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/R...ns-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.

[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]

Originally Posted by leony

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...

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Ok, 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]

Originally Posted by jonniewalton

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]

Originally Posted by Bloo Dog

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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