Buying my first L glass, cant descide

Canon Soldier wrote in post #5277687
hmm, maybe if you want to shoot sports, and its usually sunny, go for the 70-200 f/4L, save the extra 500

You know I was thinking about the f/4 being that its lighter and cheaper. But the lower f stop I know will come in handy.
But being that this is just a fun hobby cheaper might be better, in terms of the wife not hurting me..lol..

burnxkr wrote in post #5278231
Get the 70-200 f 4 non IS. Its sharper than the 2.8 and spend the rest on a 50mm 1.4.

Sharpness is way overrated and makes people obsessive. You've gotta be one hell of a pixel peeper or chart shooter to need or want something sharper than a 70-200 2.8 (in general, not you in particular). A normal person wouldn't be able to tell the difference, especially after some proper sharpening (see link in my sig). The 2.8 is just a better lens. Why? Because f/2.8 is a whole stop faster than f/4. Simple.

perryge wrote in post #5278212
Neither. You can get a sweet set of faster, sharper, lighter, cheaper primes for equal or less.

Over $1000 bucks for a 24-70L? Come on, you can get a Sigma 30 1.4 and 85 1.8 for that price with over 400 bucks left in the bank. Pair those with your 50 1.8 and you're set. f/2.8 is for chumps.

$1000 for a 70-200 2.8? Again, psh. 200 2.8L/135L, 85 1.8, and again, you're set.

never thought of those..But you make a valid point..
Time to browse around here for some info on those..

robbyh wrote in post #5278251
You know I was thinking about the f/4 being that its lighter and cheaper. But the lower f stop I know will come in handy.
But being that this is just a fun hobby cheaper might be better, in terms of the wife not hurting me..lol..

If you want light, cheap, and large apertures, some of the primes I listed are the way to go.

Edit: you beat me to it . Those primes will blow the zooms out of the water, by the way. The speed will give you low-light ability and DOF control like you wouldn't believe, and at f/2.8, they're all better in IQ than the zooms wide open. Of course, you can't even open the zooms up to f/2 or faster if you needed to...and then they're lighter...cheaper...fa​ster. Give me an extra stop or two of light over the ability to zoom anyday.

Yea currently my 50 spends the most time on my camera. Only down side is lack of adjustability quickly. But I guess if you plan accordingly you dont really need too much zoom ajustibility.

lol well guess my descision just got more involved.

A good set of primes, if you learn to use them, are infinitely more versatile than a slower zoom imho. I've never, ever felt like I've missed a shot because I needed the ability to zoom. I have on many occasions though, back when I used zooms, lost a lot of shots because I couldn't open my aperture up another stop or two. And that is why I shoot almost exclusively with fast primes. Not to mention price, weight, IQ, bokeh, and all that wonderful stuff.

YMMV

70-200 2.8. After you get it, you start to see things in the viewfinder in a whole new way. You actually fill the frame. It rocks.

perryge wrote in post #5278262
The 2.8 is just a better lens. Why? Because f/2.8 is a whole stop faster than f/4. Simple.

I can get keepers at 1/30 or 1/15 of a second from my f/4 lens thanks to the IS. And the lens only weighs roughly half as much as the f/2.8 version.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I say go with the 24-70 first as it will be a closer replacement to your kit lens and is a wonderful lens at that.

17-55 EFs if you want a zoom.
Don't obsess over "what lens is sharper" or "L lenses". Get what you need.
(You have the kit lens now, what focal lengths dou you shoot at most?)

JoYork wrote in post #5278430
I can get keepers at 1/30 or 1/15 of a second from my f/4 lens thanks to the IS. And the lens only weighs roughly half as much as the f/2.8 version.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

True, but IS doesn't help when the subject moves

Indeed

I'd chose neither of these two lenses. I think 17-55 IS would fit best your needs - it's very versatile lens with excellent optics. L-lenses are really great (used to have some of them) but not necessarily for amateur use. Canon 70-200 L-lenses are excellent (especially for shooting sport) but not really very useful as one-and-only -lens solution.

perryge wrote in post #5278212
Neither. You can get a sweet set of faster, sharper, lighter, cheaper primes for equal or less.

Over $1000 bucks for a 24-70L? Come on, you can get a Sigma 30 1.4 and 85 1.8 for that price with over 400 bucks left in the bank. Pair those with your 50 1.8 and you're set. f/2.8 is for chumps.

$1000 for a 70-200 2.8? Again, psh. 200 2.8L/135L, 85 1.8, and again, you're set.

geez..you never get tire of this prime crap eh?

dawei213 wrote in post #5277680
You have the kit lens. Pick the zoom lens. In the end, you'll probably end up getting both.

They're both zoom lenses, lol

If you're really new do as I did and go for the general zoom, it'll get your feet wet and give you an idea of which end you like (wide, mid, or tele).

I know I did and I still have my 24-105 years later as my primary.