Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 26 Apr 2010 (Monday) 21:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Need help between two set of lens :(

 
Rivest
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,678 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Canada.
     
Apr 26, 2010 21:34 |  #1

Hi everyone. I need a little help on deciding what lens shoud I go with. I shoot a little of everything but I do more sports and portraits. I'm no pro but love shooting. I'm also on a really thight budget.

Right now, I have : 18-55mm IS | 55-250mm*| 50mm F1.4

I use the 55-250 for sports but it's too slow at 5.6. I want to buy hte 70-200 F4 but I just can't add it, I'm short on money. Here's my idea.

Sell the 55-250mm, sell the 50mm F1.4 (which I love starting at F2.0), get the 70-200 with that money and the 50mm F1.8 (hate downgrading...). I will keep the kit lens for wide shots.

Should I do that?

What would YOU pick?

A: 18-55mm | 55-250mm | 50mm F1.4 = +/- 650$
B: 18-55mm | 70-200mm F4 | 50mm F1.8 +/- 800$
EDIT:
C: 18-55mm | 70-200mm F4 = 700$

Any tips/help is greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading and replying :)


Hi, I'm David.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Apr 26, 2010 21:40 |  #2

Try B minus the cheapie 50. Later on, if you really find a need for a fast lens shorter than 70mm you can work that one out. The 18-55 would be plenty for most portrait and snapshot work.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rivest
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,678 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Canada.
     
Apr 26, 2010 21:48 |  #3

SkipD wrote in post #10071774 (external link)
Try B minus the cheapie 50. Later on, if you really find a need for a fast lens shorter than 70mm you can work that one out. The 18-55 would be plenty for most portrait and snapshot work.

But at 50mm, F5.6 would be too slow for me. I don't have a flash and hate using the internal one. I don't want to shoot indoor at 1600 iso. I'm really confused on what to do.

Is the jump from 5.6 to 4.0 really signifiant?


Hi, I'm David.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HeaTransfer
Senior Member
554 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Apr 26, 2010 21:58 |  #4

70mm might be usable for portraits, depending on distance from subject.

As for losing the stop of light... what sorts of settings do you find yourself shooting at, at present (iso/shutter speed/aperture)? Assuming you're shooting wide open, going from 5.6 to 4.0 is a full stop... so you'll be able to halve your shutter speed.

What kind of sports are you shooting? Indoors? Outdoors? f/4 indoors will approach hopeless unless you're talking a brightly lit professional arena, in which case you might have a chance. For reference, I was at a NHL hockey game and had enough light to shoot at 2.8, ISO 1000 achieving shutter speeds of about 1/500 or slightly better on a Canon 40d.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rivest
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,678 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Canada.
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:06 |  #5

I'm back from a shoot in a school's gym. Most of the shots where at ISO 1600 or 3200, you know how there seems to be plenty of light but it's not. I hate going at 3200, too noisy for my taste. I had an hard time doing action shots, F5.6 was too slow even at 3200. Gymnastic is wicked fast :P I need at least 1/200. Aperture, the wider the better, need to blur the background. Does that help make my choice?


Hi, I'm David.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pennington
Senior Member
Avatar
280 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Northeastern PA
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:10 |  #6

For the sports shots, I don't think you'll find the difference between f/5.6 and f/4 to be that great. You can simulate it by kicking the ISO up a full stop - test it out to see if it would be enough difference.

Have you looked at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8? I think it's still in the $800 range and you'd get two full stops faster.

I definitely wouldn't sacrifice the 50mm - if you want to shoot portraits, you'll want to keep a lens with shallow DOF. Even if you have to switch to the f/1.8 version, it's still a great little lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
firedogg
Member
54 posts
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Eatonville, Washington
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:11 |  #7

Forget the f4 lens and save up for a 2.8 version. If you get the f4 you will still be short on light for sports and still wish for the open aperture for portraits.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:14 |  #8

Could you make a 100mm lens work? It's only half as long as the 200mm, but it is 4x as fast. That would be an even trade pretty much for the 50mm f1.4 and you could still use it for shallow DOF portraits with some room. If you are getting 1/200 at ISO 3200 f5.6, then the light really sucks. You really want 1/400+ for sports. F4 is going to get you barely there, but still at ISO 3200. F2.8 gets you 1/400 at ISO 1600. f2 gets you 1/800 at ISO 1600 or 1/400 at ISO 800 - which is really going to be a ton better.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HeaTransfer
Senior Member
554 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:15 |  #9

Can you get reasonably close to the action?

Try using the 50mm for indoor sports and crop. The T2i has a very dense sensor so you might be able to crop and retain good IQ as long as you're not super far.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
peterbj7
Goldmember
3,123 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: A Caribbean island in Belize and occasionally UK
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:16 |  #10

What's wrong with using ISO1600? Your camera should handle that with ease.


5D & 7D (both gripped), 24-105L, 100-400L, 15-85, 50 f1.8, Tamron 28-75, Sigma 12-24, G10, EX-Z55 & U/W housing, A1+10 lenses, tripods, lighting gear, etc. etc.
"I prefer radio to television. The pictures are better"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:17 |  #11

I think you'll find that f/4 isn't enough for indoor sports. On the other hand, for outdoor sports the 70-200 focuses really quickly, much faster than the 55-250, and you'll see a big difference there. It's also a terrific portrait lens (as is the 55-250).

If it's an indoor sports lens you're wanting, I don't think you'd gain much with either of your scenarios.


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rivest
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,678 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Canada.
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:18 |  #12

tkbslc wrote in post #10072070 (external link)
Could you make a 100mm lens work? It's only half as long as the 200mm, but it is twice as fast. That would be an even trade pretty much for the 50mm f1.4 and you could still use it for shallow DOF portraits with some room.

Are you talking about that 100mm F2.8 macro? I thought about it but for football (soccer) it might be too short. I like having long range but is it worth sacrifying speed?


Hi, I'm David.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:18 |  #13

peterbj7 wrote in post #10072081 (external link)
What's wrong with using ISO1600? Your camera should handle that with ease.

He said he had a hard time getting 1/200 at ISO 3200. That's not cutting it. I guess he could try 6400, but that is not awesome even on a t2i.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rivest
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,678 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Canada.
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:22 |  #14

HeaTransfer wrote in post #10072076 (external link)
Can you get reasonably close to the action?

I can get close to the field, but if the action is on the other end, that makes it far.

peterbj7 wrote in post #10072081 (external link)
What's wrong with using ISO1600? Your camera should handle that with ease.

Too slow when inside. I also like a lot more using 800 than 1600. I find IQ realyl better in the first.

ceegee wrote in post #10072094 (external link)
I think you'll find that f/4 isn't enough for indoor sports. On the other hand, for outdoor sports the 70-200 focuses really quickly, much faster than the 55-250, and you'll see a big difference there. It's also a terrific portrait lens (as is the 55-250).

If it's an indoor sports lens you're wanting, I don't think you'd gain much with either of your scenarios.

I'd say 20% indoor, 80% outdoor.


Hi, I'm David.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Apr 26, 2010 22:24 |  #15

Rivest wrote in post #10072101 (external link)
Are you talking about that 100mm F2.8 macro? I thought about it but for football (soccer) it might be too short. I like having long range but is it worth sacrifying speed?

He may have meant the 100/2. How big are you printing? Cropping may be a viable option.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,479 views & 0 likes for this thread
Need help between two set of lens :(
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is chuckm
919 guests, 311 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.