Upgrading my lenses

Well as you can see i have the cheapest and most generic beginner lenses one can have which means its time for a much needed upgrade.

Basically i want to upgrade the telephoto first, then the "all around" which my stock lens is pretty much doing, then probably just keep my nifty and get a 85 f/1.8 a little later.

Anyway, i work for my college's newspaper and shoot a lot of events, interviews, and sports(indoor and outdoor). Just mentioning if that helps at all.

I was thinking the 70-200 f/4 (will be a gift so i dont want to be obnoxious push for the 2.8). That will really serve as my sports lens and since i get press passes i can get close enough to the action that 200 should suffice. That will be used for baseball, softball, track, lacrosse, and indoor basketball. (i am allowed to use a flash indoors so it shouldnt be a problem)

What i really need is a suggestion(s) to replace the stock lens. I would prefer that it is an EF mount over an EF-S just because i'm planning on upgrading my body to a 1D series body, most likely a MarkII N once my 20d craps out on me. I am not opposed to non-Canon suggestions. And i know the choices will be limited in number because i would rather have EF so just throw out suggestions and never mind the price factor (although cheaper is better, quality is far more important)

Anyway, let the suggestions start rolling. Some photos taken with the lens would be great as well. thanks a lot guys

Btw, i know i could have used the search function but i think i am one of many that cant actually decide on a product based on forum comments without someone advising me personally hahaha

The problem in choosing an EF walkaround lens for a crop body is that you can't replace the equivalent focal length range of your current kit lens with one single alternative. AFAIK, the closest match to your 18-55 is something like a 17-40/4, which will shave 15mm off of your long end. But when you eventually migrate to a 1D series body, that lens will become less of a generic solution (unless you predominantly shoot wide).

Another option is the 24-105, which is quite a bit longer (especially on crop bodies), but not wide enough by most standards unless you go full frame.

You'll probably want with a combination of these two (or similar) options.

As for the 70-200/4 as a sports lens: make sure that it's fast enough to achieve the required shutter speeds in the venues you shoot in. An f/4 lens is not particularly fast, and you may end up in the high end of your camera's ISO range when light is less than optimal.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10117948
As for the 70-200/4 as a sports lens: make sure that it's fast enough to achieve the required shutter speeds in the venues you shoot in. An f/4 lens is not particularly fast, and you may end up in the high end of your camera's ISO range when light is less than optimal.

eh i think ill risk it with that because ive gotten a decent amount of nice basketball shots with around 1/200-1/250(cant remember the sync speed), f/4-f/5.6, and ISO 200-400 with a 580EXII slapped on top haha.

Anyway, as far as the other lens goes, what do 1d series users usually end up doing. Anyone should feel free to chime in

Maybe it would be worth spending more money on glass now and delay the 1 series upgrade as the glass will make more of a difference and should not need to be upgraded for a very long time indeed

Have you considered a used lens as there are some real bargains to be had

I'm not sure a really good "normal" lens (24-70 equiv) really exists for the 1.3x crop cameras as they're probably more likely to be used by sports photographers. 24mm isn't a bad length to start at though, that's equiv FoV to just over 30mm FF (or close to 20mm on your 20D), so maybe the 24-105/24-70 would still be quite good.

For the tele the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 is not hugely expensive and a whole stop faster than what you can afford in the Canon range.

@big_g - That's the plan which is why i am looking for lenses that would at least be compatible when i finally do upgrade the body And used lenses are certainly not out of the question

@phreeky - i have considered the Sigma alternative. Ive heard its just about as sharp as the canon f/4. I'm just worried i'll regret the purchase because of the lower build quality and slower focus(even though that's supposedly marginal)

It's easy enough to narrow down I think.
If you prefer wide, choose either the 16-35 or 17-40 depending on your budget.
If you prefer long, choose either the 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 depending on whether f/2.8 or IS will be of more use.

xarqi wrote in post #10118285
It's easy enough to narrow down I think.
If you prefer wide, choose either the 16-35 or 17-40 depending on your budget.
If you prefer long, choose either the 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 depending on whether f/2.8 or IS will be of more use.

wow short, sweet, and to the point. thanks a lot buddy

so ive been looking at the 17-40 L and reading a ton of online reviews and that is looking pretty appealing to me (price and optics )

It would still be a few months until id pick it up, unless i saw a great used deal for it, so i would still like all the advice i can get on it.

How do people like it with a 1.6 crop body? how do people like it with a 1d body? (for future referance)

For your standard lens, I'd get a design-for-digital lens and switch later. The 17-40 is not as good as any of the alternatives, optically speaking. Losses will be minimal if you buy used...and you'd lose money anyway if you don't like ultra-wides since you'd have to get rid of the 17-40.

The 70-200 will not be long enough for field sports. You want 400mm.

Does your school newspaper not have any of its own equipment?

toxic wrote in post #10124551
For your standard lens, I'd get a design-for-digital lens and switch later. The 17-40 is not as good as any of the alternatives, optically speaking. Losses will be minimal if you buy used...and you'd lose money anyway if you don't like ultra-wides since you'd have to get rid of the 17-40.

The 70-200 will not be long enough for field sports. You want 400mm.

Does your school newspaper not have any of its own equipment?

-Wait, why would i have to get rid of the 17-40?

-Really. I think that's debatable. I rarely find myself shooting over 200mm when doing lacrosse and baseball, with minimal cropping, since we have at least 2 people to a game(one on each side of the field and we stick to our side) and baseball we generally go for batter, pitcher, slides, and in-field shots

-Yea we have some equipment of our own, nothing extravagant. Plus i also shoot on my own time as well cant have it all work and no play (considering most sports work since i'm generally not a fan of anything but hockey haha)

jcarp618 wrote in post #10124602
-I rarely find myself shooting over 200mm

Keep in mind that 200 on a crop is really 320 on a FF. Personally I would buy the best glass I can afford and that I will use NOW. Used lenses will trade for little or no loss. Also, if you're going to continue to shoot sports, don't get rid of your 20d when you go FF. Keep your long lens on there and put a faster prime like the 85 or 100 on the FF.

Don't be afraid of the Sigma 70-200 2.8. Sigma makes great lenses. You can always turn it over later for the Canon version if you're not happy.

Also, I would analyze my pics to see what focal lengths I shoot at most and put my best lens in that range. I upgraded from the kit lens to the Tamron 28-75. The 17-50 didn't have enough reach for me and I have a Sigma 10-20 to cover the wide end. My favorite lens which is on my camera 90% of the time now is the Canon 100 Macro. I bought it to have some Macro capabilites but I use it to shoot everything now. Macro lenses don't usually focus fast enough for sports but I hear the L version does okay. It has 3 focus limiters.

jcarp618 wrote in post #10124602
-Wait, why would i have to get rid of the 17-40?

If you don't like or don't need an ultra-wide, you'll be getting rid of it anyway.

I guess if you're sticking to a smaller area, 200mm will do. I just know that outdoor sports shooters typically use a 400mm+ prime and a 70-200, and that the one time I tried shooting football with a 200mm, it was only useful for part of the red zone.

ofafeather wrote in post #10125257
Keep in mind that 200 on a crop is really 320 on a FF.

200mm is really 200mm. It has a field of view of a 320mm lens on 35mm, but no one's talking about equivalents. Sports shooters typically use 400mm or more (outdoors) regardless of the camera format.

jcarp618 wrote in post #10124602
-Wait, why would i have to get rid of the 17-40?

because you haven't expressed any interest in shooting Ultra wide...which is what the 17-40mm becomes when it's not mounted on a crop...

i still think...you're on a crop camera...you buy what works best for it...if you have to sell it...you sell it down the road

DreDaze wrote in post #10127486
i still think...you're on a crop camera...you buy what works best for it...if you have to sell it...you sell it down the road

I agree if you pick up a used 17-55 you should have no problem selling it for what you paid and you would have the best option right now. For tele I like the simga 70-200 hsm as well...