Bought my first DSLR, a Canon 60D with an 85mm f/1.8 prime to shoot my granddaughters gymnastics. I now know I need a telephoto or zoom lens and from what I have read on this site, the 200mm should get the job done. The price on the 200mm f/2.8 USM II prime is about half that of the 70-200mm f/2.8 USM (non IS) zoom. Will I regret getting the 200mm f/2.8 USM prime now, as opposed to the 70-200mm f/2.8 USM (non IS) zoom later? Most (90%) of my shots are from the bleachers and I have plenty of time to change lenses should I need my 85mm. From the bleachers the longest shot would be about 100 feet and the closest 30 feet. Is the zoom really worth the extra money?
Comments
I was about to reply when I saw your latest post. I was going to advise against the 70-200mm zoom simply because it lacks IS. Your prime 200mm will indeed give sharper shots and because it is lighter and a fixed length, controlling handshake will be easier. The 28mm is ideal for sweeping landscapes and interiors in low light. Considering the kind of photography you are going to do, I think you have made some sound choices.
You may want to consider in the future a general purpose zoom lens for holidays etc. For this I would mention the Tamron 18-270mm pzd.
Good luck with your photography and have fun with your new kit.
PBked
Thanks for the reply and confirmation. I went ahead and bought a monopod to steady the hand shakes (old age is such fun). I've had the 200mm lens for several days now and I'm having a blast with it. With the two selectable focus ranges it focuses just as fast as the 85mm and the range is perfect for my needs. I'm really having fun with this camera; I should have done this long ago.