Still mulling over what lenses to get for my Canon SLR

Quote from jdramirez : I have no clue what you were trying to say there at the end. But you are probably right, presuming the judges were blind. Maybe just visually impaired.[/COLOR]

Let me clarify... I was just at a family/friends event for someone who passed away.... a celebration/dance. My wife and I took 370 photos. The event took place over 5 hours from daytime to nighttime outdoors in a large venue.

I threw out 5 photos for being too dark.... when I did fill light to see what was there no big loss. A couple because my wife didn't like the way the photo of her came out.

Posted a link to anyone who wanted.... Got rave reviews from many who were there. "Perfect", "Thank you sooooo much!" "Awesome" "Wow..great job you guys rocked the photos"

Why? Because we were able to capture the event on the fly as stuff occurred. If you are stuck at 18-50 or 70-200 you miss shots at a live event. A mega zoom allows you to capture life and the ultimate difference is in what the photographer captures at the time its happening at a focal length that works.

I had pictures posted in minutes to rave reviews... you would have had to go into software and crop and mess with each photo.... in the end who got a better result?

I did...

Less Time, Less money, Less hassle. More free time at the event. More immediate results.

AND the option to do photo processing if my heart desires in Photoshop... truthfully a waste of my time.
I've entered travel photo contests and placed with photos from a point and shoot! Its the photographer... not the camera.

More decent shots. Result everyone's happy the event was captured in FULL.

Now your comeback will be my shots are technically better.... they may be. Does that make any difference at all to the people who were there and want to see the photos?
Also... Well I would have got those five shots that were dark..... possibly if at that moment you had the right lens on!

My answer... you would have missed more than five that I got because I was using a lens that could get the correct focal length on the fly and keep my camera sans dust.

Are you calling my family several hundred people there visually impaired or blind?

This is slick deals and you are going to get comments from those who see value in things. You want to avoid hearing reason then go to a photography forum where there are many willing to overpay on lenses that "might" make a difference to a professional posting photos to a magazine or a wedding album.

You can ridicule me if you want... but my opinion is sound. Different from yours but sound.

The 18-200 is a solid lens. Probably the best to just leave on the camera... just in case a picture is there to take. No "planning".
If my pictures were "not acceptable" then you have a case.

Face it you are feeding a hobby... in the end you miss many shots you could have got and saved a boatload of $.

You asked what lens.... everything considered the 18-200 fits the bill. It captures life near or far....to rave reviews from the people there who experienced it firsthand. Doesn't get better than that.

Quote from boltman2007 : Let me clarify... I was just at a family/friends for someone who passed away.... a celebration/dance. My wife and I took 370 photos. The event took place over 5 hours from daytime to nighttime outdoors in a large venue. I threw out 5 photos for being too dark.... when I did fill light to see what was there no big loss. A couple because my wife didn't like the way the photo of her came out. Posted a link to anyone who wanted.... Got rave reviews from many who were there. "Perfect", "Thank you sooooo much!" "Awesome" "Wow..great job you guys rocked the photos" Why? Because we were able to capture the event on the fly as stuff occurred. If you are stuck at 18-50 or 70-200 you miss shots at a live event. A mega zoom allows you to capture life and the ultimate difference is in what the photographer captures at the time its happening at a focal length that works. I had pictures posted in minutes to rave reviews... you would have had to go into software and crop and mess with each photo.... in the end who got a better result? I did... Less Time, Less money, Less hassle. More free time at the event. More immediate results. More decent shots. Result everyone's happy the event was captured in FULL. Now your comeback will be my shots are technically better.... they may be. Does that make any difference at all to the people who were there and want to see the photos? Also... Well I would have got those five shots that were dark..... possibly if at that moment you had the right lens on! My answer... you would have missed more than five that I got because I was using a lens that could get the correct focal length on the fly and keep my camera sans dust. Are you calling my family several hundred people there visually impaired or blind? This is slick deals and you are going to get comments from those who see value in things. You want to avoid hearing reason then go to a photography forum where there are many willing to overpay on lenses. You can ridicule me if you want... but my opinion is sound. Different from yours but sound. The 18-200 is a solid lens. Probably the best to just leave on the camera... just in case a picture is there to take. No "planning". If my pictures were "not acceptable" then you have a case. Face it you are feeding a hobby... in the end you miss many shots you could have got and saved a boatload of $.

I'm glad you are happy with your lens. But I don't see why you feel it necessary to force your opinion on someone who has no interest in a EF-S lens that is not designed for low light? And if I may... there's probably not a ton of fast action going on at a FUNERAL!!!

While we are at it, why don't you replace your 18-200mm with the Sigma 18-250. You'll get even more range at the same cost effective price.

Obviously optics, coatings, CA, vignetting, aperture, bokeh, etc. matter to you.

Quote from jdramirez : I'm glad you are happy with your lens. But I don't see why you feel it necessary to force your opinion on someone who has no interest in a EF-S lens that is not designed for low light? And if I may... there's probably not a ton of fast action going on at a FUNERAL!!!

It wasn't a funeral... see how you are? Twice you mis-quoted me. Whatever you asked for opinions and I gave you one. See the beauty of posting here is MANY read the answers. If my opinion doesn't sway you then fine. I offered sound advice... and you choose to ignore it because of a pre-conceived idea you read somewhere. Others will see value in what I said and in my first-hand account in using a mega-zoom. Its a public forum.

Put low-light in the title if you want more specific advice.

Here's my problem with your suggestions. I'm asking whether there is sufficient reason to get a 70-200mm with image stabilization because of what I shoot.

And you say, Why don't you get this thing that you have no interest in what may be not as good, but most people won't notice and there are some advantages, but just none that you are looking for.

It would be like asking someone's opinion about a restaurant they should go for their anniversary... and you chime in to say that Arby's has good food. It will fill you up and it is much cheaper. I eat at Arby's all the time and all my friends like Arby's too.

Good for you... but that wasn't my question.

And I'd guess you would object to all prime lenses too within that focal range because while the image quality may be better (so people say), it is so vastly less practical to have to shoot at one focal length all the time.

Guys, calm down. The OP and Boltman disagree. That's fine.

It is the OP's money and he can spend it however he likes. Boltman has provided him with info, and now it is his decision on if he chooses to use it or not. Agree to disagree and move on!

Quote from jdramirez : Here's my problem with your suggestions. I'm asking whether there is sufficient reason to get a 70-200mm with image stabilization because of what I shoot. And you say, Why don't you get this thing that you have no interest in what may be not as good, but most people won't notice and there are some advantages, but just none that you are looking for. It would be like asking someone's opinion about a restaurant they should go for their anniversary... and you chime in to say that Arby's has good food. It will fill you up and it is much cheaper. I eat at Arby's all the time and all my friends like Arby's too. Good for you... but that wasn't my question. And I'd guess you would object to all prime lenses too within that focal range because while the image quality may be better (so people say), it is so vastly le ss practical to have to shoot at one focal length all the time.

One thing I will agree on is your use of analogy's could use some work. I'm not even going there on this one... Have fun choosing your lens . Good luck.

This again -->

What are you shooting again

But it's not that flexible without zoom. So for travel I also have a 15-85mm 3.5-5.6, but I find myself hating, hating, hating on the variable max aperture

I absolutely LOVE my Sigma 30mm f1.4 on the 60D. It is the best prime lens I've ever used (I've never used any prime L lenses though, but at $400 I couldn't pay for half of one anyway).

Quote from boltman2007 : Posted a link to anyone who wanted.... Got rave reviews from many who were there. "Perfect", "Thank you sooooo much!" "Awesome" "Wow..great job you guys rocked the photos"

With all due respect, I'd bet I could get people to ooh and ahh with pictures from a $400 point and shoot, which cost less than your lens alone. That doesn't mean that they know what they are even looking at, or that they wouldn't see the difference if they actually saw someone who was using a much better lens.

I'm not one to advocate using the best most expensive and amazing lens out there, but the 18-200 is a pisspoor decision. For one thing, the wide range but still versatile 18-135 is substantially better IMO. And for another, without any kind of prime lens in your bag, you're losing a HUGE chunk of your camera's potential. In all seriousness, if you're going to use an 18-200 full time, don't even bother with a dSLR. Spend that money on a really good point and shoot and have enough money for an ipad left over. If you don't have concerns because your audience can't see the difference, then why bother?

I have an 8 year old. I presently have a 50mm f/1.4 from Canon that I'm quite fond of and I use presently for most of my low light shooting. But at 50mm (plus 1.6 conversion factor) it is a bit limiting for photos of her on stage at a distance. Football games where she is a cheerleader isn't as big of a concern... until we get into high school and she it is dark to the camera, but not to my eyes. And she is getting into basketball, and it will be lit by florescent lights... which isn't all that bright as far as the camera is concerned.

80% of those will require a 2.8 aperture and unfortunately I will probably hand hold most of those because I am not all that fond of my monopod.

Quote from Parafly9 : This again --> What are you shooting again I have a new kid at home and have been using almost exclusively my Sigma 30mm 1.4 and my Canon 50mm 1.4. The big f-stop of the primes has been key for me to get many shots I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. But it's not that flexible without zoom. So for travel I also have a 15-85mm 3.5-5.6, but I find myself hating, hating, hating on the variable max aperture

I don't like the variable aperture either. I much prefer to control aperture so I know what I'm getting. Which is why I have narrowed it down to the constant aperture lenses...

Quote from shhaggy : I absolutely LOVE my Sigma 30mm f1.4 on the 60D. It is the best prime lens I've ever used (I've never used any prime L lenses though, but at $400 I couldn't pay for half of one anyway).

I started off with an XS, 18-55mm, a 50mm f/1.8, and a 75-300mm. So it wasn't exactly top of the line lenses.

I then upgraded the 75-300 to the 55-200... I upgraded the XS to a 60D, then the 50mm f/1.8 to a 50mm f/1.4, and then then 18-55 to a 24-105mm selling most of the other pieces along the way.

I haven't lost money on a lens or body yet.

It has been a simple progression for me... and now I'm upgrading my telephoto lens. It's not the end of my journey, but I get closer to the end.

Quote from jdramirez : I started off with an XS, 18-55mm, a 50mm f/1.8, and a 75-300mm. So it wasn't exactly top of the line lenses. I then upgraded the 75-300 to the 55-200... I upgraded the XS to a 60D, then the 50mm f/1.8 to a 50mm f/1.4, and then then 18-55 to a 24-105mm selling most of the other pieces along the way. I haven't lost money on a lens or body yet. It has been a simple progression for me... and now I'm upgrading my telephoto lens. It's not the end of my journey, but I get closer to the end.

I took a similar progression, starting with an XTi but moving through way more lenses than I care to mention here. Right now in my bag I have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (amazing lens), a Canon 18-135mm EF-S (the 60D kit lens), a Canon 17-40 f4L (biggest mistake of a purchase I ever made, but I got it cheap and it's worth more than I paid, just not built for a crop body), and the lens I've owned the longest is the 55-250 EF-S, which I'm also thinking of upgrading soon.

I've never lost a dime on any lens purchase, I typically get them used or refurb. I lost about $80 on the XTI, after over 3 years of use (paid $329, sold for 250, more like 100 with taxes I paid). That seems like a pretty darn low rental fee to me.

Quote from shhaggy : I took a similar progression, starting with an XTi but moving through way more lenses than I care to mention here. Right now in my bag I have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (amazing lens), a Canon 18-135mm EF-S (the 60D kit lens), a Canon 17-40 f4L (biggest mistake of a purchase I ever made, but I got it cheap and it's worth more than I paid, just not built for a crop body), and the lens I've owned the longest is the 55-250 EF-S, which I'm also thinking of upgrading soon. I've never lost a dime on any lens purchase, I typically get them used or refurb. I lost about $80 on the XTI, after over 3 years of use (paid $329, sold for 250, more like 100 with taxes I paid). That seems like a pretty darn low rental fee to me.

Ditto. When I sold my XS after 2 years and made 10 bucks, I was a happy camper. But I take really good care of my equipment, so it does look new when I finally get around to selling it.

I'm surprised to hear about the 17-40... I haven't heard any bad things about it. After this lens, I'm thinking about a fish eye... but I'm really on the fence about that one!