lens suggestions for 30D? should i replace 17-85mm?

[drew_viii]

hi, just bought a canon 30D with 17-85mm IS USM, i know, lots of people would recommend me not to get the 17-85mm, but there is something wrong with me, i really have to try it before i regret it haha... anyways....

i would like some suggestions for a replacement for 17-85mm IS USM, i heard there is big distortion at wide angles... which is not good for me... i generally like to take lots of shots, landscape or objects or portraits... nightshots as well... i will definitely buy the 50mm 1.8 prime lens, but i need certain lens... i dont really mind if its canon brand or not, sigma and tamron is ok...

price? i would say i will resell my 17-85... so thats roughly 350 pounds... make it 600USD? im not sure... it would be perfect if someone could recommend me with two lens for this price range... i dont really need the IS, but hey, if there is an IS, it would be better right?

what i really matter is the quality itself and the picture quality as well... i really like my picture to amaze me with a "WOW" effect! not like 17-85 which gives me a "thats a nice picture..." effect... guess you know what i mean...

built? it doesnt really matter, as long as its not heavy as a rock... hehe by the way, maybe a canon lens would be nice cuz ive got a cashback voucher when i bought this camera, so it might be a good use for me. but like what ive said a while ago, sigma and tamron lens are ok too :D so well... guess thats it... in advance, i woud like to say thank you to those who give me suggestions ! thanks :D

[coldrain]

Well... most zooms that end at 18mm have quite some distortion, this in not just a "feature" of the 17-85 IS USM. Nikon's 18-70, 18-200, the 18-55 kit lenses, the 18-125 and 18-200 from Sigma, it's just the nature of the inexpensive beasts to have barrel distortion at the wide end.

The only way to not have a lot of barrel distortion at around 18mm is to buy a wide angle zoom like the Canon 10-22 USM or Tokina 12-24 f4. The Tokina is cheapest of the two, and has the best sharpness, vignetting and distortion at around 18mm. But at 12mm it does have some barrel distortion. Above that it gets quite distortion free. I just bought this lens, and the weather is not playing nice so I have not tested it well yet. I did notice chromatic aberations at 12mm, but no purple fringing. It has great colour and contrast... like a mini-L.

Of course you could consider an EF 17-40 f4 L, but it is limitted in the wide end, more expensive, and will have less performance at 17mm than the above mentioned lenses.

So, if you can resell your lens, I would go for a Tokina 12-24 (for landcsapes) and a 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 USM II for the "portrait" range.

[DonSchap]

Picture this...

11289

Covering the 24-70mm range &

11290

covering the 70-200mm range.

It's as clear as BLACK & WHITE.

Now, where were we? Oh yeah, what to do with the nasty 17-85mm you got in the kit...

[coldrain]

Picture this...


Covering the 24-70mm range &

covering the 70-200mm range.

It's as clear as BLACK & WHITE.

Now, where were we? Oh yeah, what to do with the nasty 17-85mm you got in the kit...
Those will be a bit expensive, over stated budget... and 24mm, that is not really wide. So the original poster still will need something wider... even more expensive.

[drew_viii]

thanks for the advices... :)

well the black and white seems nice, but yeah, bit expensive, or i can say its expensive for me for the mean time, couldnt spend more cuz just bought a new 30D hehe, anyways...

i like your suggestion coldrain... it seems nice idea to have a wide angle lens, but one thing im curious is, are those 2 lens you suggested have better sharpness, color or generally the picture quality than 17-85mm? im also considering the 17-40mm, but, would sacrifice at the end... which i have to spend more money for it to cover the long range... and it might be out of the budget then....

ive realized that if i want nice pictures taken from my 17-85mm, i have to do some processing in order to make it nice.. photoshop things... which i really dont want to keep on doing everyday.... so are those 2 lens good for non processing pictures? tnx :D

[coldrain]

I think it is safe to say that both will preform a bit better than the 17-85, both in colour and in sharpness. You will of course lose the IS (but gain in aperture with that 50mm anyway).

[drew_viii]

oky :) i got it... ei coldrain, can you post here some of your shots you took using your tokina lens? i want to see some sample pictures :) im thinking to look for a second hand lens tomorrow while im looking for my tripod :D manfrotto sounds nice... but pricey :( hopefully i could get all the lens i need tomorrow :)

more suggestions plz guys :) tnx :)

[coldrain]

I had the EOS 350D in its standard setting here (parameter settings 1) which is not the most neutral... but anyway. Without polarizer, mind you.
All 3 from the Tokina 12-24mmf4 at 12mm, just to play with the lens. You can see how contrasty and clear this lens is. What amazed me is the dark sky, i know it was very clear that day, but this is like the lens is self polarizing! (which is impossible). All totally unprocessed, except scaling down and jpeg compression from saving.

[coldrain]

Sample 2... same.
Nothing special, there has only been one sunny day or so since I have this lens.

[coldrain]

And a 3rd one. The converging lines are not a product of barrel distortion, but a normal occurence because the camera was pointing slightly upwards. If you want to avoid these lines converging you need to keep the camera totally level with wide angle lenses.
Again, not processed.

[coldrain]

Hard to judge sharpness in these photos, but here is a 100% crop anyway.

[coldrain]

Hmmm, I didn't open them with use of the colour profile in the image from the camera. When I do that the colours are more brilliant (dark).

I guess that is more fair, this is how the camera meant it to be with the parameter 1 settings.

[DonSchap]

I didn't get the impression W I D E was an issue, but I totally agree that the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX would do nicely, as the bottom lens for my other two suggestions. Money should never be a consideration when you are claiming artistry as a motivation. (Yeah, right, Don!:rolleyes: What Third-world country are you from?)

Just for grins, let me run the numbers on the Canons... plus this Tokina... for a total bag price.

Going to B&H...

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX - $500.00
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - $1400.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM - $600.00
Canon EF 1.4x Tele-converter - $350.00 (This was "thrown in" to appease the 300mm crowd.. you know who you are! ;) )

Total... ding ding ding... $2850.00 (Cheap at half the price!)

You're right, this is some serious glass for a serious investment... and better off on a EOS 5D... not a 30D.

BTW: Good luck in your future choices, whatever they be. :D

[cwphoto]

What about the new 17-55 f/2.8 IS? May be a bit pricey and the distortion at wide-angles is yet to be tested I guess.:confused:

[Rhys]

I'd say the 17-95 should be decent if it's used correctly. Even the humble 18-55 is good when it's stopped down 2 stops.

Of course, processing from RAW does seem to add sharpness. I set maximum sharpness on the camera and shot JPEG then shot RAW and converted. With no added sharpening, the images were a ton sharper.

[Clyde]

Just for grins, let me run the numbers on the Canons... plus this Tokina... for a total bag price.

Going to B&H...

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX - $500.00
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - $1400.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM - $600.00
Canon EF 1.4x Tele-converter - $350.00

Total... ding ding ding... $2850.00 (Cheap at half the price!)


Thats one hell of a bagful. Personally, I would be happy with the two Ls. That would leave me nicely set up for 2k. Of course, 2k covers alot of rent and ramen...

Clyde

[Vich]

what i really matter is the quality itself and the picture quality as well... i really like my picture to amaze me with a "WOW" effect!

It's easy to get sidetracked from this one point, ahe?

If you don't have $4,000 and a big bag, there are some compromises to getting the "WOW" lens. You forfit things like zoom (some or all), IS, convenience, wide aperture (or quality at the wider aperture), etc.

Maybe just accept the compromises and go for the WOW within a certian range, figuring on adding another piece later.

Some of the very WOW lenses are, well, most of the L's (with a few exceptions) and many of the primes. I would not put the 50mm f1.8 on the WOW list due to the inconsistant results.

So I'm not suggesting one lens over another; I'm suggesting adjusting your expectations about getting it all in one $600 lens and not getting lost on features. Willingness to loose IS on this short of a lens is a wonderful first step.:)

EDIT: I should point out, as I'm sure you are already aware, that WOW isn't all in the lens. :rolleyes:
Also; sometimes less is more. For example; people who want 17mm to take portraits are either inexperienced or have some unordinary situations or tastes. For example; Many lenses that have a bigger zoom range (like the 17-85) have sacraficed quality to achieve it.

PS: I'm very jealous of your 30D!!!

[ReF]

i think you'll get a whole load of "wow" with coldrain's suggestions of the tokina 12-24 and canon 28-105 USM all while staying in your budget range.

the reason why some of us talk crap about certain lenses (like the 17-85) isn't for some lame kicks, rather it's so others don't have to go through the same trouble of getting an unsatisfactory lens and then figuring out how to get rid of it (all while loosing time, image quality and resale value in the process).

[Peleg]

Well... most zooms that end at 18mm have quite some distortion, this in not just a "feature" of the 17-85 IS USM. Nikon's 18-70, 18-200, the 18-55 kit lenses, the 18-125 and 18-200 from Sigma, it's just the nature of the inexpensive beasts to have barrel distortion at the wide end.

The only way to not have a lot of barrel distortion at around 18mm is to buy a wide angle zoom like the Canon 10-22 USM or Tokina 12-24 f4. The Tokina is cheapest of the two, and has the best sharpness, vignetting and distortion at around 18mm. But at 12mm it does have some barrel distortion. Above that it gets quite distortion free. I just bought this lens, and the weather is not playing nice so I have not tested it well yet. I did notice chromatic aberations at 12mm, but no purple fringing. It has great colour and contrast... like a mini-L.

Of course you could consider an EF 17-40 f4 L, but it is limitted in the wide end, more expensive, and will have less performance at 17mm than the above mentioned lenses.

So, if you can resell your lens, I would go for a Tokina 12-24 (for landcsapes) and a 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 USM II for the "portrait" range.



...easily fixed in Photoshop? Would this not still be a good starter lens (the 17-85) if one fixes the barrel distortion? Thanks.

[coldrain]

...easily fixed in Photoshop? Would this not still be a good starter lens (the 17-85) if one fixes the barrel distortion? Thanks.
I was not the one complaining about barrel distortion in the first place. And you can not correct it without work and losing part of the photo. What mostly makes this lens a bit of a let down is simply its optical performance, not its distortion figures. Colour, contrast... CA... all are not upto spec for the price.

[suemccartin]

hi, just bought a canon 30D with 17-85mm IS USM, i know, lots of people would recommend me not to get the 17-85mm, but there is something wrong with me, i really have to try it before i regret it haha... anyways....

.............

what i really matter is the quality itself and the picture quality as well... i really like my picture to amaze me with a "WOW" effect! not like 17-85 which gives me a "thats a nice picture..." effect... guess you know what i mean...

thanks :D

Personally, I really don't quite understand why sooooo many folks hate this lens so much. Maybe it's just what I shoot with it but I don't see distortion or a lack of sharpness....but, I'm not blowing up to 16X20 either--- I tend to go 8X10 at largest. I've had this lens for a few months and I shoot karate in a gymnasium with it, the low range is great for nearby action and the 85 is just about enough magnification for stuff going on on the side of the floor (I'd like a tad more though); it does what I need it to and in one package. I think the lens focuses better than my old 18-55 kit lens and perhaps a bit faster as well, the IS is also great when I'm moving a lot trying to catch the shot. I tend to keep saturation and color set down anyway because the mixed lighting in the gym is a pain when shooting with flash (even with a custom white balance) and I also shoot in iso3200 so that tends to keep aperatures above maximum by a stop or two if I keep the shutter speed around 1/125--enough to stop most but not all action with no blurs. I use noise ninja to clean up the graininess, I think the lens was pricey but worth the money. A single focal length lens is always better than a zoom in terms of sharpness and no matter what you're going to have some shift with a focal length of under 24mm. Any old photographer worth their salt remembers "shift lenses." If anyone still makes them it's probably only Nikon, they have some kind of scheme built into the lens for correcting leaning structures, etc. If you've got the $$$ for multiple bodies and multiple single focal length lenses to replace that zoom then go for it but it doesn't sound like you're made out of money either.

[coldrain]

I think the only one offering them is Canon, not Nikon.

[aparmley]

Doesn't it boil down to this -

If you are not pleased with your results; and if you can't count on your lens to capture the picture you have in mind - replace it!

Does it get any more complicated than that?

[Vich]

I know the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Macro offers some "WOW". Not exactly a landscape lens, but covers the walk-around and portriat range nicely. It's main lacking is focusing in difficult conditions.

Its no 50mm f1.4 prime, but a very nice step up from the 17-85 IS (and a lot less $$$).

If you really really want WOW, primes is the way to go.

RE: 17-85 IS; I've never used one but have heard time and again that its basically Canon's cheapest quality lens with IS attached. That would mean inconsistant focusing, CA somtimes, no pop, etc ... but very acceptable for a novice and still giving better results than consumer P&S cameras. It'll have its occassional diehard fan but (those of us who can see the Emporer's cloths???) wouldn't give it high marks, esp. at that price. Just an OK lens, not "pro" level.

[cdifoto]

I know the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Macro offers some "WOW". Not exactly a landscape lens, but covers the walk-around and portriat range nicely. It's main lacking is focusing in difficult conditions.

Its no 50mm f1.4 prime, but a very nice step up from the 17-85 IS (and a lot less $$$).

If you really really want WOW, primes is the way to go.

RE: 17-85 IS; I've never used one but have heard time and again that its basically Canon's cheapest quality lens with IS attached. That would mean inconsistant focusing, CA somtimes, no pop, etc ... but very acceptable for a novice and still giving better results than consumer P&S cameras. It'll have its occassional diehard fan but (those of us who can see the Emporer's cloths???) wouldn't give it high marks, esp. at that price. Just an OK lens, not "pro" level.


I admit to never having used it, but based on what I've seen from it...it's the kit lens, with an extra 1mm on the wide, 30mm on the long, USM and IS.

[DonSchap]

Nope, not the Tamron SP AF28-105mm f/2.8 LD... that's still not arrived, yet. (Hopefully tomorrow.) But I went out and got the Tamron SP AF28-75 f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO!

I'm taking it to the street, tomorrow... as I go to do a shoot around town, barring bad weather. I picked it up for $300.00, brand-flippin'-new! :D (Yes, it came with Tamron's six-year warranty and the $30.00 rebate (good until April 30, 2006))

I'm going to find out if this one is truly a "walk-around lens" and just how WOW it is.

Admittedly, it's built with "L"-glass and you know you have to love that part. No IS... but I decided not to jump up and down when I hit the shutter release, either. :p I bought the mandatory UV protective filter, but I'm not popping for any additional ones. Unfortuntely, it has that darn 67mm-sized filter on it, so I have to get the step-up adapter ring to use the 72mm polarizer I had mounted on the Reflex-500mm. I suspect using the larger filter will probably reduce the chance of vignetting, anyway, at the wider angles.

If this pans out, I'll shout back. The savings alone are unreal. Unfortunately, there goes the SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 Di II budget, but it wouldn't mount on the EOS-3 anyway, and it still will be $149.00 more than I spent on this one. Well, maybe Christmas :)

I'm posting this announcement here as a supporting alternative to that Canon EF17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM kit lens. It's about 2/3 the price, "L"-glass, and offers so much more in return.

[drew_viii]

oh well... looks like ive been seeing lots of people giving different opinios and now im really starting to dislike my 17-85mm, i heard from one of my friend to sell my 17-85, since ive bought for just a 2 days ago, i coudl resell as a new price, my friend told me that canon is realeasing new lens soon, so it might affect the price of this lens, so he told me to sell it quickly... so ive decided to sell it on ebay :) and hopefully, would sell in a descent price, then i could invest on certain lens... still... im confused on which lens to get.... been doing lots of research, and looking at member's list gears hehe checking who have certain lens, ive come to one conclusion is, most of you guys have 17-40mm L series lens and a 70-200 L lens as well hehe... of course its L series... its an obvious conclusion though :)

anyways... ive been thinking on certain lens, so i might start a new thread with polls on which lens people would vote for... lets see which lens would be nice to replace the 17-85mm IS USM :)

[coldrain]

But it still misses in the wide angle end... So, not for the OP's budget and wishes. This lens should be sharp and contrasty, let us know how well your copy performs!

[cwphoto]

I think the only one offering them is Canon, not Nikon.

I thought Nikon still had a 28mm PC?

Anyway, Canon really has this covered with these babies:
http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/tse_lenses.html

[Peleg]

oh well... looks like ive been seeing lots of people giving different opinios and now im really starting to dislike my 17-85mm, i heard from one of my friend to sell my 17-85, since ive bought for just a 2 days ago, i coudl resell as a new price, my friend told me that canon is realeasing new lens soon, so it might affect the price of this lens, so he told me to sell it quickly... so ive decided to sell it on ebay :) and hopefully, would sell in a descent price, then i could invest on certain lens... still... im confused on which lens to get.... been doing lots of research, and looking at member's list gears hehe checking who have certain lens, ive come to one conclusion is, most of you guys have 17-40mm L series lens and a 70-200 L lens as well hehe... of course its L series... its an obvious conclusion though :)

anyways... ive been thinking on certain lens, so i might start a new thread with polls on which lens people would vote for... lets see which lens would be nice to replace the 17-85mm IS USM :)


It seems like you are basing your decision on whether or not to keep your 17-85 lens based solely on what others say. Have you even really tried taking pictures w/ it? You must understand, the best lens in the world is not going to make you a good photographer, only you can do that. Every lens is going to have it's shortcomings and the owner needs to learn to work around them. It's no different w/ this lens. I would suggest that you would get further down the road of being a good photographer by sticking w/ this lens, that you've already paid for, and making the most of it. I'm sure the "L" lenses are quite superior to the one you have but will you be a better photographer just cuz you bought a more expensive lens? Just some thots for you to mull over.

[drew_viii]

It seems like you are basing your decision on whether or not to keep your 17-85 lens based solely on what others say. Have you even really tried taking pictures w/ it? You must understand, the best lens in the world is not going to make you a good photographer, only you can do that. Every lens is going to have it's shortcomings and the owner needs to learn to work around them. It's no different w/ this lens. I would suggest that you would get further down the road of being a good photographer by sticking w/ this lens, that you've already paid for, and making the most of it. I'm sure the "L" lenses are quite superior to the one you have but will you be a better photographer just cuz you bought a more expensive lens? Just some thots for you to mull over.

yep, i understand what you're trying to say :) well this is why ive decided to ask people's opinion.. because... ive tried to take some shots with my friends lens, a tamron i guess i forgot... which lens is it... but its not a fancy one, a second hand lens, and amazingly, i like the shots from my friend's lens!! better than my 17-85mm, he borrowed my17-85mm, and he only took like 5 shots and change to his original tamron lens haha, funny huh? i borrowed his lens for 3 hours for a day, and stroll around the city... and i really like the shots very well... so ive done my research regarding my lens, and guess what, its not really a descent lens after all due to several reviews, my eyes are very picky, i somehow can see big differences with same setting of shots with different lens... thats how ive come acrossed to decide to change my lens... i mean, if i dont like the shots with my lens why not change it to the lens i like it right? :)

[ReF]

yep, i understand what you're trying to say :) well this is why ive decided to ask people's opinion.. because... ive tried to take some shots with my friends lens, a tamron i guess i forgot... which lens is it... but its not a fancy one, a second hand lens, and amazingly, i like the shots from my friend's lens!! better than my 17-85mm, he borrowed my17-85mm, and he only took like 5 shots and change to his original tamron lens haha, funny huh? i borrowed his lens for 3 hours for a day, and stroll around the city... and i really like the shots very well... so ive done my research regarding my lens, and guess what, its not really a descent lens after all due to several reviews, my eyes are very picky, i somehow can see big differences with same setting of shots with different lens... thats how ive come acrossed to decide to change my lens... i mean, if i dont like the shots with my lens why not change it to the lens i like it right? :)

hey drew, the members that have been around have heard this several times before, but like you, the 17-85 was the first lens i purchased when i bought a DSLR. without having any other lenses to compare it to (i didn't think of using the 50mm that was mounted on my film slr at the time), i took it out for a few shots and when i saw the results, i though to myself "what the hell is this?" i knew right away that it wasn't worth what i paid for it.

[cwphoto]

Oh shit, one of my students bought one of these upon my recommendation a month or so ago - now I feel I cheated her.:o

[aparmley]

Oh shit, one of my students bought one of these upon my recommendation a month or so ago - now I feel I cheated her.:o

Ya well... theres a return period so bob's your uncle! ;)

[cwphoto]

Funny, we don't do that over here. Unless it's broken you can't just return the thing if you've changed your mind a month later...

[aparmley]

Funny, we don't do that over here. Unless it's broken you can't just return the thing if you've changed your mind a month later...

wow - that sucks!

[aparmley]

wow - that sucks!

Well its 14 days here. On some things you can't software, CDs, etc etc . . .

[cwphoto]

wow - that sucks!

Otherwise I'd only need to ever "rent" a 300mm f/2.8. Come Monday morning: "sorry, changed my mind - money back please".

Don't know how you get away with it - doesn't seem right to me. No wonder you read so many stories of people opening up their "new" 5D only to find dust or date already set etc - nothing on the shelf is virgin stock!

[Vich]

I've not returned several big-ticket items over personal ethics quams too. Many retailers and on-line stores now have restock fees.

However; something like this you can only research so far, and they are so subject to bad copies, there's a balance in there somewhere. Guess its a personal thing.

[ReF]

well, not really "big ticket" but i've returned a 17-85 for obvious reasons and a sigma 24-70 cuz it was a dud. buying to try and return, with no intent of actually keeping it is totally wrong IMO

[aparmley]

well, not really "big ticket" but i've returned a 17-85 for obvious reasons and a sigma 24-70 cuz it was a dud. buying to try and return, with no intent of actually keeping it is totally wrong IMO

thats the key.

[suemccartin]

If the store sells "satisfaction guaranteed" then I've got no problem taking something back if I really don't like it. I've only done that a few times in my life because I generally research before I buy.

Once or twice I've bought an item and then the next week they've got the newer model in the store for ten bucks more and I've taken the first one back and exchanged for the new one. I don't see an issue with that--I bought there in the first place because of the policy and sometimes the prices are a bit higher to compensate for that.

[pagnamenta]

I'm a high school yearbook and newspaper photo editor. We are looking for equipment and I would like a fast zoom lens. I've narrowed it down to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4. I'm mainly concerned with shooting football games at night. For this i have a Canon 70-200 2.8 L but would also like a smaller zoom. I don't know whether the extra zoom and the higher f-stop is worth it in the 24-105.

Any suggestions? I would appreciate it. We have a 20D body and a 30D with the BG-E2 battery grip.

[cwphoto]

I'm a high school yearbook and newspaper photo editor. We are looking for equipment and I would like a fast zoom lens. I've narrowed it down to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4. I'm mainly concerned with shooting football games at night. For this i have a Canon 70-200 2.8 L but would also like a smaller zoom. I don't know whether the extra zoom and the higher f-stop is worth it in the 24-105.

Any suggestions? I would appreciate it. We have a 20D body and a 30D with the BG-E2 battery grip.

24-70mm would be my choice. Compliments the 70-200mm very well (no overlap), optically superb, bright - but no IS.

[Vich]

I'm a high school yearbook and newspaper photo editor. We are looking for equipment and I would like a fast zoom lens. I've narrowed it down to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4. I'm mainly concerned with shooting football games at night. For this i have a Canon 70-200 2.8 L but would also like a smaller zoom. I don't know whether the extra zoom and the higher f-stop is worth it in the 24-105.

Any suggestions? I would appreciate it. We have a 20D body and a 30D with the BG-E2 battery grip.
IS on 24-105 doesn't have a "panning mode". I would think you'de be in high-motion if the action's close and if you try panning with IS on, you could get odd results and maybe IS will work against you. IS is more for hand vibration, not fling and shoot.

The 24-70 f2.8 seems the better of the two.

I would also consider the new EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. That way if you get into "PJ" mode taking close ups of relatively still events you can turn on IS, but otherwise it won't interfere and you'll still have f2.8. Either that or a fast prime known for good AF. The lack of L build may be an issue since games can be in harsh and dirty conditions, but the length sounds workable.

You could get a 50mm f1.8 for a song ($75 or less used) to see how that works out, albiet get the f1.4 if that works out since you'll be a lot happier with the AF. Also explore the predictive AF and 5 fps features of the body - both very useful for sports shooting.

If you do use f2.8 or below, practice your focusing technique because it's really hard to get on a moving subject.

My .02