DSLRUsers.com

Hi Everyone,

Have been saving for a while now (seems like forever) and am on the cusp of being able to upgrade my lower quality lenses to more long term 'L' series lenses from canon. As I may go in for a FF sensor in the distant future I dont want to be limited by my lens choice today.

Current gear - canon
350D - will keep for awhile more
50mm f1.8 - looking to keep
17-85 IS USM - looking to

1) keep for walkaround-allrounder and add 17-40 f4 L for landscape
2) change for the 17-40 f4 for landscape and 24 - 70 f2.8 walkaround-allrounder

90-300 USM looking to

1) upgrade to 70 - 200 f2.8 USM or
2) upgrade to 70 - 200 f2.8 IS USM

My interest lie in (1) Landscapes (2) Potraits. I am not looking at the 70 - 200 f4 lenses (IS and non-IS) as at a recent workshop I did find loads of photog were frustrated with this lens as we were shooting in shocking in-door conditions while we with the 50mm f1.8 didnt have too many dramas.

I am looking for advice on my choices above and your personal feedback on lens above. Also re the 70-200 f2.8 "IS or Not to IS" is the question. I have heard the IS version is not as sharp as the NON-IS, given my photography interests I am tending towards the NON-IS version as for landscape I will stop down the lens for a larger DOF and for Potrait I love the bokeh of the f2.8 and the IS does not help if the model moves. Additionally I have been helped a mate out with auskick footy pics (2 yrs running) using my 90-300 f4.5 - 5.6 USM, but am not really into sports photo (yet... too quick for me). My goal is to buy once and not keeping looking to upgrade.

Loads of question, but I have been procrastinating for far too long and given the movement of the AUD vs the greenback I want to have my choices locked down and then its just a matter of getting the right price.

Thank you for taking the time to read my "huge" question(s) and answering them

Cheers
Mak

The 70-200 IS lack of sharpness is pretty theoretical for most people. If you can tolerate the 17-85 I can't imagine you will even notice the softness from the 70-200/2.8 IS. If you're using a tripod and shooting landscapes to print really big you might be one of the lucky few who actually notices it. For the other 90% of your use the IS is a really useful thing, it makes shooting handheld quite practical almost any time. I have the IS version and am very happy with it.

The 24-70 is a great portrait lens as zooms go, but it's not really in the same category as even the 85/1.8 for portraits. I use it for studio work and wandering around, but for serious photography I often switch to the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8, and I have been looking at the 35/1.4 and 135/2 for those reasons, but I don't really shoot enough in that style to justify them.

What I might be tempted by is replacing the 17-40 with a pano stitching program. The software will be lighter and cheaper, even if you bulk it up with a pano head from RRS or someone. It also helps with pixel counts if you want to print big (I assume you do based on your concern about the 70-200IS). You'll get a much sharper print from stitching 4 or more shots from the 24-70 together than you will from a single shot out of the 17-40. Likewise, if you buy the softer long lens you will probably do better by zooming and stitching than trying to get it all in one shot. With landscape you can usually get away with stitching.

The 24-70 also does "macro" reasonably well, and I find I use it in the field when I'm doing landscape stuff for the tiny detail shots too. Add the 500D and you've got a great setup for this stuff, the 77mm version will fit both lenses and give you nice magnification.

If you are going into the full frame soon then the choice for landscape would be the 17-40 or the 16-35 mk II lens and for the walkaround lens the 24-70.

As for the 70-200 IS the lens is great. I use it for my portrait and wedding work 99.9% with the 5D and its a beaut lens. Don't know about the sharpness difference with the non IS, but personally the IS feature has helped me a lot. If you can afford it go for it cause sooner or later you'll want to upgrade to it.

Thanks Moz and Ron for your replies and feedback on the list of lenses. Could you point me to any sample pics that you have taken with these lenses.

If you wander round http://www.moz.net.nz a bit you'll find some. The portrait I posted here for critique a while ago was shot with the 85/1.8 after the 24-70 didn't do quite what I wanted.

Hey mate

you can go to:

http://ronaldcorral.smugmug.com/Portraits

About 95% of the portraits are shot with the 70-200 2.8 IS

Enjoy!

Hi Ron and Moz,

Been thinking all day and maybe its a good idea to stagger the purchases so that I can get used to the lens I purchase and then based on what I need (not want) I can phase the upgrade process.

I hope to get more insights from other members as well.

Thanks
Mak

My two bob's worth follows: I purchased 70-200 F2.8 IS last year and sold it six months later to buy the non IS version ($929 USD from Adorama). For me at least, the non IS version is significantly sharper, but each copy varies so I realize that is a subjective comment. It is a superb all round lens, and coupled with my 10-22mm lens, is all I have and need at present. One day I may add a 24-70mm lens to complete the focal length set, but I don't have the money at present.

Ozi.

(P.S. If anyone purchases a new Canon 200mm F2 and wants someone to test it, I'm available... )

I have a 70-200 2.8 IS and can't really say i've noticed any softness. images have been sharp as a tack.... can't complain!
I also turn off the IS if i don't need it...so you don't have to use it, but its there for when you may need it

For me at least, the non IS version is significantly sharper,

I used to shoot with my 70-200:2.8L IS on the 30d and it was a bit soft for my liking - Ive upgraded since to the 5D... and I almost shot a whole engagement shoot with it on sunday... it is soo damn sharp!!

jdear wrote:

For me at least, the non IS version is significantly sharper,

I used to shoot with my 70-200:2.8L IS on the 30d and it was a bit soft for my liking - Ive upgraded since to the 5D... and I almost shot a whole engagement shoot with it on sunday... it is soo damn sharp!!

Can I have permission to use this quote please? I need to show this to the finance minister (eg the missus) to explain my absolute need of a 5D!!

do it... speak to her... bribe her... whatever

I can't really bare to pick the 30d up now after being spoilt with the 5D...!

From what I know the 70-200 IS is sharper than the non-IS version, played around with it a little and I think the IS version is more desireable wide open, if that's the aperture you guys are testing for it's sharpness.

ok I finally received my lens yesterday and had a quick play with it, the poor models -> my dog and a lone canna flower... no post processing done on the images, just resized for the web. Both taken with ISO800 and f2.8. I could do a little PP and bring out more color but chose not to, just to highlight out of the camera look. Not my best photos, but I couldnt wait to have a play





I love the lens. It is a bit on the meatier side, and the weight seems to increase the longer you hold it but all in all I love it. It does chew through my battery though.