My next lens????

[mom2rtk]

OK, you guys do know you're a bad influence, right???? But that's half the fun when you're giving the advice instead of paying the bill, right??

I really have learned a lot here in the past year. I have always been a big proponent of the "all in one" lenses. With 3 kids, I usually don't have the time or energy to devote to carrying around a bunch of lenses and switching them all the time.

Over the years, I have gotten some shots I am very happy with, but many continue to be blurry. I have fairly unsteady hands, and always chalked it up to that. I'm now starting to understand that was only a piece of the equation.

I have the Xsi with the following lenses: 30mm f1.4, 50mmf1.8, tokina 11-16 f2.8 (new) and the Tamron 18-270 VC. I thought this last one would be my general purpose "walk-around" lens, but am using it less and less. It seems heavier and bulkier than the 18-250 I had before (non VC) and even with the VC, I continue to get some blurry photos. I understand now that has more to do with the narrower aperture I am getting on the telephoto end of things.

So I find myself considering selling the Tamron 18-270 and getting something different. In addition to my Disney photography, my son plays on the high school soccer team, and many of his games are in the fall in the late afternoon. I really only got decent photos with it when it was a bright sunny day.

1) Would I be happy with an f2.8 telephoto of some sort withOUT IS or VC compared to the Tamron?

2) Anyone want to throw out some suggestions? I won't be able to afford OEM, so Sigma or Tamron.

I'm just kicking this around right now. No hurry. I really just want something in time for the fall soccer session.

In the mean time, if anyone stumbles across a "not to be missed" deal on something along this line, let me know, ok?

[Master Mason]

The IS isn't going to help you with soccer, by the time your shooting fast enough to stop the action, you've taken the camera shake out of the equation.

I would suggest the 70-200 f2.8. I have the Canon, but have heard good things about the Sigma version.

[mom2rtk]

I'm leaning toward something like that. Thanks!

Anyone out there have experience with the Sigma?

I think I saw a 50 -150 from one of the companies. Anyone have one of those? I'm not sure though that 150 will be long enough for the soccer games, but it would get pretty close.

[mom2rtk]

The IS isn't going to help you with soccer, by the time your shooting fast enough to stop the action, you've taken the camera shake out of the equation.



That makes complete sense. Thanks!

[boBQuincy]

And following up on that (that IS won't be important for soccer) you might want to look at Canon's 70-200 f/4 without IS. It is a great lens but not too expensive. The focusing is *very* fast and the sharpness is just great. It also weighs a lot less than the f/2.8. I use mine with a monopod for auto racing and that makes it steady enough for most lighting.

http://bob.suzieandbob.com/Corvairs/roebling/sunoco_3399.jpg

[C&B Young]

The 70-200 is on my wishlist, but for now I'm getting by with the Canon 55-250 IS. It's only around $200, and is a pretty good lens for the money.

[Gianna'sPapa]

I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG HSM and the 100-300 f4 EX DG. When shooting my DGD during ice skating (indoor rink) the f4 doesn't cut it. I tried but quickly switched to the f2.8 70-200. I shoot Pentax so I have in-body stabilization, but that was not the determining factor. The low light was. The 70-200 did a very good job. If you are going to shoot in low light, I'm afraid the 2.8 is the only way to go. If not then an f4 should work.

[mom2rtk]

This is all very helpful. I've been checking out the specs on those lenses and do have to admit I was shocked by the weight of the 70-200 f2.8. Is this a lens you guys just get out for specialized circumstances, or do you get used to the weight and use it for all your long range shooting?

It has me wondering if I should keep the Tamron 18-270 for general use, and save a little longer for the 70-200 f2.8 so I can have both.

[bob100]

The 70-200 is on my wishlist, but for now I'm getting by with the Canon 55-250 IS. It's only around $200, and is a pretty good lens for the money.

yes, the 55-250IS is good but perhaps not significantly better than the OP's Tamron 18-270VC.


So I find myself considering selling the Tamron 18-270 and getting something different. In addition to my Disney photography, my son plays on the high school soccer team, and many of his games are in the fall in the late afternoon. I really only got decent photos with it when it was a bright sunny day.
1) Would I be happy with an f2.8 telephoto of some sort withOUT IS or VC compared to the Tamron?
2) Anyone want to throw out some suggestions? I won't be able to afford OEM, so Sigma or Tamron.
I'm just kicking this around right now. No hurry. I really just want something in time for the fall soccer session.
In the mean time, if anyone stumbles across a "not to be missed" deal on something along this line, let me know, ok?

the next upgrade in telephoto zooms (> 250mm, f2.8 ) will cost considerably more. Try renting before buying the Canon or Sigma and see how much difference the extra reach or larger aperture lens will produce.

[mom2rtk]

the next upgrade in telephoto zooms (> 250mm, f2.8 ) will cost considerably more. Try renting before buying the Canon or Sigma and see how much difference the extra reach or larger aperture lens will produce.

How do these things go.... when the next upgrade comes out will the others go down in price any? I know that happens with bodies, but am guessing maybe not with lenses....

[Frantasmic]

The problem with your Tamron is that it stops at f/6.3 at full zoom (270mm). Many of the Tamron/Sigma ultra-zooms are at f6.3 whereas many of the Canon lenses are at f5.6.

Previous posters have suggested the 55-250 as a good deal. It will give you slightly better (f/5.6) aperture at full zoom and it won't break your wallet.

Another poster suggested the 70-200 non-IS L lens. the f/4.0 aperture should be able to catch good action, even on less than sunny days. In fact, I have some soccer pictures from such a day I did for my son's school last year. I'll try to remember to post some examples for you.

You might look at the 200mm F2.8 Canon L lens too.

To get a pretty decent zoom for action outdoors, you would probably have to spend in the $500-$700 range with the exception of the 55-250 or the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. Both the 55-250 and the 75-300mm would offer you better performance than what you currently have, but generally only slightly better.

[Gianna'sPapa]

As far as the weight of the 70-200 f2.8, it does get a little heavy if worn around your neck. I'm purchasing the Black Rapid R-Strap because of my two heavy lenses. They will hang at my side. When shooting (IMHO) its about the balance. I have a battery grip on my K10d, which balances the lens well.

[mom2rtk]

I'm thinking a trip in town to a "real" camera store might be helpful. I thought the Tamron was heavy, so I'm thinking I should try one of these out before considering it.

[annnewjerz]

I'm thinking a trip in town to a "real" camera store might be helpful. I thought the Tamron was heavy, so I'm thinking I should try one of these out before considering it.

You definitely should go hold a constant f/2.8 telezoom lens before purchasing one. I don't find the weight of my Nikon 70-200 to be horrible, but if you thought your Tamron 18-270 was heavy (approximately 1.2 pounds), then you will probably find the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 to be too heavy (approximately double, 2.5 pounds).

[mom2rtk]

You definitely should go hold a constant f/2.8 telezoom lens before purchasing one. I don't find the weight of my Nikon 70-200 to be horrible, but if you thought your Tamron 18-270 was heavy (approximately 1.2 pounds), then you will probably find the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 to be too heavy (approximately double, 2.5 pounds).

I agree. In fact I just had another Dis'er here in town PM to suggest a field trip together to a local camera shop. Sounds perfect!

I might be more open to the weight if I decide this is a "special occasion" lens (soccer games and Animal Kingdom???) I was looking for a "walk-around" lens with the Tamron. And of course it doesn't help that I add my Speedlite a lot of the time too. With a faster lens, maybe I can leave the Speedlite off. I ended up using my kit lens at Disney more than anything else. I eventually would like one of the wider 2.8's, but can't decide if I would want 18-50 or 24-70.

So how much do you think an 18-270 f2.8 would weigh??? :rotfl2: Or worse yet.... COST! :lmao:

[Frantasmic]

They really don't make the kind of lens you want, an all in one, in the F2.8. You will give up the lower end of your range when going to a good zoom.

[mom2rtk]

They really don't make the kind of lens you want, an all in one, in the F2.8. You will give up the lower end of your range when going to a good zoom.

I knew that, but a girl can dream, right????

[mom2rtk]

Have any of you used a Tamron 28-105 f2.8? That range looks very appealing. It would not cover the soccer games, but would certainly cover the lower end of the 2.8 spectrum very well. I don't see it mentioned very often, and I'm wondering why....

[annnewjerz]

Have any of you used a Tamron 28-105 f2.8? That range looks very appealing. It would not cover the soccer games, but would certainly cover the lower end of the 2.8 spectrum very well. I don't see it mentioned very often, and I'm wondering why....

Don't know anything about this particular lens, but did a quick search and found that B&H, Adorama, Amazon & Buy.com don't sell it. Maybe it's out of production and you'd have to find one used? I also looked for some reviews and they seemed to be a mixed bag. Some people seem to think it's a sharp lens and a great range, others seem to think it was soft to the point of being unusable at f/2.8 and wasn't quite wide or long enough.

If you are looking for a good walk-around lens, I'd look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Universally, it seems to get pretty good reviews and the sample images I have seen on the DIS alone make me think that it's a very sharp lens.

If you are looking for something that's a bit faster, sharper, longer---I'd look at the Canon 70-200 f/4 lens. With a constant f/4 aperture you'd be able to get pretty significantly faster shutter speeds than the f/6 end of your current Tamron. I have seen a bunch of sample images from this lens and wish that Nikon made an equivalent because I'd definitely buy it.

[mom2rtk]

Don't know anything about this particular lens, but did a quick search and found that B&H, Adorama, Amazon & Buy.com don't sell it. Maybe it's out of production and you'd have to find one used? I also looked for some reviews and they seemed to be a mixed bag. Some people seem to think it's a sharp lens and a great range, others seem to think it was soft to the point of being unusable at f/2.8 and wasn't quite wide or long enough.

If you are looking for a good walk-around lens, I'd look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Universally, it seems to get pretty good reviews and the sample images I have seen on the DIS alone make me think that it's a very sharp lens.

If you are looking for something that's a bit faster, sharper, longer---I'd look at the Canon 70-200 f/4 lens. With a constant f/4 aperture you'd be able to get pretty significantly faster shutter speeds than the f/6 end of your current Tamron. I have seen a bunch of sample images from this lens and wish that Nikon made an equivalent because I'd definitely buy it.

Thanks a bunch for the quick response. The one I stumbled across was on Ebay. I'm thinking a lot about both of the 2.8's (the 17-50 and the 70-200) but can probably only afford one this year. I have to look back through my notes but have read good things about the Tamron for the longer lens and the Sigma for the wider one. Anyone have other opinions on this? Canon OEM is probably not going to happen...

I'm not sure about the f/4.... If i spend that much I really want to have a big difference from what I have now. And a lot of those soccer games are during the twilight hours.

I like to think things to death before doing anything, so thanks for everyone's patience while I do this with my next lens!

[boBQuincy]

This is all very helpful. I've been checking out the specs on those lenses and do have to admit I was shocked by the weight of the 70-200 f2.8. Is this a lens you guys just get out for specialized circumstances, or do you get used to the weight and use it for all your long range shooting?

I try to keep the camera bag light, one reason I carry a Rebel instead of a higher end model. I will probably get a long f/2.8 some day but it will not be carried often, the f/4 is much lighter and gives up nothing in sharpness. The extra stop would only be useful in certain lighting conditions and I would never get used to the extra weight.

[Gianna'sPapa]

If you are looking for a walkaround 2.8, then I would invite you to look at the Sigma 28-70 mm f2.8 ex dg. This is a discontinued lens that I just purchased (new) from B & H for $349. They are still carrying it in the Canon mount. I received it on Wednesday and have put it through its paces the last two days because I will be using it at a church camera shoot tomorrow. I have found it to be an excellent lens. It is slightly heavier than the kit lens, but not so that it makes a difference. Originally, I was going to purchase the 24-70 ex dg hsm model ($899), there was a financial setback and I had to cancel that order. The non-hsm version is $569. After using it, I consider the $349 to be a steal compared to the other versions. I don't miss the 4mm on the short end.

[Brad M]

I think I saw a 50 -150 from one of the companies. Anyone have one of those? I'm not sure though that 150 will be long enough for the soccer games, but it would get pretty close.

I have the Nikon 70-200 and, for me, I like just a little more reach for soccer. I use it with a 1.4 teleconverter which gets me out to 280. It changes my max aperture from f/2.8 to f/4, but that's plenty wide enough for outdoor, daytime sports. ...and when it gets too dark, you can take off the teleconverter.

Looks like Canon has a version also:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/220456-USA/Canon_6845A004AA_1_4x_EF_Extender_II.html

Edit: Sigma's version:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/390164-USA/Sigma_824101_1_4x_DG_EX_APO.html

If this interests you, you'll need to check lens compatibility. Teleconverters work with only a select set of lenses.

[mom2rtk]

If you are looking for a walkaround 2.8, then I would invite you to look at the Sigma 28-70 mm f2.8 ex dg. This is a discontinued lens that I just purchased (new) from B & H for $349. They are still carrying it in the Canon mount. I received it on Wednesday and have put it through its paces the last two days because I will be using it at a church camera shoot tomorrow. I have found it to be an excellent lens. It is slightly heavier than the kit lens, but not so that it makes a difference. Originally, I was going to purchase the 24-70 ex dg hsm model ($899), there was a financial setback and I had to cancel that order. The non-hsm version is $569. After using it, I consider the $349 to be a steal compared to the other versions. I don't miss the 4mm on the short end.

As I said, I AM considering options for both the wider and longer lenses this year. And to be honest, I think I'm going to be a while before I can commit on the long long lens....

So you have me really thinking about this one.

Would you mind posting some photos here when you can?

Does anyone else have experience with this lens?

[Gianna'sPapa]

Unfortunately, I just deleted all my test images in preparation of this church shoot today (its a mother/son bowling event). I have attached the reviews from slrgear.com. I didn't understand review #2, but review #3 has attached photos. I'll see what I can do over the next few days for some test shots.

[Gianna'sPapa]

It might help that I actually attached it!!

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/207/cat/31

[Gianna'sPapa]

Here are three shots from last night's snowfall. There has been no PP on these images. They are straight out of the camera.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45097427@N02/