Which lens?

[khiggins]

I am torn between 2 lens. Canon 135mm L and Canon 70-200mm F2.8L. I have a Canon 85mm 1.8 which is great for potraits. I want to be able to shoot fast moving pictures. I have a 11 month old boy and he's up and about constantly. I know both lens will do a good job on him. I am looking to go into photography full time but am not confident enough yet.

As for wide angle lens...I have been told Sigma has the one of the best wide angle lens
But I would like to opt for a Canon lens if possible. And also which Canon wide angle lens is worth to have in my bag.


I would greatly appreciate all the comments and advice that I get. Please kindly help.
Thank you in advance and Have a Merry Christmas!!!

[OsmosisStudios]

Which Canon body do you have? That will likely decide what wide angle you get.

As for your long lenses... Inkista will likely chime in about the 135L (she LOVES hers) but the 70-200L is nice as well. I'd go for the zoom just because of the versatility. Would you be looking at the IS or non-IS version?

[castman]

I would go with the zoom than the fixed lens. It gives you room to play. And when your gets moving. fixed lens can be hard with kds that move fast.

[sk66]

No real help on the wide angle, but I can tell you that I am looking to buy the Sigma 12-24 for my D3, and I loved my sigma 10-20 on my D300.

As for the other, I'd recommend the 70-200 f/2.8. That lens is an essential in most pro's bags.
(2 of my most important/ most used lenses are my 28-80 and 80-200 f2.8's.)

[WWP]

A 70-200 is the most useful lens I own. I don't shoot Canon, but my best ultra wide ever is a Tokina 11-16. I use a 24-70 quite often, and I like my 50mm, but again, the 70-200 is the one I use most often.

Originally Posted by sk66

No real help on the wide angle, but I can tell you that I am looking to buy the Sigma 12-24 for my D3, and I loved my sigma 10-20 on my D300.

As for the other, I'd recommend the 70-200 f/2.8. That lens is an essential in most pro's bags.
(2 of my most important/ most used lenses are my 28-80 and 80-200 f2.8's.)

I've tried both Sigma's and even though it's not as wide, the 14-24 2.8 Nikon just BLOWS those two away.

It's ridiculous at how amazing that lens is. It's tack sharp all the way to the edges, even wide open.

~Eric

[RexK_Cozumel]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

I've tried both Sigma's and even though it's not as wide, the 14-24 2.8 Nikon just BLOWS those two away.

It's ridiculous at how amazing that lens is. It's tack sharp all the way to the edges, even wide open.

~Eric

Seconded. The 14-24 is amazing. The 70-200 is the way I would go. I think it will be better when you need to shoot kids running around. The 135 is a nice lens as well though, maybe for when your kid gets a little older and learns to sit still for pictures. The 24-70 f2.8 is also a great lens. I can't wait to get mine back from NPS. Never again will I let some one borrow a lens.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

I've tried both Sigma's and even though it's not as wide, the 14-24 2.8 Nikon just BLOWS those two away.

It's ridiculous at how amazing that lens is. It's tack sharp all the way to the edges, even wide open.

~Eric

Thanks. I knew I was compromising. But for what little use an ultrawide gets in my bag, and the cost difference, I'm ok with it. Besides, ultrawide is something of an odd image anyways, a little softness in the corners/edges won't make much difference IMO.
But, if I find a steal on a 14-24 I'll go that way instead.

[RichardTaylor]

I own the 135 F2 L and it is a great lens.
The 70-200 F2.8 L is a very versatile lens However it is pretty big & heavy, I have used one but don't own it (I own the 70-200 F4 L)
Why not rent both lenses & see which one you like best.
.

[inkista]

Back to the OP's question, probably EF-S 10-22 if you're on a crop, or the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II if you're on a full-frame.

I'm with everybody else--the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM is probably the most versatile long lens Canon has. If you want an all-rounder that may be the one to get.

But, as Os said, I love my 135L. I use it when I shouldn't. It's become my most-used lens at the zoo and for event shooting at Comic-Con, and while it may not seem like you're giving up much between f/2 and f/2.8, especially at telephoto lengths, when it comes to available light at those lengths and handholding, it can mean the edge between getting the shot or not getting it. It laughs in the face of low-light conditions that other long lenses struggle with. It is the stage-shooting lens. Very much more of a spe******t tool.

For me, the focal length, creamy bokeh, low-light capability, and extremely fast autofocus are why I love it. I used it with the cruddy seven-point AF system of the XT. And I got these:






(indoor stadium at night)

If you need a high enough shutter speed to freeze the action that you'll also eliminate camera shake, then IS becomes moot. If you're shooting still subject matter, then IS becomes more critical.

Since I got my 135L, my 85/1.8 has become very lonely and a little dusty.