View Single Post
      07-30-2009, 07:52 PM   #23
UdubBadger
Banned
No_Country
631
Rep
24,685
Posts

 
Drives: '04 330i ZHP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago Burbs

iTrader: (22)

Garage List
2004 BMW 330i ZHP  [9.50]
2011 135i  [7.46]
2008 328xi  [8.76]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMW E90 View Post
I went through the exact same thing. I ended up with the 70-200 2.8 IS for two reasons: aperture/faster and IS because it's a heavy ass lens (seriously after holding it the 24-70mm doesn't seem so bad). To best honest I got that lens because I was hoping to get into wedding photography (just for fun of course) and it seems like it would be a good combo along with the 24-70mm.

For concerts, if you can get close to the stage I would go with a prime (50mm or 85mm). Obviously you won't have the zoom ability but the speed is more important for those events. Of course if your camera has good performance at high ISO then 2.8 lenses will do just fine. I shot a few concerts before and 2.8 at 1600 was adequate for me with decent lighting. However, I sometimes wished I had a faster lens (or high ISO cus my last camera only went up to 1600-XSi).
yeah its a tough choice. I don't want the IS version but I'd probably like the 2.8 if I go for the 70-200. If the f4 is good enough and I don't consider getting that lens for indoor use, I'd probably try for the f4 plus the 50mm 1.2L. I've used my 50mm 1.8 at shows and the fast speed is great, I'd love to upgrade to an even faster one but yes, the non zoom factor hurts when everything is spur of the moment shots that I might be TOO close to capture (like the drummer starts going nuts or the bassist comes over to jam with the lead guitarist in a solo. I just need a bit of flexibility in that aspect which is why I got the 16-35mm 2.8L instead of the 24-70mm 2.8L for a walk around lens (wish there was like a 35-70mm 1.8 or something like that). I don't get to zoom in as much but I also never get stuck too close to capture something happening either, you can always crop right?

I mean if I go for the 70-200 2.8 then I could always just upgrade my 50mm to the 1.4 but like everyone says its not that big of an upgrade.

So what does everyone think?

70-200mm 2.8 L (non IS) and the 50mm 1.4 = about $1600 total (leaves me $400 for a new bag and nice tripod.
or
70-200mm f4 L (non IS) and 50mm 1.2L = about $2000 total unless I can find some good lightly used deals