How are these starter lenses?? comments pls..

[wwstall]

I recently purchased a 20d..(body only)and can you beleive i still dont have lenses.. :( been about 3 days..i wanna make sure i get the lenses right the first time around since the lenses will be with me for the long haul.

1.tamron 17-35 f2.8-4
2.tamron 28-75 f2.8
3.canon 70-200 2.8 L
4.canon 50m 1.8 II
5 canon 85m 1.8
6.maybe the canon 1.4 extender later
these are the lenses i want to get i've been looking through this forum for awhile now an wanted some feedback on these lenses..i think i got the range covered with these lenses.is this a good start???hoping this is all i will need for a long while.

[shiato storm]

if you can squeeze to the 70-200 IS version you'll have a tip top lens there.
get the tamron 28-75 - make sure its the latest version possible.
and if you have anything left after that; the 50mm mkII, can't fault it for the price...i got mine. so cheap and its great!

[wwstall]

why must it be the latest version ?? was there problems with the earlier models??(tamron 28-75).

IS is a way more expensive i dont think 400-500 dollars is worth it..but i do hear alot of people saying they wished they held out for the IS version..i'll be shooting alot of sports at the local schools in the area and need a fast tele lenses,(soccer,baseball,football.tennis,golf)....c an the non-is version handle this handheld??or would it be much better with the IS version.?

and yeah gonna buy the 50mm mkII tis on my list for sure..

[weemannie]

The advantage of the IS system is that it gives you the equivalent of 2 stops advantage for handheld shots. For sports that could be very useful, I would have thought.

[ayotnoms]

Looks like an all-star lineup to me.
OK, Triple A all-stars but few can afford the Major League alL-star lineup. :-)

[tommykjensen]

Have a look here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752

lots of information about member recommended starter lenses.

[wwstall]

thx alot ya'll for the help...i was looking at the IS version and yes the 2 stops would def help(but man iit's expensive!!!!)..since alot of the games would be during evening hours..as for the L's i can't dish out that kind of money maybe just that 70-200mm is all i can get for now...but i do wanna upgrade later to the 24-70L and the 17-40L when money permits.so i guess this list is gonna have to do...gonna go out this week and start picking them up...ezy here since i'm in japan..camera shops at every corner it seems..gonna wait on buying the 70-200 L..gonna get some more info on the IS version first.(i'm really thinking i will need the IS version...oh yeah i will be getting paid for doing the school pic's from there parents.(thats how i got the money to buy the 20d and these lens...)

[wwstall]

cont-
so i'm thinking should i just dish out the cash for the IS version of the 70-200mm L..and just wait to pay off the CC with the money i get from the photo jobs..arghhh so many decisions..
ohh yeathx for all the help with this great forum!!!!

[CyberDyneSystems]

wwstall,..

You may find if you ask the right people that IS does not help so much for low light sports shooting.

Being able to use a slower shutter and still get crisp results without a tripod is what IS is good for. With sports.. the subject is moving .. (usually) and thus the slower shutter speeds available with IS will give results that may be of no use.

In essence.. if a tripod won't hlep much .. neither will IS. In sports you need faster shutter speeds.. not longer ones.

[wwstall]

Cyber..

Nice point..thx

[drisley]

IS won't help most sports photography.

[ed rader]

>>>>1.tamron 17-35 f2.8-4
2.tamron 28-75 f2.8
3.canon 70-200 2.8 L
4.canon 50m 1.8 II
5 canon 85m 1.8
6.maybe the canon 1.4 extender later<<

i've got #1 and #2. i also have #4 except i have the mark I (metal mount). i am think about selling this one and getting the 35 f2.

i received the canon 70-200 4L yesterday but it's going back because the AF quit working....so i have no zoom (sold my other).

i also have a 1.4 TC but mine is a kenko pro that costs $150 and is supposed to be as good as the canon.

so i think you are on the right track :cool: .

ed rader

[condyk]

IS won't help most sports photography.

I wonder why the Canon 70-200 IS is top of the pops here for both indoor and outdoor sports? Are people voting for what they have already or for what is actually the best? Maybe lots of people have bought the IS for sports based on the lists :lol: Hmmm, but it's not really funny if that's the case! I dunno ...

So, what is really best for sports? A nice fast prime?

[drisley]

Dunno. But last year I had wondered about getting the 70-200/2.8 or spending the extra on IS.
Now that I know better, I would have no doubts NOT buying the IS version. IS just does not help shooting indoor sports. Sure, the background might be sharp, but any player movement will cause blur regardless of IS.
However, having the IS available for other situations is a nice bonus. Like perhaps, taking a picture of the players sitting on the bench :)
The 70-200/2.8 would probably be the best sport zoom. Other than that, yes, and nice fast prime.
For example. When I was shooting basketball last year at a university event, even with my 135/2L prime, I was only getting about 1/400s speeds at ISO3200, F2.0. With a F2.8 zoom, the quality would really have suffered since the best speed I would have been able to get would be 1/200s. Also, the prime is sharper at F2.0 than the zoom at F2.8.