Only own 1 lens... what should I buy next?

[00bolt]

Im not a professional, just a dad with a camera. I use my camera for taking pictures of the kids, vacations, parties, etc. Im starting to get into playing around with HDR though..

Anyhow, Iv had my Canon 30D and Canon 17-55mm F2.8 lens now for a year and love it. But have found it to come up short a few times which has me wanting another option. My son does karate, and my daughter does gymnastics. Heres my problem..

SON IN KARATE. The zoom on my lens is fine, as im not very far from him. But lighting is a problem and always have to bump ISO way up, even when all the way down to 2.8. Thought maybe something with larger aperture would be nice.

DAUGHTER IN GYMNASTICS. Here my zoom is not enough, and lighting is about the same as my son's karate. I really dont have anything to compare to because this is my only lens, but Im thinking I need about twice as much zoom as I have now, maybe 3x as much...

so with that all being said, the 85mm 1.8 and the 100 F2 come to mind first because of their reasonable prices. I could actually get both of them for around $800 it looks like.

But, like i mentioned, the ability not to zoom kinda worries me. Plus, Im not sure if I want to juggle around 3 lenses. I know some of you professionals probably have 10+, but to me, 3 seems like alot. Hate to miss a shot because I didnt have the right lens on and no ability to zoom.

If you were in my shoes, and a budget around $1000 (the lower the better), what would you do?

[swjim]

I would get the 85 f/1.8 OR the 100 f/2.0, not both. They're too close in focal length, just choose the one that would work best for you and save the rest of your money for something else.

If you don't already have one, I would probably go with a 580 EXII or other good hot shoe flash with E-TTL instead of another lens.

[swjim]

One other question, when you say you would like a lens that is three times longer for gymnastics are you saying three times longer than the 17-55 or the 70-200?

[00bolt]

eww, sorry. Signature is wrong. That was my first setup from years ago. I currently have Canon 30D and 17-55 2.8 only. Sorry

[RyanL]

Originally Posted by 00bolt

eww, sorry. Signature is wrong. That was my first setup from years ago. I currently have Canon 30D and 17-55 2.8 only. Sorry

So was the 70-200mm long enough for you?

[00bolt]

Honestly, I didnt have that setup very long. i bought it all on a whem and only had the entire setup for about 2 weeks. I do remember liking the distance, but didnt like the F4 at all.

I think I know where you are going with this, the 70-200 2.8 IS is everyones dream lens right? Well its a bit out of my price range.

Also, Im thinking if Im having light problems now with my 2.8, I will have them with that lens too, just longer zoom. Thats why I was considering these prime lenses because of the aperture...??

[TaDa]

Instead of getting both, I'd go 85 1.8 and then spend the rest on a good flash like a 580ex. You'll then have a fast piece of glass for natural light and a great flash that you can bounce to cover other things.

[00bolt]

Iv never really even thought about a flash before. I dont know why, but in my mind I just had this vision that flashes were a bad thing. I have never once used my stock flash on my 30D.

So would I use a flash like this only when in the house and low light situations up close? I dont see it doing much good at karate/gymnastics right?

[aram535]

Oncamera flash -- evil, external flash on hot shoe -- good, Off camera flash (even if its on a short cable -- brilliant

[Tigerkn]

^^^

Originally Posted by aram535

Oncamera flash -- evil, external flash on hot shoe -- good, Off camera flash (even if its on a short cable -- brilliant

[TaDa]

A flash is a must have accessory. A good flash like a 580ex will light up a big room, so it would help with your karate and gym shots as well. If the ceiling is too high to bounce the light off of, you can buy a diffuser that mounts over the flash to spread out the light.

Built in flashes are pure evil. Good flash guns, and then when you're ready to take your flash off camera, will take your images to a new level.

[ancientsanskrit]

Just a thought, but did you ever consider getting an extension tube for reach?

Flash will definitely open up a new horizon of images, but for the case of karate/gymnastics, I would think that the 2.8 and a higher ISO should get you decent shots. It depends on the location and what you're doing now. Are you bumping the ISO ridiculously high? Are your shutter speeds on the slower side?

Consider me the conservative hobbyist from a monetary standpoint. Also something, as affordable as the third party 70-300's can give you the range you need.

I just feel that going by for a year w/just the 17-55, you're probably not shooting at a far focal length on a constant basis, and buying expensive glass will just be a waste of money.

Just my two pennies.

[swjim]

Originally Posted by ancientsanskrit

Just a thought, but did you ever consider getting an extension tube for reach?

An extension tube will reduce the minimum focus distance for macro work, but it won't give more reach in this situation. I think you're mistaking extension tubes with teleconverters but with a teleconverer the OP would lose 1-2 stops of light and I don't believe the 17-55 is compatible with them.

[ancientsanskrit]

Originally Posted by swjim

An extension tube will reduce the minimum focus distance for macro work, but it won't give more reach in this situation. I think you're mistaking extension tubes with teleconverters but with a teleconverer the OP would lose 1-2 stops of light and I don't believe the 17-55 is compatible with them.

Ahh thanks for the correction.

[butugly]

if your not sure on the lens you would like,read the reviews on various lenses,
and then hire the one you think best suits your needs,i know it costs to rent but its cheaper than getting a lens you dont use or like.hope this helps