Need advice...purchase sequence

[tigerfan79]

Been really enjoying this hobby for over 3 years now....studying, practicing,etc. I still have my original body and lenses and looking to upgrade a bit. I've got a 50d w/ a 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6. I'm planning on keeping the 50d and the 10-22, but it's time to move on from the 18-200 and replace it with a couple faster, sharper lenses.

I've pretty much decided to replace it with the canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS. Problem is, I'd like to go for one now but will likely wait a year or two before the other as we have some other family projects coming up. I don't really "specialize" in a particular area, just dabble all over....landscape, wildlife, family, etc. But one of the main reasons for wanting to upgrade is b/c I now have a nearly 2 yr old son and a new 3 month old son. I find myself really needing a faster glass for indoor fun and portriats. Also even in the outdoors my 2 yr old is VERY active and fast. I'm getting a bit too many throw-aways and missing some great stuff at certain times of the day.

Based on that, any recommendations on what should be first between the 17-55 or the 70-200? Keep in mind I could supplement the missing range with the 18-200 in the interim. Also, getting the 70-200 and also a 50 f/1.8 II would be an option for me at that price. I know I'm still missing the focal range but it would still be a bit wider and a lot faster indoors. Any help/thoughts

[1Tanker]

Capturing a ~2 year old in the house; get a good shoe-mount flash, such as the 430EX II or 580EX II. Even f/2.8 likely won't be fast enough to freeze the action indoors, without flash.

[DBNissan]

since you are talking about capturing your boys, go for the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM. It's a fantastic lens on the 50D.

[mike_311]

take a look at your images, if you dont really ever use the range between 24-50, i would go for the 50/1.8 and the 70-200, sure there will be gaps but those gaps you can get around. the will have the main focal lengths covered.

[Trique Daddi]

I just bought the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS to replace the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 no VC and can endorse either one. The Sigma focuses better in low light and is built better. The Sigma would save you about $300 or more and the Tamron sells for about $400 or so. Apply the savings to the second lens choice.

Happy shopping!

[jnaks]

unless your kids play a lot of soccer (long field with wide depth) I would go with the 17-55. best walk around for a crop and will give you decently fast indoor ability with a range you can actually compose with indoors.

also agree with 1Tanker in the a flash will become necessary unless you live in a cool glass house or you want to delve into primes...it's a dangerous place to go (just kidding, I love it, but it gets pricey and addictive). and even then, that's not always fast enough without turning up the ISO sometimes.

[DStanic]

Get a flash before anything. Used 580ex is a great buy.

I was close to buying the Sigma 17-50 before I bought the 5D. Looks like a nice lens for the price. I have used the Canon 17-55 though and it is amazing (aside from mediocre build quality). I don't even own a 70-200 at the moment but everybody's style is different.

[andrikos]

Get a Sigma 30 f/1.4 and later you can get the 70-200.

[rick_reno]

agree with the flash suggestions, it'll be important. kids get faster as they get older (to a point), and you'll want something that will freeze action - and with two boys, you'll have more than enough action.

[Craign]

Originally Posted by 1Tanker

Capturing a ~2 year old in the house; get a good shoe-mount flash, such as the 430EX II or 580EX II. Even f/2.8 likely won't be fast enough to freeze the action indoors, without flash.

A big + on that comment.

Outside for children:
I highly recommend a lens that zooms to at least 200mm when photographing children. I like to sit low (on the ground) and follow them as they play.

I often use f/2.8 to blur a distracting background. Seldom is it used because of poor light. When light begins to get low enough to need f/2.8, conditions rapidly deteriorate to the point action photography becomes impossible.

Suggestions:
1. Get a good flash!
2. Get a good lens (lenses) with the focal length(s) that fits your style. Give priority to shorter focal length if funds are an issue, keeping your 18-200 in the interim. Remember that f/2.8 will likely be too slow without a flash when inside.
3. Get an f/1.4 prime lens if you want something fast.

I chose the 24-105 over the 17-55 because of the extra focal length, no regrets. That is another often debated issue. It is $909.95 out of a kit here: http://www.cameta.com/Canon-EF-24-10...-Box-25429.cfm

[tigerfan79]

Thanks for the responses. I actually do have a 430 exII with a diffuser. I use it quite often and it helps tremendously. It is still something that I need to keep practicing to get more natural looking light. So just looking for a faster, sharp lens to give me a little more reason not to use it if I don't have to.

Seems like a mixed bag of suggestions. Interesting about the sigma 17-50. That may be an option as well to save money to put toward the second lens. Started to look in this forum for feedback on the sigma. Anyone have any head to head comparisons with the canon 17-55 on sharpness? Also, regardless of focal range, any significant differences in sharpness and autofocus between the sigma 70-200, sigma 17-50, and the canon 17-55?

[Trique Daddi]

Maybe the Sigma and a Flash. The flash will b very useful. Search the Sigma on the forum and you will find a lot of feedback on it.
Happy Shopping!

[DStanic]

Originally Posted by tigerfan79

Seems like a mixed bag of suggestions. Interesting about the sigma 17-50. That may be an option as well to save money to put toward the second lens. Started to look in this forum for feedback on the sigma. Anyone have any head to head comparisons with the canon 17-55 on sharpness? Also, regardless of focal range, any significant differences in sharpness and autofocus between the sigma 70-200, sigma 17-50, and the canon 17-55?

I think I remember reading that the Sigma may be slightly sharper in the center, but the Canon is a very very sharp lens. I think it has pretty good reviews. The only thing is (if I'm not mistaken) it doesn't have ring-USM (HSM for the Sigma) so the focus may not be quite as fast.