Help me spend some money.....

[Alaskan Kilted Guy]

First of all, thank you in advance for your advice and opinions, I can definitely use them.

My situation is this. I've been putting away money here and there for a while in order to be able to upgrade my photography kit. I have about 1000 USD to spend, and my head is spinning on how to spend it.

I currently have:

Canon XTI
18-55 Kit lens
70-300 4-5.6 Canon lens
50mm 1.8 Canon lens
Vivitar DF400MZ-C Flash (Pretty beat up)
Tamrac Backpack
Manfrotto Tripod

I shoot lots of my kids hockey games, portraits, landscapes, and occasional events.


I have considered the following:

Buy a new Canon 50d

or

Canon 55-250 4-5.6 IS and a 430EXII flash and a remote shutter release

or

continue saving for a Canon 7d

or

continue saving for a fast telephoto lens



It feels like the money is burning a hole in my pocket, but I want to spend wisely.


Again... any advice, suggestions, or opinions are welcome.

[mattdm]

If I had a Canon camera and shot pictures of kids' hockey, I think I'd save my pennies for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. A friend of mine has it, and it's a gorgeous lens that you won't regret splurging on.

[karen_s]

Originally Posted by mattdm

If I had a Canon camera and shot pictures of kids' hockey, I think I'd save my pennies for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. A friend of mine has it, and it's a gorgeous lens that you won't regret splurging on.

+1 The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is a fantastic and versatile lens. I believe there is a new version coming out soon (it may already be out, not sure) which may result in a few more becoming available in the used market if you are looking to save a few $'s.

The Canon 85mm 1.8 is also a very nice lens for indoor sports (I've never shot hockey so don't know if it's quite long enough) It's one of the best buys out there for under $400. A friend has one and I have borrowed it often to shoot basketball.

[OsmosisStudios]

Based on the list you've got posted, better glass is the only possible recommendation. a 70-200 f/2.8 lens and something for the wider end, too.

[Alaskan Kilted Guy]

I like the idea of continuing to save for that 2.8 70-200 lens. Seems like I could use it for quite a bit, not just hockey.

[inkista]

Why do you want the 50D/7D? If you've got a lot of good specific reasons to upgrade the body, then go for it. But camera bodies are kind of a churn'n'burn proposition: new ones come out every 6 months, the new product life cycle is about 18 months (and the 50D's already over that 18 months), and they depreciate from the second you open the box. I tend to do the upgrade o' death: i.e., wait until a camera dies before going for a new one. Because waiting longer tends to get you more feautures for less money. It's let getting a computer or an iPod. Feature chasing can drive you nuts and waste a lot of money.

A lens, otoh, tends to hold value, and may get you more of what you want. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM (Mk I and Mk II) are a great all-purpose kinda lens that a lot of people love and rely on, so I don't think you'll go wrong, there.

I don't know that moving from the 75-300 III to a 55-250 IS is going to net you much beyond IS. Upgrading to a 70-300 IS USM or a 70-200 f/4L USM is going to be lower cost than a 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM, but both those lenses will still be too slow for available light work.

The EF 85/1.8 or EF 100/2 are two other possibilities to consider if you want a fast lower-cost lens. They may not have the reach you want to shoot from the bleachers, and of course they don't zoom, but if you can get closer to the edge of the rink, may do well for you.