want you thoughts. Part of my decision is alreasdy made and here is the background:
1) Would love to purchase the 70-200 II. However, don't have the $2,500 budget
2) I have rented 70-200 I and 135MM f2/l. I find the IQ of the 135MM noticebably better
3) I've decided on primes 1) my kids sports will end soon and I will be left with better lenses for other purposes and 2) I prefer the IQ of the primes to the 70-200 I.
I am considering 3 lenses but will only buy 2. I need to keep total spend between $1,200 and $1,800. So here is the decision to be made:
1) Buy 135MM f2/l, and 200 f2.8/l and use my existing nifty fifty for wider angle needs
2) Buy 135MM f2/l and 85MM f.1.8 (use in place of the nifty fifty)
Primary purpose is shooting volleyball. In my experience, you only need 3 focal lengths for volley ball....somewhere between 50-85, 135, and 200). The majority of the time the 50-85 and 135 will be enough. So, I am hinging my decision on the difference in IQ between the 50MM f1.8 and the 85MM f1.8. Thoughts?
FYI, all three are in the shopping cart. I just need to decide and submit
Ed: Thanks for the input. That seems like a fair option. I believe the Sigma costs about $1,300. This is about the same cost as the 135MM and 85MM. I do not know much about the Sigma. How does IQ and AF compare the to Canon 70-200 MK1 and II? If it is comparable to the 70-200 MK1, I would stick with my original plan. If it is better, then I would consider the Sigma.
Bill,
i have owned both the canon and sigma and currently shoot w/ the sigma. for the price, the sigma wins.
the canon is an L, but i also own several lens in the difference. just my two cents.
B
Between the 50 1.8 and the 85 1.8? Or do you mean the 50 1.4? 50 1.8 is way to slow focusing for VBall.
If you are on a crop body, I would consider the 50 1.4 depending on how close they let you get to the court. I have used the 85 for VBall with a crop sensor, and it can have too much reach for close action. But I get court side access too. The 70-200 is my go-to for VBall, but you say that is not in your cards.
I agree that if you have court side access, the 135 and one of the other shorter lenses will do nicely. The problem with VBall is you will always have the wrong lens on, or if 2 bodies then the wrong body in your hands for that one great play... Murphy at work for us.
In my experience with VB you need/want from 15-400mm. With the lenses you list the 50 and 85 are to slow AF wise imo for VB and the 135 is a better lens than those 2, but your limited to 135mm. With your statement In my experience, you only need 3 focal lengths for volley ball....somewhere between 50-85, 135, and 200). then you you have your answer you need 50-200mm range, so the best bet in this option is the 70-200 2.8. You will be giving up some on the short end but not much. Also if you are in gyms like most people shoot in, 2.8 will be slow,so your body will have to be able to capture quality high iso exposures.
OK, so I am a bit schitzophrenic on this issue. I have the opportutnity to pick up a lightly used 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK1 for somewhere between $1,200-$1,400. Single owner is a friend who bought it new 2-3 years ago. This seems like a fair price.
I don't really need IS for current shooting but it could be handy at some point. I could get a brand new 70-200 w/o IS for $1340. So, do you take the used IS model of the new non-IS when they are the same price?
I have the non-IS and love it. IS isn't used for sports and when I shoot portraits, I don't miss it. I'm not shooting weddings where it might be helpful.
Regarding the other choices, I have the 85 1.8 and thinks it's great for gym sports, especially basketball. I tried my daughter's 50 1.8 and felt it was too slow. I also use my 70-200 inside.
I picked up a used 300 4.0 IS and love it for my outdoor sports. I've never turned on the IS. I don't get the bokeh of a 2.8 but it's also a ton cheaper and lighter. Although, I'll admit that the 300 2.8 is next up on my wish list.
BillM_ wrote:
OK, so I am a bit schitzophrenic on this issue. I have the opportutnity to pick up a lightly used 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK1 for somewhere between $1,200-$1,400. Single owner is a friend who bought it new 2-3 years ago. This seems like a fair price.
I don't really need IS for current shooting but it could be handy at some point. I could get a brand new 70-200 w/o IS for $1340. So, do you take the used IS model of the new non-IS when they are the same price?
The non-IS get less purple fringing at f/2.8.
But as you say for non-sports (and occasionally sports stuff) the IS can be nice.
If you do not have a body that has microfocus adjustment then I would keep in mind that you might have to pay to get the used IS calibrated and factor that into the price.
