reach you need. Do not skip on the IS. This is too important a feature to have. If you have to, borrow the money for the difference (I hate credit, by the way). This lens is my very favorite and it's a damn good one.

Beyond this, consider the 1.4xII or the 100-400L (not an awesome lens but probably good enough). Or, if budget becomes less of an issue, consider the 300 2.8 IS L. I own this lens. What a masterpiece.

85 1.8 You already have the 50 1.4. This lens is better. It's fast. It handle superbly. I'd only buy it after you have the rest of your range covered though, as prime lenses just are not flexible.

Then, to round out the line.....

16-35 2.8L Great lens for the short side.

Then consider the other prime lenses if and when time and budget allows. My guess is that you won't pick them up because you and your clients will be more than pleased with your results from the zooms.

I think the wisdom of using primes goes back to the 70s and 80s when zooms were a much bigger compromise over primes. I knew people then, even now, who won't touch a zoom. But they are NOT pros. They are gear bigots. A pro will use whatever will get his or her job done and is reliable.

I also know people who will not shoot anything but Kodachrome 64. Nothing else is good enough.

Some people who act this way insist you can't get good enough results without following their rigid philosophy. Bull$&@)!!!! Those people aren't purists. But they are limiting themselves.

[charlesu]

"Quit worrying over primes versus zooms and just shoot. Sell your work. Make your $$ and let the lenses come as they may."

Amen. Photographers tend to obsess over equipment. My camera bodies have black tape over the logo. I got real tired of (N-word here) owners coming up to me extolling the superiority of their optics, blah blah, blah, and (H-word here) yakking about how great their medium format cameras are.

The last time someone asked me what I shot with, I told him, "I dunno. I got it out of a box of cereal."

Thanks Bloo Dog! Glad to know someone understands my point.

You shoot with the "N" cameras? Oh my, oh my. There goes all my respect for you. How can it be? I thought you had your head on straight!!!??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I love it. I have shot mostly Canon and Pentax with some Hassy and Pentax Medium format as well, all my life. When out shooting Canon I've actually had owners of a competing brand of camera come up to ask my about my camera/work and then, with a look of surprise and disappointment, walk off saying "Oh, I thought you had a <insert brand N>"

What the heck is that supposed to mean? I just chuckle and go on with my work. I think we all know, despite the "pride" we have in what we own, that each brand has advantages and disadvantages and that the key is knowing how to use what you've got. I dare say that Cartier-Bresson could have taken a better picture than me if you gave him a Kodak Brownie.

.

[charlesu]

Respect to CharlesU,

For giving his honest opinion based on experience and not throwing bricks out of his pram when his advice is questioned (no disrespect to OneManArmy, you have a difficult decision) and turning the thread into a blood bath!
His end product says much more about him than his equipment.

A true Pro in my opinion! ;)

Wow, I just caught your remark too. Thanks. And thanks for understanding that I wasn't trying to be mean. Just trying to say that, to a point, it's not so much the gear as the shooter.

[NEC1236]

Rent both and decide for yourself what is best. That is what I did and ended up buying both for the type of work I do. Some Studio, some location. My 100mm Macro f/2.8 being my favorite.
The 24-70 has some aborations for critical product work but does an excelent job in most cases.

[OneManArmy]

OK Charles,

That's what I was looking for. I appreciate your advice! One question for you about your response... you mentioned the 24-70. That's probably my next lense, however, Im pondering whether I should get that over the 28-70 because some tests have shown the 28-70 to be better in some cases, and it's far less expensive used. Have you used the 28-70? Thanks

[charlesu]

I bought my last 28-70 (I have had several) just before (like days) the 24-70 was announced. I sold the 28-70 to someone who needed one badly and mine was just out of the box, so he gave me new $$ for it. I bought the 24-70 and have been pleased with it.

Have I done any serious direct comparisons? No. Would I go back? Not for the $$ (I like having the extra few mm) but I would not hesitate to use the 28-70. If budget is an issue, I would take the 28-70 in a heartbeat and invest more elsewhere.

But that's just my $.02 and I'm sure there are many opinions on this.

[OneManArmy]

I bought my last 28-70 (I have had several) .
Excellent, thanks. And I lied, I have ONE more question: What do yo uthink about the Tamron competitor, the xr di, I think it's 28-80? Any experience using that one? If so, how does the autofocus speed and photo quality compare? If anyone else has those two and would like to chime in, feel free. Thanks

[charlesu]

Excellent, thanks. And I lied, I have ONE more question: What do yo uthink about the Tamron competitor, the xr di, I think it's 28-80? Any experience using that one? If so, how does the autofocus speed and photo quality compare? If anyone else has those two and would like to chime in, feel free. Thanks

I've not used this lens so I cannot speak to it specifically. However, my more general experience is that Canon L glass consistently outperforms 3rd party competition. Now, if you have to have a 2.8 zoom and you only have $350, you don't have a choice. But if money is no object......

I can't and won't say that no one will beat or match the L glass. But I can say that EVERY discussion I have heard from someone who owns exceptional competitor glass is that they still compare it to the L. IE, the L is the standard and probably always will be. Also, I don't think I have ever known someone to sell the L lens and "upgrade" to Tamronm, Tokina, Sigma, etc.

I have nothing against these companies and they make fine products. It still comes down to you have to pay your money and make a choice. That's it.