my strategy for next lens purchase(s)

well, the rebates are nearly upon us. i've got my hard-earned coin saved up and my amazon gift certificates in hand ($225 worth ). now i've gotta finalize my "next lens" strategy.

what i currently own:
18-55mm IS
70-300mm IS
50mm 1.8
430EX II

what i've been eyeing up, somewhat prioritized (not planning on buying all of these lenses "right now", or even over the next year, maybe over the course of the next 5 years, lol...... and i'm not looking to buy them ALL, just one lens from each of the 5 groups, which are separated by the dashed lines):

canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, $1670 ($200 rebate)
canon 100mm f/2, $410
canon 85mm f/1.8, $420
*will likely sell my barely used 70-300mm IS after I purchase this lens
---------------
tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, $420
tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, $380
canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II, $1550 ($100 rebate)
canon 17-40mm f/4, $760 ($50 rebate)
canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, $1025 ($75 rebate)
*looking for a good replacement for my 18-55mm kit lens
---------------
100mm f/2.8, $600 ($35 rebate)
---------------
canon 10-22mm, $700 ($50 rebate)
sigma 10-20mm, $450
tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, $720
---------------
canon 100-400mm IS, $1450 ($100 rebate)
sigma 150-500mm IS, $900


now, as for what i like to photograph:
- my kids (indoors)
- my kids playing sports (basketball indoors, softball outdoors)
- wildlife (birds, squirrels, ducks, deer)
- friend/family gatherings, indoors and out

i also have a small bit of concern regarding getting lenses that won't work well with full sensors, should i ever decide to go full tilt with a 5D or something.

soooooo..... thoughts?

i'm pretty much sold on the 70-200mm 2.8 IS.... i've been drooling over that lens for a good long while now. not looking forward to the weight (in comparison to my 70-300mm), but i'll want the fast shutter for shooting indoor basketball in "less than ideal" lighting conditions, maybe some "dusk" softball games.

i really like the 100mm macro lens also, but it seems more of a niche type lens that i should hold off on for a bit..... not sure. it's kind of between the 100mm and a replacement lens for my 18-55mm kit lens for "next up" after the 70-200mm. one logical path says that i already have the 18-55mm, so i should get the macro to delve into something new (i'm always amazed by some of the insect and close-up images i see in the 100mm photo thread), but then i read about how the tamron and the 17-40mm/16-35mm are such better lenses (sharper, more colorful, faster, etc) and i start thinking i'm better off getting a replacement for my 18-55mm kit lens. the 16-35mm is pretty much of a pipe dream for me at this point (can't spend that kind of coin after the 70-200mm 2.8 IS) but the 17-40mm and the tamron's are somewhat within range somewhere in the not too distant future.

the wide angle's and the "super zoom's" are at the bottom of my priority list. maybe it's due to my newbiehood or lack of experience with a real wide angle lense, but the macro lens appeals to me more for some reason. if i'm "wrong" for feeling this way, please let me know why. i'm sure the super zoom would come in handy for wildlife photography (deer, turkey, ducks, etc), but i'll have to make due with the 70-200mm for a while, as the wildlife photography that i do where such a lens is necessary makes up maybe 20% of my total photog outings.

as you can see, i've been studying up here, and have put quite a bit of thought into this (and continue to do so), but curious to see what others have to say..... curious if maybe i'm missing some angle, or if some "experienced photog logic" is lacking with regards to my current line of thinking.

based on what you want to photograph, I'd buy the 70-200 first. Then I'd upgrade the kit lens to the Tamron 17-50 (the Canons are great, but you don't really need either of those until you have a full frame camera). You might also want to look into the 85 1.8 or the 100 f2 if you do indeed need fast shutter speeds for indoor sports.

If you barely use the 70-300, what makes you think you'll use a 70-200 any more often? Is the 18-55 holding you back at all? How often do you shoot wildlife?

f/2.8 will be too slow for indoor basketball.

Wow, that's quite a plan indeed!

As far as "kids indoors" are concerned, you'll want wide aperture lenses. I find primes more suited for child portraits (posed, candid etc) because babies and young children usually have good skin-- show it off with sharp primes! How do you like your 50 1.8? For zooms, the 70-200 2.8IS is very good, but far too tight for indoor use unless you live in a mansion.

For kids playing sports, outdoors using 200mm on a crop at f/2.8s is alright. However, unless you shoot in very good artificial light indoors and bump your ISO up, f/2.8 is sometimes not enough to freeze action.

Wildlife is a difficult one. Unless you're shooting in the zoo, 200mm even on a crop is most of the time not enough. The lens for this is the 100-400L, not the 70-200. You could try the 70-200 + 1.4x Teleconverter, though.

Friends / Family gatherings.. you'll want a good walkaround range zoom lens. For a crop, that'll be the efs 17-55 IS- nothing compares to it. If you're on a fullframe, the 24-70 f/2.8L (although heavy) is the one.

What I suggest is you prioritise what genres you would like to shoot most and find the most joy (assuming it's a hobby).

70-200 2.8IS is a definite yes for quality, but if you say you don't use your 70-300 often, will you use the 70-200 2.8IS? For ultra wides, I suggest the 11-16mm f/2.8 from tokina (1.6 crop only). For a normal walkaround lens, the EFS 17-55 f/2.8IS can't be beaten.

11-16 + 17-55 + 70-200 + flash is an awesome combo.

first off, thanks for the additional tips, and i've updated my first post to include some of the mentioned lenses that i had forgotten.

ok, one thought i forgot to mention last night before i signed off and went to bed..... i struggle a bit with the decision between a 10-22/28-75 combo versus a 17-50 (or 17-55) single lens setup..... obviously the tamron 17-50 would be the cheaper option, but the 17-55 canon would be the same price as buying the canon 10-22 paired with the tamron 28-75..... but, again, not familiar with ultra wide angle photography (my experience is basically enjoying the work of others shown here in some of the wide angle lens threads ), and i lean more towards a single lens (17-50/55 range) due to liking the "jack of all trades" concept, and not having to switch lenses out as often.

as for my 70-300mm, i just got it a few months back, and didn't venture out much during the wisconsin winter months, so it basically saw use shooting pics of squirrels and cardinals thru the kitchen window ( ), or during basketball games and practices for my 9yo daughter. i did take it out for the easter egg hunt this spring, and got some great pics with it, but most of the time i'm operating under 250mm (as 300mm the IQ starts to fade a bit on this lens), so i guess i'm willing to sacrifice the 50mm worth of zoom to get a faster, higher quality zoom lens..... and i've seen LOTS of output from this lens over the past few months, and have kind of had my eyes set on it for a while. wish i would have bought it instead of my 70-300mm at the time, but there was a considerable cost differential ( ) and being new to the hobby, wasn't really interested in spending 70-200mm 2.8L type of coin. again, my kids are going to be playing softball this summer, and my 9yo will likely be playing basketball again next year, and while the gym lighting isn't perfect, it was good enough for my 70-300mm to get some decent "stop" pics (with it's variable aperture), so i'm pretty sure the constant f/2.8 will be plenty for the lighting that is available. BUT, i will consider the recommendations on the 85 and 100mm for faster aps.

as mentioned, wildlife photography makes up maybe 20% of my current photog activities. will pick up a bit this summer, but i understand that 200mm isn't really enough to do it well..... unless i'm willing to pretend i'm turkey hunting, and lay in ambush for my "game" (which i've been considering doing for ducks lately, as even my 300mm isn't enough to reach them very well).

so that leaves family/friends/gatheri​ngs..... which makes up the majority of my activities. i love my 50mm 1.8 (except for when it comes to using the flash.... doesn't seem to work well with my flash, at least not in the past so i had always switched over to my kit lens when i needed to start using the flash, but pretty sure it's something i'm doing wrong that i need to figure out), but when your at family gatherings where your wife has 4 siblings, each with 2 or 3 kids a piece, you don't always have the opportunity to "move" to accomodate the fixed 50mm, hence the reason i started thinking about upgraded my kit lens to something similar but faster, with better IQ/color, preferably 2.8 throughout the zoom, and somewhat hoping for IS. i had nearly pulled the trigger once or twice on the tamron 17-50mm 2.8, but the lack of IS held me in check. i personally don't think IS is totally necessary on such a small zoom, but my overly analytical nature (engineer) took some of the comments regarding better sharpness (even at 55mm) with an IS lens to heart, so i put the card back in my wallet for a bit. at the same time, i'm a bit of a canon purist (haven't gone outside the canon realm for any gear as of yet), so there's that aspect. i prefer to do things right the first time (though i failed that when i bought my 70-300mm obviously ), so i keep debating upgrading my kit lens now to something i can afford (the tamron) or holding out for a bit longer, making do with my kit, and saving up for the canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS.

as i've spent enough time typing up this post, i'm not even going to go into the "macro" thing right now. lol

so that's where i'm at. thanks again for your time.

one other thing..... i had read about the 24-70mm yesterday, and someone had mentioned it was somewhat notorious for having "variable quality copies".

???

sounds like it's luck of the draw regarding whether or not you are going to get a good copy of this lens, is that correct?

if so, are there other lenses out there that are like this?

toxic wrote in post #7829241
If you barely use the 70-300, what makes you think you'll use a 70-200 any more often? Is the 18-55 holding you back at all? How often do you shoot wildlife?

f/2.8 will be too slow for indoor basketball.

+1 here

To OP, most people, again "most", under utilize their telephoto lens. You youself said it too. My suggestion is to spend most of your money on thing/lens that you will use the most often, and dont spend money on things that you rarely use.

My suggestion is to upgrade your kit lens first because it is your most used lens. Get something like 17-55IS for Tamron 17-50

I was like you before, longing for those white 70-200 because all the wave about them. True they are phenominal lens for what they are. But after having one, I can tell you that 1)200 is not where near long enough for wildlife, bird. 2)f2.8 is not fast enough for indoor backetball. 3)it is too big and heavy for traveling and friends gathering. So conisder your usesage again before putting this lens on top of your shopping list.

dipps wrote in post #7831560
one other thing..... i had read about the 24-70mm yesterday, and someone had mentioned it was somewhat notorious for having "variable quality copies".

Notorious might not be the right word. I doubt if even Canon knows the percent of 24-70's having been returned. 24-70's have been known to have quality issues so its good to be aware of it.

dangit. you logical experienced people with your "sense making". lol

argh. i've been jonesin' for that 70-200mm 2.8L IS for so long...... but i can see your point. for the price of the that one $1700 lens, i could get the 17-55mm 2.8 along with the 100mm macro, and hold onto my 70-300mm for now, or sell it when i get the opportunity and bank the money away towards the 70-200mm L some day.

and the 100mm f/2.... not familiar with that lens. this it?
http://www.amazon.com …ics&qid=1241118​164&sr=8-2

not terribly expensive, but is it a good lens? only 10 ratings on amazon, so not real popular, but good average rating.

dipps wrote in post #7833048
dangit. you logical experienced people with your "sense making". lol

argh. i've been jonesin' for that 70-200mm 2.8L IS for so long...... but i can see your point. for the price of the that one $1700 lens, i could get the 17-55mm 2.8 along with the 100mm macro, and hold onto my 70-300mm for now, or sell it when i get the opportunity and bank the money away towards the 70-200mm L some day.

and the 100mm f/2.... not familiar with that lens. this it?
http://www.amazon.com …ics&qid=1241118​164&sr=8-2

not terribly expensive, but is it a good lens? only 10 ratings on amazon, so not real popular, but good average rating.

It's considered the better bigger brother of the 85 1.8. I was about to get this before I decided on the 50mm

reading my own post.... how much sense does it make to get a 100mm 2.8 macro lens alongside of a 100mm f/2 lens (for indoor sports)?

see, i've got the 50mm 1.8, but doesn't really get me close enough for bball games indoors (yes, i know you can move around, "get closer", but my pref would be to be able to shoot from the stands, and not disturb the kids or coach while going about what they need to do.... i prefer "unobtrusive" ).

My strategy...

My strategy for any of my lens collections over the 50 years or so I have been into photography is to START WITH THE BEST NORMAL LENS AVAILABLE WHICH I CAN AFFORD. THAT WAY, I GET THE BEST QUALITY IMAGERY FROM THE LENS THAT I USE MOST OFTEN. Then add a lens or two on either side of that focal length as needed.

Originally, my "normal" lenses were primes, usually in the area of 50mm (for full frame film cameras) and usually with a maximum f/stop of around f/1.4.

When I entered digital photography with a 10D 1.6x camera, my first go-to lens was the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS but, although I still have and "sort of" like this lens, I replaced it as my go-to, mid-range, zoom with the 24-70mm f/2.8L which is a superb lens.

I will continue to select zooms as my go-to lenses since the quality of the later zooms such as the 24-70L and the 17-55 IS are excellent.

The only problems with the "brick" was its heavy weight and the fact that I needed a wider angle lens to supplement the 24mm wide side. My THREE LENS setup became: 12-24mm f/4 Tokina, 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) lenses on three bodies (10D, 350D and 30D). This was an excellent setup but rather heavy and cumbersome. I was also lacking in the low light area.

My present standard setup is two cameras (30D and 40D) with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. This is the nicest and most versatile two lens/camera setup I have ever used. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens cannot be matched on a 1.6x camera (although the Tamron 17-50mm comes pretty close at a fraction of the cost).

The 17-55mm gives me a wide enough side so that I normally don't need to bring a wider lens for normal shooting. I will bring the 12-24mm when I know that I will shoot in tight areas such as the medieval towns of Europe. The 17-55mm by virtue of its constant f/2.8 aperture, its great IQ wide open, and its super IS capability is a very viable low light glass. The 70-200mm f/4L IS gives me the capability to hand hold in relatively low light conditions and to isolate specific areas of my image. It can also work quite well with the 1.4x TC giving me a reach out to 280mm with an f/5.6 aperture. I don't really miss the 55mm to 70mm gap at all.

The 17-55mm IS plus 70-200mm f/4L IS (especially on two bodies) is a super combination for all-around and travel photography. The only drawback is that this combination is pretty darned expensive. However, if you can afford it; it is well worth the high cost.

RP, thanks for the insight as to how you went about things.

i'm curious why you chose the f/4 over the f/2.8 though (regarding the 70-200mm)? i understand there's a weight/size difference, but my thinking has been that, if i'm gonna spend that much, might as well get the faster lens right off the bat so i don't wind up regretting not doing some some time down the road..... right wrong or indifferent, that's just been my line of thinking.

toxic wrote in post #7829241
f/2.8 will be too slow for indoor basketball.

not true... it depends on the lighting and where he is at.. 2.8 can be enough..