70-200mm lenses

[YEKCIM]

Wow! Looks like the new lens, the D300, and Gdad were made for each other. Nice shots.

~E

 

[handicap18]

Nice work Jeff. That Sigma looks like a great deal. Even with the 2x converter the images are pretty sharp.

 

[wdwmom2]

Very nice! Really like the "guess who" photo, too cute!

 

[t1gger1968]

Decision making time. Dh gave me the go ahead to get a lens for our camera - a Canon XTi with the lens kit, and I also have the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I would like to replace the kit lens with another lens, preferably to become my walk around lens. I have narrowed it down to the following lens but can only buy one...

1. Sigma 24-70mm (I had narrowed it down to this until I read some not-so-good review on this one!)
2. Tamron 28-75
3. Canon 28-135mm
4. Sigma 18-200mm

Hoping to make the purchase before our summer vacation at the end of June, and also will take the lens to WDW in October. I also take pictures of my dd and stepkids - karate, t-ball, soccer, dance recital, ice skating, and gymnastics. So we take both outdoor and indoor pictures..can one lens really do it all?

Which one would you recommend and why?

 

[Master Mason]

Decision making time. Dh gave me the go ahead to get a lens for our camera - a Canon XTi with the lens kit, and I also have the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I would like to replace the kit lens with another lens, preferably to become my walk around lens. I have narrowed it down to the following lens but can only buy one...

1. Sigma 24-70mm (I had narrowed it down to this until I read some not-so-good review on this one!)
2. Tamron 28-75
3. Canon 28-135mm
4. Sigma 18-200mm

Hoping to make the purchase before our summer vacation at the end of June, and also will take the lens to WDW in October. I also take pictures of my dd and stepkids - karate, t-ball, soccer, dance recital, ice skating, and gymnastics. So we take both outdoor and indoor pictures..can one lens really do it all?

Which one would you recommend and why?

Based on your needs I would cross the 18-200 off your list, the apeture will be too small for you to freeze action at most ice skating rinks and dance recitals. I think that the 28-135 would probably suffer the same results.

That leaves 1 and 2. I know people that have both and are very happy with them. The only complaint I have ever heard on either was that occationally you'll get a sigma 24-70 that either front or back focuses, but everyone I know that has had that said that said they sent it it and it came back wonderful. I have the canon version, and I love it as my walk around lens, although it is heavy.

Honestly, your really going to need another lens in the long run though, because your going to want more reach than either option 1 or 2 will give you, something on the range of a 70-200 f/2.8. But you can get one and then save for the next

 

[SonyaM]

I agree, for things like that you will want more reach. I have the Tamron, and love it. LOVE love it. I use it for 90% of my paid sessions. But I don't get paid to shoot events like those you mentioned. You will eventually want a 70-200 2.8 for the reach. 75mm just won't get you very close.

 

[Code]

All the events you listed seem like you need a good telephoto rather than a standard zoom...

But... as far as walk around lenses go, I lean toward the wide end (especially @ WDW) and don't think 24mm is quite wide enough, so I would recommend either the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 or, if you're feeling really spendy, the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. I think Tamron has a 17-50 also? Anyway, merely personal preference...

 

[webshark3]

I love my Tamron 28-75, but it starts to drag on you over a full day (and it's one of the smallest/lighest in that class).

I too prefer wide angle, and would try a Tamron 18-55 for a walk-around if I had to choose. Those fast zooms are still pretty heavy though.

 

[Furgus]

Another vote for the Tamron. Tack sharp throughout all apertures and focal length. I think I have taken it off my camera once in the 6 months I have had it.
Here is an example.

(it helps to have a good model )

 

[DizzyV6P]

I'll going to be selling my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 shortly. Great lense and was my walkaround lens for almost a year. It's now been replace by the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Also a super sharp lens. For me, I missed the "wideness" so I picked up the Tamron. Both are great lenses and I've been lucky to have two that don't have any focus issues.

Indoor shots will be needed the f/2.8 if they don't allow flash. That includes most dance studios and especially during a recital. However, depending on where you are, not even the 28-75 f/2.8 will be long enough. You'll have to consider a 70-200 f/2.8 ($$$$$$) to really get some of the nice shots. So, in answer to your question, no, one lens can NOT do it all....really well.

The new Sigma 18-200 OS has gotten some really good reviews and for the price, it is a nice walkaround lens. However, for low light shots, nothing beats something that f/2.8 or better. it is however, a decent compromise.

I found the Canon 28-135 to be somewhat soft. I sold mine to get the 28-75 which was tact sharp. And now I use the 17-50 f/2.8 all the time and the 28-75 sits in my 2nd camera bag waiting for sale..lol. I've heard mixed reviews about the Sigma 24-70 as well, but not having used that particular lense, I can't give much advice on it.

Here's a sample pic from the 17-50 f/2.8

Here's a sample pic from the 28-75 f/2.8. Like I said, both VERY good lenses. Just different lengths for your own personal tastes.

Good luck w/ your choice

 

[Suburbanmom]

I have the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 with a Nikon mount and I love it. I bought it with portraits in mind, but it's become my walk-around lens too. Here's a shot I took the day after I got the lens:

Nikon D50; f/2.8; 24-70mm at 65mm

 

[jann1033]

figuring it would cost about the same but can only afford one hopefully in the near future so the other would have to wait a little longer. guess i am wondering if anyone has ever compared the two ( the photos i see with the 55 are really good, just haven't seen them up close and personal)

pros of new lens = IS, more reach, lighter weight
cons= wondering if the color/contrast etc would be as good, aperture:really need some lower light lenses but don't see anything even in the ballpark of my wallet

pros of old lens= better build, probably an edge in IQ but don't really know since haven't compared the two personally, can use my teleconverter with it, cross points work with it, really like it for close up work as it's very sharp and you can stand 5 ft away
cons= heavy for me to hand hold so i need at least a monopod with it, could cost more to fix than the other lens( have yet to get a really firm estimate on it but if i can't find someone other than canon would be over $185 to fix, I've read of a few lenses' repair costing more than they are worth so there is the chance I'd be flushing the $185 down the drain and still not have a working lens.)

 

[bob100]

figuring it would cost about the same but can only afford one hopefully in the near future so the other would have to wait a little longer. guess i am wondering if anyone has ever compared the two ( the photos i see with the 55 are really good, just haven't seen them up close and personal)

pros of new lens = IS, more reach, lighter weight
cons= wondering if the color/contrast etc would be as good, aperture:really need some lower light lenses but don't see anything even in the ballpark of my wallet

pros of old lens= better build, probably an edge in IQ but don't really know since haven't compared the two personally, can use my teleconverter with it, cross points work with it, really like it for close up work as it's very sharp and you can stand 5 ft away
cons= heavy for me to hand hold so i need at least a monopod with it, could cost more to fix than the other lens( have yet to get a really firm estimate on it but if i can't find someone other than canon would be over $185 to fix, I've read of a few lenses' repair costing more than they are worth so there is the chance I'd be flushing the $185 down the drain and still not have a working lens.)

I don't know but from what I have seen the 55-250 is a sharp lens and a good value at $200- $250, but probably you should get an estimate on fixing the old lens, you can do a search on www.photography-on-the.net/forum for comparisons

 

[Chikabowa]

I would rent the lens you don't have just for the opportunity to use it prior to purchase.
However, I've only heard wonderful things about the 70-200 f4, so my best is you'll be hard pressed to buy the other lens and find the same quality.

 

[jann1033]

I don't know but from what I have seen the 55-250 is a sharp lens and a good value at $200- $250, but probably you should get an estimate on fixing the old lens, you can do a search on www.photography-on-the.net/forum for comparisons

i have gotten estimates but the way canon "estimates" you have to pay $185 for them to open the lens up to see what is really wrong then give you the actual estimate of what it costs to fix it. since the $185 doesn't include any parts and my mount is bent i know if will be more, the canon rep i spoke to dropped the figure "$300 or more" . if you don't get it fixed , you lose the $185. some posts i have seen on forums as to fixing that lens have been up to the cost of the lens( course those are probably the ones with a bad experience since most don't post good experiences)Keh gave me an estimate of $110 for basic cleaning and calibration but minus the mount charge since no one seems to be able to tell meeven a ballpark of how much it would cost to replace. It appears not a lot of places fix canon lenses. the only other ones i found online but have't tried yet are Midwest and i think adorama fixes them. i can't find a local one ( they just send it to canon so i get to pay them $$ plus canon's fee)

 

[mabas9395]

If it were anyone else, I would tell them to weigh the pros and cons carefully (which you already have). But since its you, and having read all your posts about the problems with your lenses, I say sell them all and switch to Nikon.

I don't say that as a Nikon fan. I say that as a Canon fan who hopes you finally find a system that works for you (and that your bad luck with lenses stops giving the Canon brand a bad name).

 

[edolyne]

jann, seems like you just can't catch a break with the canon equipment that you own. I am sorry to hear about all of your difficulties.

My suggestion would be to really sit down and weigh your options with switching to another brand as Canon just doesn't seem to be working for you and you are without your equipment so much. I know that switching is a pain as I have done it a few times but if it means having reliable equipment it might just be the right choice. The great advantage to switching now is that there are a TON of great cameras on the market or coming to market. We have all seen the Pentax which is coming out and Olympus is set to make an announcement in regards to their micro 4/3's in only a few days now.

 

[jann1033]

if everyone who had a problem with canon's repair service switched systems canon would be out of business. if they have a bad name for repair it's due to their lousy repair not because of me. google it sometimes, i am far from the only one who has had problems with canon service...most of which are with their top of the line lenses too. i did check into changing systems before i upgraded my body. however, i can't really get enough for what i have now to get the body and lenses comparable to what i have now or i want.

however that doesn't really have anything to do with my original ? which was opinions on options for the 2 lenses.

 

[jfinke]

Have you tried looking for a good used replacement 70-200L? You can usually find them for under $500.

Then, maybe you can sell your old one for a couple hundred and let someone else have the headache? Don't know what the market would be for that.

My problem is that I purchased an L and everything else just pales in comparison. I have other lens that are sharp. But, the autofocus and build quality are quite nice.

 

[pointandshoot]

Canon's 70-200mm lenses are their "bread and butter". All lenses they offer in that class have outstanding ratings, reputations, and user reviews. I love my f/2.8 IS and continue to be amazed at the details it captures. The 70-200mm offerings seem to be the object of desire for most Canon shooters.

If it is just your mount that is broken and you feel the lens is a good copy and the glass it clean, I would fix it. You will get back a calibrated 70-200mm as good as new.

It sounds like its size might be a bit of an issue for you. If you are not using it as much as you think you should and a lighter lens makes sense, it might be time to buy a different lens. On lens quality alone, I would keep the 70-200mm. Great build, great lens, and a bit faster than your other option.

I just had 40D repaired by Canon. It came back better than new. The quality of the repair work is not a worry to me. It is stressful going into a situation where you could be out some money and not knowing what the final bill we be. It is like the auto repair place charging you to look at your car then tacking on the parts and labor later.

One way to look at it is what will you do with the lens if you buy a new one. If you repair it, you have the option to recover at least those costs through resale/auction.

Best of luck!

Chuck