Which lens next?

[whodaphuck]

I'm a new DSLR owner and am bitten by the upgrade bug. I have a 28-70 2.8 that I got with the body (Canon D400). I want to get a new lens and REALLY want the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS lens, but should I go for a wide zoom first? On a cost basis, the shorter lens is less than half the price, but what I want to know is what you think I'd use more. I know it depends on what I'm shooting, but being new I'm shooting everything. Based on what you use most, should I ignore my lust for the blingy glass and go for the wide over the tele?

And...is IS necessary in a wide lens? Seems like it wouldn't be needed as much as in a tele.

[poker]

Get the Canon 17-40 f/4. The focal length works well with a camera having a 1.6 crop.

I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 in which I have a love (the focal length and f2.8) hate (barrel distortion) relationship with. It's always on my camera.

The 70-200 f/2.8 has only been on my camera for sports, wildlife, and portraits on tripod. It has specific uses.

Yes, IS makes more of a difference in zoom than in wide.

IMO

[whodaphuck]

Get the Canon 17-40 f/4. The focal length works well with a camera having a 1.6 crop.

I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 in which I have a love (the focal length and f2.8) hate (barrel distortion) relationship with. It's always on my camera.

The 70-200 f/2.8 has only been on my camera for sports, wildlife, and portraits on tripod. It has specific uses.

Yes, IS makes more of a difference in zoom than in wide.

IMO

Will f4 be fast enough for shooting in low light? I'll be shooting a lot in shade/shadows.

[poker]

Will f4 be fast enough for shooting in low light? I'll be shooting a lot in shade/shadows.

Outdoor shade/shadows using 400ISO @ f/4 probably be fine.

Indoor shadows using 800ISO @ f/4 is hanging by a thread....< 1/60 shutter for sure.

It all depends.

If you have the money you can get Canon f/2.8 lenses as much as you want or you can save lots of money by carefully researching/buying f/2.8 lenses from Sigma or Tamron.

[whodaphuck]

Outdoor shade/shadows using 400ISO @ f/4 probably be fine.

Indoor shadows using 800ISO @ f/4 is hanging by a thread....< 1/60 shutter for sure.

It all depends.

If you have the money you can get Canon f/2.8 lenses as much as you want or you can save lots of money by carefully researching/buying f/2.8 lenses from Sigma or Tamron.

Yes, the lens I have is a Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG and I'm quite happy with it. I feel that with a fast wide angle lens that I could do without the IS. When I go for the telephoto zoom otoh, I'll probably spring the extra $ to go the Canon L/IS route.

Mahalo nui loa for the responses

[Lionheart]

Really all depends why you want a 70-200 f2.8L IS. If its to fulfill your bling wish, then get the 70-200 f2.8L IS because I guarantee you will not sleep well until you do. If you plan on getting a lens for reasons more functional than cosmetic, then you need to ask yourself which subjects you shoot more, or which subjects you want to shoot but don't have the equipment for. I have both lenses, and my 28-70 rarely leaves my camera bag. In fact the last time it left my camera bag, it stayed out-on a shelf collecting dust. My lens for over 70% of my shots in the last 7 years has been the 70-200 f2.8L, in both IS and non IS flavors. Lately though, my go to lens has been the 24-105 f4L IS and oddly enough, my 50mm f1.4 (something so romantically retro about shooting with a standard lens-must be slipping into my dotage as I enter the twilight years of my life :-)). My 70-200 now only accounts for maybe 20-25% of my shots. But that's just me. Most of my shots are nature photos and my favorite subjects-my children, at least lately. I may find myself doing something different and favoring a different lens again in a few years. You too will find yourself doing the same thing as you find your way among your subjects and as you develop your creative vision, which will shape how you will often use your lenses to create that vision throught the viewfinder.
just my two copper coins, take with a grain of salt.
Leon

[zedman280]

There really is nothing as personal as choosing a new lens! However as you say you are new to DSLR I would suggest the 70-200 f2.8 this effectively gives you a range of 28-200 at at f2.8 with your exsisting lens. This is certainly a great starting point, and enough to allow some experimentaion until you decide what you like to photograph ( If like me that may take a while!!!!!!).

[rovowen]

Being new, I won't add a lot to what everyone has said. But if you are ever thinking of shooting indoor high school sports. You will need a lens with f/2.8.
If you are allowed to get close enough, your Canon 28-70 f/2.8 will work great. I have seen the Canon 70-200 IS being used by a fellow Canon shooter. I use a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. I hate to say it. The Canon IS is so much better. But I paid $600 new for my lens and he bought used and the Canon 70-200 IS was over twice what I paid for mine.
Hope this helps some in your choices.

Newbie here
rovowen

[gryphonslair99]

I am going to suggest a different path here. You say you are new to DSLR owner. I would suggest that you not buy anything at this point. The 28-70 is a good starting lens. Go out and shoot the heck out of the lens and camera. Learn what it does well and where it is lacking. As you are doing this you will also start to develop you photography style and preferences. Do you want to do portraits, macro, sports, landscapes etc? Different lenses for different purposes. This will do two thing for you.

1. You will learn the equipment you have. You will also learn more about SLR lenses in general, Apeture, DOF etc. This in turn will help you to decide what lenses you want, and in what order of importance.

2. It wil give you time to save money and purchase the best you can afford in what ever lenses you choose. You have not bought a camera, you have bought into a system. If you spend your money wisely, then you will not be replacing cheap lenses with better lenses with really good lenses. Good glass, taken care of will last a lifetime. Bodies will be replace.

One thing I would caution you on is IS lenses. I have found that IS has become a crutch for far to many photographers since their issue. If you are shooting the right glass for the proper function, and have good Photographic technique then IS has little purpose. IS allows one to push a camera and lens past it's noromal use. Look at purchasing IS lenses when there is a true need of them, not to replace good technique.

[Lionheart]

That's very good advice from gryphonslair99. I shot for a LONG time with just my 50mm f1.8 before picking up a 28-70 f3.5-4.5 consumer lens, which I shot the heck out of before adding a 70-210 f4, which I didn't use nearly as much as my 28-70, which was better suited for my shooting needs at the time (landscapes, abstracts, general tourist snaps). I didn't splurge on the 70-200 f2.8 until I decided I had outgrown my EOS 10s and A2 bodies and upgraded to an EOS 1V-HS, and then only because I felt stupid putting consumer lenses on a high end pro body. But once I did, there was no going back, and I found that longer glass in fast pro versions suited my shooting style and needs better than a wider angle pro zoom (added the 28-70 f2.8L shortly after the 70-200 to start rounding out the collection).
I learned most of my photography and developed my style on the short zoom and standard 50 before evolving into the longer glass. Limiting your lens selection will force you to think about your composition more and make you a better photographer in the long run.
About IS-I don't use it much, and I still automatically from training use all the skills I learned about having a steady hand, bracing yourself, etc. Just like shooting a gun, actually, very similar when steadying your aim. IS is great when you really need it, but there is no substitute for good technique and a tripod, or at least a monopod.

[whodaphuck]

Thanks for all the advice everyone, I ended up feeding my upgradeitis, but tempered it with the help of some great advice by you all. I ended up getting the Canon 10-22.