Which lens?

Hello,

I am currently shooting with the 40D currently and have the following lenses:

Tokina 11-16 1.8
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 28-135 IS (kit lens)
Sigma 70-300 Macro (might get rid of this one to put toward another lens)

I am looking to add a lens to my collection and am currently looking at:
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 100 f2
Canon 100 2.8L Macro

I am mainly looking to improve on indoor sports or really any poor light situations as that is when my images suffer the most (mostly in terms of graininess). My 50mm is my go to lens for gym photos but doesn't have the reach most of the time for me. I was thinking about a 70-200 of some kind but I think i may like the primes better. Any opinions on whether the 85 or 100 would be a better length given that I already have a 50mm? I would also like to do some kid portraits and macro stuff so that is why I was looking at the 100 macro L hoping it would serve many purposes. But my feeling is that it would be awesome for macros but so-so for indoor sports given the 2.8 where the 85 opens to 1.8.

I was also looking at possibly upgrading my body to a 7D. Is the ISO performance much better on the 7D vs the 40D? If I could get a more usable ISO range and a bonus of being able to shoot video that may be an option for me but then I would not be able to afford a lens. Sorry to ramble but just trying to figure out the best place to spend my $$. My main goal is improved low light performance so should I purchase a faster lens or upgrade my body? And if the lens is the answer, then who prefers the 100 and who prefers the 85mm?

Thanks.

CJ

normally i say lens, but the iso performance on the newer bodies may be the way to go. other wise how about a 70-200/2.8?

I would suggest the 85 f/1/.8 (or 135L) for indoor sports. Depending on the lighting the 70-200 f/2.8 can also work well.

For macro, if you can afford it go 100L. It has IS that will help in non-macro shots. If you can't afford it the non-Ls have almost identical IQ to the L. I never tried my macro for sports, but it is the oldest without USM. Generally macros are not fast to focus (sports-wise). If you use the limit switch and are good at predicting when the peak action is, it could work? Others that have used the 100L for sports might put in a word?

I would suggest the 85/1.8. 100mm might be too long.. you can always crop a little with the 85 anyways. I've shot indoor hockey with the 100/2.8 macro USM(non-L),and while it can be done.. the AF is kind of lazy for sports(especially low-light). 70-200/2.8 would be great, but 2.8 might not be fast enough... you'll quite likely need ISO 1600-3200(which would be pushing your 40D) for indoor sports.. depending on lighting.

The 85/1.l8 would be fine for indoor sports, especially since OP already has 50mm if they need a shorter focal length. For that matter, 100/2 would be fine, too. Or 135/2. All are fast focusing and offer at least one aperture larger than any zoom. It really just depends upon how much "reach" you want.

I would not recommend any of the macro lenses for indoor sports. They are f2.8 at best and slower focusing. So they will have more trouble keeping up with fast action. Unless you really plan to do a lot of macro and the indoor sports shooting is a secondary consideration, then a macro lens might be a better choice.

IMO, the 85 or 100/2 or 135/2 are also better for portraits. I simply don't like a macro lenses for portraits... they are literally too sharp for that purpose. The result is that macro lens shots look sort of "scientific", while the short tele/portrait lenses give a more "artistic" rendition.

You can add macro extension tubes (such as the Kenko) to your kit and combined with one or more of those, any lens you have can be used for occasionaly macro shooting.

So, you simply need to prioritize. What do you want/need to shoot most? Let that guide your decision. If the majority of your use will be indoor sports and portraiture, the 85, 100/2 or 135 would be a fine choice... and can be adapted for occasional macro use. If you'll mostly be shooting macro and the other subjects are secondary, then one of the 100mm macro lenses would be the better choice. I'd stick with either of the Canon 100 macros with USM, since those will give the best possible focusing speed, to better double for indoor sports, and f2.8 for portraits.

One problem if you get the 85/1.8 or 100/2 or 135/2, then you will quite likely no longer be satisfied with the 50/1.8's AF performance, which is slow, noisy, hunts a bit and isn't as accurate. I bet you end up shopping for a 50/1.4 with USM pretty soon (Canon or Sigma).

cj5 wrote in post #14711502
Hello,

I am currently shooting with the 40D currently and have the following lenses:

Tokina 11-16 1.8
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 28-135 IS (kit lens)
Sigma 70-300 Macro (might get rid of this one to put toward another lens)

I am looking to add a lens to my collection and am currently looking at:
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 100 f2
Canon 100 2.8L Macro

I am mainly looking to improve on indoor sports or really any poor light situations as that is when my images suffer the most (mostly in terms of graininess). My 50mm is my go to lens for gym photos but doesn't have the reach most of the time for me. I was thinking about a 70-200 of some kind but I think i may like the primes better. Any opinions on whether the 85 or 100 would be a better length given that I already have a 50mm? I would also like to do some kid portraits and macro stuff so that is why I was looking at the 100 macro L hoping it would serve many purposes. But my feeling is that it would be awesome for macros but so-so for indoor sports given the 2.8 where the 85 opens to 1.8.

I was also looking at possibly upgrading my body to a 7D. Is the ISO performance much better on the 7D vs the 40D? If I could get a more usable ISO range and a bonus of being able to shoot video that may be an option for me but then I would not be able to afford a lens. Sorry to ramble but just trying to figure out the best place to spend my $$. My main goal is improved low light performance so should I purchase a faster lens or upgrade my body? And if the lens is the answer, then who prefers the 100 and who prefers the 85mm?

Thanks.

CJ

I would look at loosing the kit lens and picking up a Canon 17-55.

85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0. I use my 85mm for indoor sports (fantastic quick focus) and it is also perfect for portraits.