Thinking out loud ...

[ChrisBrightwell]

Feel free to join in.

As some of you may know, I bought a Digital Rebel XT (EOS 350D) in January and have been learning to use its kit lens and the highly-acclaimed EF 50mm f/1.8 II. I feel that I've outgrown the kit lens, so I've been thinking on a short-term (2 yr?) upgrade path for long-term lenses.

I'm looking at a three-lens solution:
- Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

I may also add a macro lens:
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I know that I could save some money if I step the 24-70 and 70-200 down to these:
- Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

That said, I feel that, if I'm gonna spend the money, I may as well do it right. Perhaps I'm expecting too much from the extra 1.2 stops in the f/2.8L? Would the IS on the 24-105 make up for the loss of light?

The 10-22mm lens would probably be paired fairly quickly with a 360Precision head (or something similar).

I guess the real question here is this -- Would you swap the f/2.8L lenses for the f/4L IS lenses? Why or why not?

 

[ziwi]

If you ae thinking long term then think about the future camera you may own - if the EF-S is what you buy now in the future depending on what replacement camera you get it may not be usable.

As far as if these lenses go, it would be useful to know what type of photography you plan on doing. You can get away with F4 and a less expensive solution set if you are outdoors or have decent ligting solution indoors - but once again based upon what you shoot should help with your choices.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

If you ae thinking long term then think about the future camera you may own - if the EF-S is what you buy now in the future depending on what replacement camera you get it may not be usable.

My next body will probably be a 30D or a 400D, but it'll be quite a while before that happens. The EF-S on the 10-22 is a concern, but there's not much of anything that's that wide out there.

Any suggestions for an EF mount?

As far as if these lenses go, it would be useful to know what type of photography you plan on doing.

Most of what I do is "documentary"-style photography, capturing people or events as they happen.

Part of that infers that I use the flash as little as possible, which would lead me toward the f/2.8. I've read a few reviews, however, that the f/4L IS is comparable to the f/2.8 w/out IS in low-light situations. That's part of why I'm stuck on the 2.8 or the 4.

You can get away with F4 and a less expensive solution set if you are outdoors or have decent ligting solution indoors - but once again based upon what you shoot should help with your choices.

Well a lot of my photography, at this point, is of a variety of subjects in a variety of lighting conditions. Again -- That's why I tend to lean toward the 2.8s, but the 4s might work just as well.

I took some shots the other day of a rock concert w/ decent lighting and will be in the woods this weekend with some Boy Scouts around campfire-lit ceremonies. I spend a lot of time near the shorter end of the 18-55mm lens, but I hit the long end of it enough to know that 55mm isn't long enough for my general-purpose lens.

I'm planning to borrow/rent each of these before I drop $1000+ on any one of them, but I'm just looking for some insight or experience from the more-experienced shutterbugs around here.

Thanks.

 

[Mike Teezie]

Chris, if your next body is going to be a 1.6 body, I would seriously, seriously look at the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Most everyone is saying this lens is scary sharp, has great focal lengths for a 1.6 body, and that it should have gotten the "L" designation.

Here's my favorite Canon site, and the link to areview of the lens.

I'm thinking this lens would be perfect for you.

 

[beavo451]

Part of that infers that I use the flash as little as possible, which would lead me toward the f/2.8. I've read a few reviews, however, that the f/4L IS is comparable to the f/2.8 w/out IS in low-light situations. That's part of why I'm stuck on the 2.8 or the 4.

IS allows you to shoot with slower shutter speeds. Slower shutter speeds will introduce more subject movement. Subject motion blur can be interesting at times, but most of the time, you will want to stop action and the 2.8 will let you do that.

 

[ChrisA]

I guess the real question here is this -- Would you swap the f/2.8L lenses for the f/4L IS lenses? Why or why not?

IS can reduce blur due to camera shake but not blur due to subject motion. Also if you like the shalow DOF of f/2.8 then an f/4 IS lens can't do that. So f/4 IS is not the same as f/2.8

Also if you use a tripod IS is of no use at all. A landscape of studio photographer would not need IS as all of that kind of work is on a tripod or camera stand and then the in the studio you'd have lights too.

On the other hand a 70-200 f/2.8 lens is huge maybe you want a physicaly smaller lens and you can live with the f/4 DOF and some subject motion blur

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

On the other hand a 70-200 f/2.8 lens is huge maybe you want a physicaly smaller lens and you can live with the f/4 DOF and some subject motion blur

Oh, I didn't think about that.

Bulk may be a deal-breaker. I need to be able to free-hand these lenses decently.

 

[sjl]

Oh, I didn't think about that.

Bulk may be a deal-breaker. I need to be able to free-hand these lenses decently.

I've taken quite a few handheld shots with my 100-400mm. It's slightly lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS; I don't see any issues with handholding the latter.

Important thing to remember: IS compensates for camera shake. It lets you handhold the body and lens for a slower shutter speed than would otherwise be possible. It is not a substitute for a fast lens if the subject is moving quickly relative to the amount of light in the area.

The only issue I see with your proposed lineup is that 24mm may not be wide enough at times on a 1.6 crop body. You could find yourself doing a lot of lens swaps to be able to get the shots you need, depending on the circumstances. They're all good lenses, it's just that they might not work as well as you hope (unless you're prepared to fork out the money for a second body so you can have two lenses ready to go at any given moment.)

 

[roadapple]

I think IS is best used to compensate for slow shutter speeds when hand holding long lenses, not so much as a make up for slower lenses.

I would save for the faster lenses, you know you want them.

Perhaps I'm expecting too much from the extra 1.2 stops in the f/2.8L?

1.2? You may want to pick a photo book too

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

1.2? You may want to pick a photo book too

Yikes. I showed my inner n00b.

I knew that would happen. Damnit.