Does this sound like a good "line-up"?

I'm switching back to Canon for their greater variety of lenses. I plan to get the 24-70L 2.8 and the 70-200L 2.8 Non-IS. I'll be mostly taking pictures of my kids - some indoors playing soccer, and some outdoor soccer, sledding, etc. Does this sound like the best way to go? I've had the 70-200/4 IS, but think I'll need something faster for indoor sports. Can't afford (or carry!) the IS version of the 2.8, but don't think I need it. As for the 24-70L, I think it's an awesome versatile lens for every day. I've tried soccer pictures with primes, but always get too frustrated that I'm moving around the field and missing shots, or composing them wrong. I'd love some feedback and am super excited to get back to shooting! No idea what kind of body to get, but that will come later. I want the lenses first. I'll likely get a used body a bit later when I can afford it and, hopefully, the supposed newer bodies scheduled to be released will drop the prices down a bit. Sound like I'm on the right track here? Thanks guys.

Oh - and can I shoot RAW when shooting sports? Does it tend to slow down the works a bit? I know I need a lot of memory... I'll have to see what to use for PP - do you all like DPP? Ok, done now, lol.

Thanks.

You've obviously done this before! Most posts on this form by folks in the market for gear are all about the bodies, with glass as an afterthought. Lenses first is the way to go.

I don't think you'll be disappointed with those two, although the 24-70 is rather soft wide open. It depends on how much you care about sharpness at f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is not weather sealed, so if you're doing a lot of shooting in the snow, that could be a concern. As long as you have considered these issues and are ok with them, I'd say you're very much on-track.

Welcome back to Canon!

Thank you! Yes, I have read that the 70-200L 2.8 is not weather-sealed. A bit of a downer, but I'll take that over the extra $500. Are the lens "coats" made for the purposes of protecting the lens in those situations? Forgive me, I'm a little naive about those things. I've never used one, nor felt the need to. I'm pretty sure I won't be doing much shooting in the rain and if it's snowing, I'll likely not be doing anything hard-core. Thanks again.

I should also mention that I had Nikon's D300s, which is a beauty of a camera, but soon realized that I missed the lenses more.

Guess this would be the lens coat: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …SBK_Canon_Lens_​Cover.html

You are buying my two favorites! I have an aquatech cover that is very well made and works 100% except that it is difficult to manipulate the zoom and focus rings on the 70-200 and far too bulky for the shorter 24-70. I much prefer the way it works with my 100-400, the push pull being easier to use when the lens is covered. The IS and the extra length might be worth the extra bucks for outdoor shooting, but the 70-200 is still my favorite for indoor low light, I also have the non IS f2.8 version and it is spectacular.
I agree, the glass is where its at, and primes may be better but zooms do it for me just fine.

Great, thanks. And I won't be shooting full frame, so I'll have more reach obviously. Just wish I was a little bit richer. ;o)

KarinMichelle wrote in post #9634141
Oh - and can I shoot RAW when shooting sports? Does it tend to slow down the works a bit? I know I need a lot of memory... I'll have to see what to use for PP - do you all like DPP? Ok, done now, lol.

Thanks.

Shouldn't be an issue with xxD bodies or higher, which you would probably want anyways for the better AF abilities.

dmp-potn wrote in post #9634194
I don't think you'll be disappointed with those two, although the 24-70 is rather soft wide open. It depends on how much you care about sharpness at f/2.8.

Welcome back to Canon!

Don't provide unverified speculation as factual data. My 24-70 is super sharp wide open and im very happy with its performance. If yours is not i suggest you send it back.

In relation to the OP those lenses will be perfect

Karin--welcome to the neighborhood.

It is likely you will need something faster indoors--2.8 is marginal in most of the indoor soccer venues--but YMMV.

For both basketball and soccer the 85 f1.8 is my most used lens if I need to shoot available light.

If you are the "shoot tight" type the 40D would be a great choice--if you need more of a crop option the 50D may be better.

RAW is a great option unless you shoot mass volumes of images--you have more options and storage is dirt cheap.

Best of luck with your decision.

Thanks Dave. ;o)

Hello,

tohara wrote in post #9636391
Don't provide unverified speculation as factual data. My 24-70 is super sharp wide open and im very happy with its performance. If yours is not i suggest you send it back.

In relation to the OP those lenses will be perfect

I did send mine back. Two copies, in fact. I've shot with a friend's 24-70, and found it also to be soft at f/2.8. Bryan's ISO 12233 charts suggest the same thing with the center of the lens at least (corner sharpness is less of a concern for 1.6x body shooters):

http://the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=0&API=0

I've never seen a copy of the 24-70 that I would consider super sharp wide open, so perhaps everyone has their own definitions for "super sharp" and "soft". Cheers.

The 17-55 2.8 IS is too short for me and too cheaply made, but KILLER sharp. Also has flare. Annoying. Wish the 24-70L was sharper at 2.8, but that's life. Bokeh's good.

KarinMichelle wrote in post #9639848
The 17-55 2.8 IS is too short for me and too cheaply made, but KILLER sharp. Also has flare. Annoying. Wish the 24-70L was sharper at 2.8, but that's life. Bokeh's good.

Wow. First complaint that I've seen about build quality of the 17-55. I don't own that lens (does not fit my bodies) but know about a half dozen folks who do and love 'em. Any 17-55 owners care to comment?

It just isn't built like an L because, well, it isn't one.

Ya might want to wait on that 70-200 f/2.8 as canon is fixing to introduce a newer version sometime this year.

Thanks Chauncey. Sometimes I feel like I have to wait forever! Digital photography can be so damn frustrating!!!