Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 20, 2009, 10:17 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

I shoot sports for a local weekly newspaper, high school and youth league sporting events as well as non-action sporting events such as banquets, college signings, posed team/individual pictures.

My equipment includes a Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) which I use to shoot most of the fast action sports events (as well as a 1.4 converter for day time zoom extension). I also have a Canon 85mm f1.8 and Canon 50mm f1.8 that are used on occasion--some basketball, some weightlifting. I have both the canon 20D and a 40D bodies, a Canon Speedlite 550EX and a Manfrotto mono pod.

My kit lens (a basic EF-s 18-55mm 3.5-5.6) was damaged when I dropped it at a swim meet. Its auto focus function seems to have been affected.

In my last post concerning fast lenses for close under the basket shots, I pretty much agreed with JohnG's opinion that the number of usable shots of that type did not justify the cost of the 24-70 f2.8 and therefore I've been using my 70-200 f2.8 almost exclusively for basketball.

In thinking about a general, walk around type standard zoom lens, which I don't have since the demise of the 18-55 kit lens, I'm trying to decide on whether I should get a used fast lens like the Canon 24-70 f2.8 or perhaps its predecessor 28-70 f2.8 which could also be used for some indoor sports or instead, the slower Canon 24-105mm L f4 IS but with image stabilization.

The 24-105 f4 isn't really fast enough for indoor sports but it certainly seems to be a good choice for other type of stuff I shoot for the paper--indoor sports banquets, signings, posed team/individual/group shots where fast moving subjects are not an issue and the IS can off set the loss in aperture from f2.8 to f4. Either of the f2.8 lenses would also seem to be good choices for that especially inside in poorly lighted banquet rooms, gyms/auditoriums. Of course they don't have quite the reach--if that were to be an issue.

Which brings me to my dilemma--overall which do you think I would I get the most use of, the faster but shorter lens without IS or the slower but longer lens with IS?

I'd love to have both but at the moment I can only afford one--I have about $850 cash to spend which might get me a used version of either.. assuming of course I could even find a good copy.

Maybe it would be better to get another 18-55 kit lens and pocket the
$$ difference or use some of it for a second flash like the 430EX

Thanks for your inputs.
Jerry
coachjerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 20, 2009, 2:14 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

What's wrong with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or many of the 3rd party 16-50 f/2.8...
-> IMO a 24mm is not wide enough and too tight on a cropped camera - Theses lenses are not L, but due to their 'digital only' design they exceed the L in IQ on theses type of dSLRs

The newer 24-105 f/4L is a bit sharper than the older 24-70 2.8L but it does overlap quite a lot with the 70-200 f/2.8 which you already have
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2009, 2:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

Thanks NHL
Actually I had thought about the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM but since I seldom need a wide angle capability it has taken a back seat for the moment even though it would have an application for some of the large team photos I take. Which 3rd party lens do you recommend ?

Jerry
coachjerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2009, 7:50 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Most 3rd party f/2.8 lens in this zoom range are pretty good...Theses lensesareusually designed to be astep up from thekit lens, and also because of their 'digital only' concept,they tend to produce higher contrast (hence MTF) byconcentrating the light path perpendicular to the sensor instead of sideways unlike a full-frame. The Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 is a standout in this group as it's the newest member and it is constructed of all metal (a rare treat theses days). Photozone didn't test this lens on a Canon body so I'll link you to the NIkon's 17-55 f/2.8 counterpart instead as the MTF's numbers are not comparable accross different systems but are validdata within the same mount:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...report?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...review?start=1

-> As you can tell its sharpness equal or exceed the higher cost lens, and it even vignettes less thanthe OEMat all focal lenght as well. It's CA is slighly worst but this can be remedied in photoshop when needed. I also prefer the 16-50 becausethe lens iswider than most (i.e. it captures more of a scene and not less as you can always walk up, but not step back in a tight spot)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2009, 12:43 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

Thanks NHL
the tokina 16-50 may be the winner. Your advice is appreciated as always

Jerry
coachjerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2009, 12:50 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

NHL
I believe you are a fan of the Sigma 500 DG Super speedlite. I have the canon 550 EX but need a second flash for my other camera body (Both the 20D and the 40D built-in flashes do not pop up anymore) I thought I would be better off getting a second external flash rather than going through the exercise to send both cameras back for repair. So the choice is the Sigma 500 or 530 DG Super or the Canon 430EX --any thoughts on that?

Jerry
coachjerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2009, 11:38 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The 530DG Super is an upgraded version of the 500 with slighly more power - Again you're getting more for your $ in the 530 than the 430EX:
1. The 530 is more powerful (@ GN53 vs GN43 for the 430EX)
2. The 530 is both Master and Slave (the 430EX is slave only)
-> Although you have a 550EX already so a 2nd Master wouldn't help you that much, I just prefer not to pay more for less.

A Canon brand does inspire more confidence so it should cost more - Pretty much sums it up here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=595473
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2009, 5:07 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 127
Default

Thanks NHL
coachjerry is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:59 AM.