<$1500 Where to begin...

So here's the situation. I am currently shooting an XSi Gripped and a Sigma EF 530 DG Super Speedlight, with only the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS lenses. (I have other items like wireless shoes, remote shutter, umbrellas, etc; but in terms of basic gear that's what I have.) I feel I am pushing the 55-250 as far as I can and am looking to move beyond the quality I can get from either of these two lenses. I shoot a wide variety of objects from indoor sports like volleyball and basketball - all with the 55-250 and a flash to light things up - to daylight and night outdoor sports like softball and football. Obviously I have the most trouble with football, but he stadium is lit well enough for me to shoot 1/200 wide open and usually with ISO 1600. I also shoot portraits, wide landscapes (less often), interiors and specialty projects. Basically right now I shoot everything from Bees to Birds, lol.

I have budgeted myself $1500 at the beginning of the year to make a fairly significant upgrade. I was going to add to my range and pick up the 100-400mm ƒ/4-5.6L IS USM lens. But I had the opportunity to shoot the 100mm ƒ/2.8L Macro IS USM lens the other day and was able to see a 1:1 comparison of my shots at nearly the same focal distance and doing so I saw the obvious improvements from better glass. So now I'm less convinced that I should extend my range with the 100-400 and thinking my best solution is to replace part of that range with a versatile and high quality zoom lens. Which the 100-400 kind of does, but I think of it as being more of a reaching tool vs shooting on the short end.

My basic requirements are that the upgrade is an upgrade, not a side grade, or something that is purpose specific like a 10-22mm. I like that lens (and the Tokina 11-16 better) and will get one, but that will be a separate upgrade. For now I want to see significant improvement in quality and usability. This puts me in a conundrum. I can strap an 800 prime on my camera and it will reach out and slap ya; but if you put that same lens on better body, it can reach out and slap ya, then tickle your ear and maybe sign an autograph. Basically the XSI will still have the same limitations within the camera no matter what I have attached to it. I don't mind going to a FF camera, but honestly I would rather upgrade into a better crop frame like the 7D first, then move to a FF after I have more L glass. Having said that, I know great glass looks great on the lil ole' 450D...

My first instinct is to go with the 70-200mm ƒ/4.0L IS USM. As a flat aperture I know I can draw in more light at the higher end, but I do give up 50mm. Then I thought, maybe I should consider the 70-300mm ƒ/4-5.6L IS USM. But, I'm still going to be fighting with light and I need to be able to gather light better then I can now. However, I also know that the newer body's do a much better job of reducing noise in high ISO settings. I can ONLY go to 1600 with the XSi, and even then I have to remove noise in LR. So a better body would allow slower glass by pushing the ISO up higher.

A few people loosely mentioned going with some faster zoom lenses from Sigma etc. but most did not have image stabilization, which is a deal breaker for me; or the quality just wasn't as good as the Canon 70-200 (and I know the f2.8 is even better but way beyond my price range). So now I'm sitting here trying to figure out what is my best move. I wont give up IS, and I don't want to give up range but would give that up before IS. Maybe a new body makes the most sense, but I feel pretty confident that I would see a bigger improvement OVERALL with a better lens. And I am trying to look at the big picture...which leaves me overwhelmed at the moment trying to decide what to do.

I'm open to suggestions that keep me under budget, and improve the "potential" of the gear. I know there is no tool which makes you a better shooter, so I'm not looking for a magic fix; I'm just looking to open the door further and position myself to be able to expand my abilities. If I were to pull the trigger today, the 70-200 ƒ/4 IS would be the call I make. And it may be the right call. But if anyone has a suggestion of what would be a better decision, please let me know. There is one caveat though, I will NOT be selling any of my gear. So selling this and that to give me a bigger price range is not an option. I would also prefer new, but I am certainly willing to consider used options especially with glass.

Thanks and I look forward to hearing your suggestions!

Get a used 70-200 2.8, non IS. Sell your current camera, grip and lens, buy a newer body (t3i or 60d) that can use higher ISO values then 1600.

Also consider a used 70-200 f/2.8L IS (not II). You should be able to get a used one for under $1500. The IS won't help with your action shots but will make the lens a lot more useful for everything else.

Regarding switching to full frame, that would benefit you if your primary use was for portraits, but for sports, I think you're better off with the crop sensor. As ccc mentioned, upgrading to a body like the 7D would help you get better high ISO shots. Unless you'd only use the lens for sports, though, I would personally just be a little hesitant to go with the non-IS version. When you're out at 200mm and not needing to stop action, IS comes in very handy.

Yeah, I agree the 7D is in my future. Maybe a used body when the 7Dm2 comes out. My goal is to eventually have both a good Crop sensor and a decent FF (read that as 5Dm2 at least). But that's looking ahead.

I am confused about the IS not helping on action shots? Why would IS not help in that aspect? Maybe this is something that I should know already and don't but I guess I am missing that connection?

However, I did not consider looking for the original 70-200 IS. I will have to look into that option and see what I can find. Great suggestion!

IS there an IS version before mark 2?

Bassun wrote in post #15139484
IS there an IS version before mark 2?

Yes.

I currently have both the 70-300mm ƒ/4-5.6L IS USM and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. The difference in IQ is amazing and the IS is not really needed for sports shots. I really need to sell the 70-300, but when it comes to photography equipment I'm a bit of a hoarder.

Keep in mind when you are looking at the 70-200 variants. Each is a separate design. Its not just a matter of adding IS, or changing the max aperture. The optics are different and the sharpness is different for each. Research the specific model you want and compare it to the others, but dont think because a MKII 2.8 is amazing that you will get the same from the original or non IS versions.

7d ($1000 used) + 70-200 f4 non IS (~$500 used)

Save up/sell your body and buy a Sigma 17-50 or Sigma 30mm later on.

Bassun wrote in post #15139433
I am confused about the IS not helping on action shots? Why would IS not help in that aspect? Maybe this is something that I should know already and don't but I guess I am missing that connection?

Well, technically it can help, but the point is if you are shooting action shots, you're probably at a high enough shutter speed that it will negate the need for IS. If you use the 1/focal length rule, you'd need 1/200 to handhold without shake if you don't have IS, but you're probably shooting above that already if you are shooting moving subjects. If, on the other hand, you're taking a picture of a stationary subject (say a batter at home plate) and want to show some motion blur, in that case the IS would definitely help.

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #15139628
7d ($1000 used) + 70-200 f4 non IS (~$500 used)

Save up/sell your body and buy a Sigma 17-50 or Sigma 30mm later on.

This wouldn't be a bad option either. The 7D will definitely get you a higher keeper rate as far as focus goes and as mentioned above, IS isn't a requirement for action photography. My guess is the 7D will get you > 1 stop of improvement in high ISO performance, which would counter the 1 stop you'd lose with the f/4 lens. However, while all of the 70-200 lenses are great, I believe the f/4L non-IS is considered the poorest of the bunch in terms of IQ - though it would surely still be a step up from your 55-250.

munzzzzzzz wrote in post #15139706
Well, technically it can help, but the point is if you are shooting action shots, you're probably at a high enough shutter speed that it will negate the need for IS. If you use the 1/focal length rule, you'd need 1/200 to handhold without shake if you don't have IS, but you're probably shooting above that already if you are shooting moving subjects. If, on the other hand, you're taking a picture of a stationary subject (say a batter at home plate) and want to show some motion blur, in that case the IS would definitely help.

LOL - yeah, that makes sense. I read it as I didn't want IS for sports and was a little confused. But you bring up a good point none the less. Thanks!

CCCC- yeah, I'm not going to be selling what I have. It has a second use already planned once I move past it.

Gonzogolf - Yeah, I will definitely look at the distinctions very closely. I also will use the comparison tool at a competing site.

Job10 - yeah, I agree from what I've seen the 70-200's I've compared have much better IQ than the 70-300 version.

Stir fry a lot -- that's a good idea although I would rather avoid that variant of the 70-200... I wonder how prices for the 7D may change if/when the 7Dm2 is released... I may be best off to get the lens "now" and wait on a better market price on used 7D's... IDK. Good idea though.

Munzzz (again) - yeah, I don't think I would grab that variant of the lens; but It sounds like i need to research the 70-200's more closely since it seems that is the common theme regardless of which version.

Thanks all! And if anyone else has any thoughts, please feel free to share! I've got a couple months before I do anything anyway.

Bassun wrote in post #15140111
Stir fry a lot -- that's a good idea although I would rather avoid that variant of the 70-200...

Why not? Have you checked out the sample thread for it? It's a very capable lens.
https://photography-on-the.net …hlight=70-200+f4&page=342

Have you looked at the 200 2.8 L? I just bought one of here for $600 and it's amazing. I know it's a prime, but it really would be something to look into.

I have seen them as low as $500 on here, so that would give you $1000 left, and if you sold everything else maybe $500 extra, you may be able to afford a 7D then?

You can get a 7D on canon loyaly program for just over $1000 I say grab it sell you current lenses and camera and buy nifty 50 and 70-200mm f4 refurbed for barely over $500. Your total is like $1700ish and subtract what you can get for current gear.