Need advice on a couple lens... for a Canon

[Lachesis00]

My 70-300 Tameron took a dive. It works *sometimes*. It doesn't always auto focus. My eye site can not be depended on for manual focus, especially for concerts. I always shoot the concerts 100% in manual settings because I can never get the f/stop and aperture settings low/long enough any other way.

I want a f/2.8 or lower if possible, with the zoom of course... for concert shots, as I never shoot with a flash.
I am wondering what chunk of change I will be shelling out though! It does not have to be the IS lens. The photos are just for me. I share with the band's management but they are not used in anyway. (you can see some of the photos in my sig line).

I current use a F/1.8 50mm for portrait (fun stuff, not pro) but need a flash (I commented on someone else's post) and think a it could really help. So if you have suggestions. I keep reading about Sigma flashes. I want to try and do more portrait fun stuff.

I also want a better walk around lens. I love the low F-stop (I just love the look of the photos). I am using the one that came with the camera. I do a lot of scenery type photos. And of course people photos (but since I have the 50mm, it isn't as big of a deal).

You guys are always amazing, so I look forward to hearing suggestions.

I had not cleaned my camera at this point (it is now).... not sure if that is the spot on this pic...

To give you some idea of what I like to shoot...

The camera might not have been 100% clean...

Blowout, I know, the AZ sun is harsh

I know this is soft. None of these photos were taken with a tri-pod. It was point, shoot, hope and pray one came out decent. LOL

 

[terryX]

I just bought the 28 - 135 mm Canon IS lens for my Rebel XT. So far I love it! I intend to make it my everyday lens!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

want a f/2.8 or lower if possible, with the zoom of course

Hmmmm...I can't think of a zoom faster than f/2.8 off the top of my head. I think you'll either want to buy a set of primes or accept f/2.8.

There are a lot of really good 70-200 lenses out there. Canon has four. They have an f/4.0 with IS, one without, an f/2.8 with IS and one without. They are all great lenses, but none are cheap. I think they are roughly $600 for the plain f/4, a bit under $1,100 for the f/4 with IS, a bit over $1,100 for the f/2.8 without, and $1,700 for the f/2.8 with IS.

You can save a bit of money by getting the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I think they go for about $900.

I want to try and do more portrait fun stuff.

If you want to get into portraiture, you'll find that you can only do so much with a hotshoe flash. You'll quickly want to move up to either a master/slave combination or even better would be studio lights. Alien Bees have really brought down the cost of decent studio flashes, so you might want to look at them. Just be aware that lighting is a science that requires considerable study.

I also want a better walk around lens.

That's a really loaded phrase. For some people, a walkaround lens is a lens with a large range of focal lengths so that they can shoot just about anything without changes lenses. They are willing to give up some image quality and low light capability to get that.

I've seen other people that consider things like the 17-55mm to be a good walkaround lens because they tend to shoot buildings and scenes. Others love the 28-135 IS because they shoot a lot of standard to telephoto shots. For me, I love the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 as a walkaround lens. Others would find it too large and heavy for day-to-day use.

I had not cleaned my camera at this point (it is now).

Before a big shoot, I like to take a minimum aperture (f/22 or higher) shot of a solid colored subject (often the sky). I then look through the subject for dust spots. If I see more than I'm happy with, I clean the sensor.

It seems a bit strange at first to adjust the aperture to see dust spots. After all, they on the sensor which is "downstream" of the lens, so how would adjusting the lens help? It works because the narrow aperture gives the lens more of a spotlight affect and the dust spots have very hard shadows. When you open the aperture wider, a piece of dust has a much softer shadow and is much harder to see. It's exactly the same difference you get when you use a very small light source (like the flash built into a camera) versus a very large light source (like a cloudy sky).

Sometimes I'll go a while between dust spots and other times I pick them up on a daily basis. I really hope that the anti-dust sensors work well and that my next camera has one.

 

[DVC Jen]

I just bought the 28 - 135 mm Canon IS lens for my Rebel XT. So far I love it! I intend to make it my everyday lens!

That is great to know. I want to get one before long.

 

[DVC Jen]

I LOVE these!

 

[Lachesis00]

Thanks! It was the END of the monsoon season this past year. My husband was wigging out we'd die by lightening LOL. I was like "one more shot! ONE MORE SHOT!!".

How much did the 28 - 135 mm Canon IS lens cost and can you get the non-IS lens?

I LOVE these!

 

[gruZ]

As Mark mentioned above, Sigma makes a very good 70-200 F2.8 lens. You save about $300 - $400 over the Canon version. This lens is VERY sharp, and works well in lower light like the settings you are describing. It is as big and heavy as the Canon version - but I don't know of 2.8 zoom that is not. (OK, some of you will look up the exact length and weight of both and prove me wrong - sorry!) The Sigma has HSM (their attempt at duplicating Canon's USM - and a good duplication at that), and full time manual focus.

I also recently purchased a Sigma 24-70 F2.8, which I now use as a walkaround. Also very sharp, and a significant savings over the Canon L version (Sigma is about $450, Canon is about $1200). It's not as quiet as the Canon version, and doesn't have full time manual focus like the USM on the Canon, but IQ is very good.

 

[jann1033]

Thanks! It was the END of the monsoon season this past year. My husband was wigging out we'd die by lightening LOL. I was like "one more shot! ONE MORE SHOT!!".

How much did the 28 - 135 mm Canon IS lens cost and can you get the non-IS lens?

i got it for i think $484( that sticks in my mind so probably is wrong about 3-4 months ago..the only caution..i love it BUT( big but, not just my own hehe) is the f is3.5-3.6...i think i am where you are...i want more zoom but large aperture for my next lens...which are all in the at least 550-600 +range.. i'm trying to chose between canon 70-200 f4L ( probably the best bang for the buck) vs 70-300 f4-5.6 IS( is and little more zoom but not the aperture i really want) vs sigma 70-200 f2.8 (great ap but not as sharp photos from what i can tell adn $200+ more)

there is a tokina 80(?)-400 i was looking at that had pretty good reviews but again i think it's 4 or 4.5-5.6

next in line for me after i figure this one out is tokina i think either fisheye or 24-?? think that is a f2.8 also( can't remember my brain is fried)...and i think around $500..need to go plant that money tree now

 

[jann1033]

As Mark mentioned above, Sigma makes a very good 70-200 F2.8 lens. You save about $300 - $400 over the Canon version. This lens is VERY sharp, and works well in lower light like the settings you are describing. It is as big and heavy as the Canon version - but I don't know of 2.8 zoom that is not. (OK, some of you will look up the exact length and weight of both and prove me wrong - sorry!) The Sigma has HSM (their attempt at duplicating Canon's USM - and a good duplication at that), and full time manual focus.

I also recently purchased a Sigma 24-70 F2.8, which I now use as a walkaround. Also very sharp, and a significant savings over the Canon L version (Sigma is about $450, Canon is about $1200). It's not as quiet as the Canon version, and doesn't have full time manual focus like the USM on the Canon, but IQ is very good.

mind if i ask what kind of camera you have? i was trying to find some photos on the pbase link someone posted but the only 70-200 sigma with my camera body( rebelxt) weren't very helpful as almost all at 70mm. i know the canon 70-200f4 is very sharp and i wondered how the 2 compare.
also have you had any problems with focusing...that was awful with the only sigma lens i had and made me chicken about sigma

 

[gruZ]

mind if i ask what kind of camera you have? i was trying to find some photos on the pbase link someone posted but the only 70-200 sigma with my camera body( rebelxt) weren't very helpful as almost all at 70mm. i know the canon 70-200f4 is very sharp and i wondered how the 2 compare.
also have you had any problems with focusing...that was awful with the only sigma lens i had and made me chicken about sigma

I posted in another thread about this lens, with some links to real world reviews and some images. As for me, I have a 20D, and have not had any focusing problems at all. It has fast and accurate AF and is very sharp throughout its entire range. I can understand your hesitancy based on your history, but reviews / comments about this lens are consistently very positive.

 

[Lachesis00]

Thank you Mark for your wonderful insite. I will need to make some decision before the end of April.

This is really helpful gruZ! I am wondering if the 200mm is 'enough' (Oh how I love my close up shots!!). How much will I be 'missing' from 200mm to 300mm?

I am really liking the sound of the 24-70!

As Mark mentioned above, Sigma makes a very good 70-200 F2.8 lens. You save about $300 - $400 over the Canon version. This lens is VERY sharp, and works well in lower light like the settings you are describing. It is as big and heavy as the Canon version - but I don't know of 2.8 zoom that is not. (OK, some of you will look up the exact length and weight of both and prove me wrong - sorry!) The Sigma has HSM (their attempt at duplicating Canon's USM - and a good duplication at that), and full time manual focus.

I also recently purchased a Sigma 24-70 F2.8, which I now use as a walkaround. Also very sharp, and a significant savings over the Canon L version (Sigma is about $450, Canon is about $1200). It's not as quiet as the Canon version, and doesn't have full time manual focus like the USM on the Canon, but IQ is very good.

 

[DueyDooDah]

This is really helpful gruZ! I am wondering if the 200mm is 'enough' (Oh how I love my close up shots!!). How much will I be 'missing' from 200mm to 300mm?

I went with the Canon 70-300mm IS just for this reason. I love shooting wildlife and felt the xtra 100mm would give me the reach I'd need, which has turned out to be true. This lens, although not an L, is quite sharp and does most of the work I'd like to do. I'm not sure you'd need the 300mm over a good 200mm for concerts, but if you are concerned, there are (more than) two solutions: 1) look at the Canon 70-300mm IS (or DO); 2) buy better tickets for the concerts.

 

[Lachesis00]

I can be right up front babyyyyy. I am one of 4 with a permanent photo pass for this band. I am always sooo self conscious though... because, well I am the only idiot standing there snapping photos LOL.

I would use it for the zoo and other outtings too. The reason for the f/2.8 or lower is for non-flash concert photos.

I went with the Canon 70-300mm IS just for this reason. I love shooting wildlife and felt the xtra 100mm would give me the reach I'd need, which has turned out to be true. This lens, although not an L, is quite sharp and does most of the work I'd like to do. I'm not sure you'd need the 300mm over a good 200mm for concerts, but if you are concerned, there are (more than) two solutions: 1) look at the Canon 70-300mm IS (or DO); 2) buy better tickets for the concerts.

 

[handicap18]

What about a longer prime for your concert stuff. 85mm f/1.8 or the 100 f/2? As for the 200 vs 300 question, keep in mind that you wouldnt necessarily use the 70-200 f/2.8 in the same situation as a 70-300 f/4-5.6. The 70-200 is more of a specialty lens and the 70-300 is more of a walk-around or travel lens. What about a 24-70 range lens that is f/2.8 thoughout the range. If your already in the front row then the 200mm length your thinking about with the 70-200 might be to tight and the 70mm on the wide angle zoom would give you a bit more reach than your current 50mm, but with the added wider range of being able to get more members in one shot and different angles in the wide range. And it could double as a walk-around lens.

For a general walk-around, Sigma makes a 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 which is pretty nice especially with the f/2.8 at the wide end. Most in that focal length range start at f/3.5. Just something else to think about.

 

[Metallicat]

I just bought the 28 - 135 mm Canon IS lens for my Rebel XT. So far I love it! I intend to make it my everyday lens!

I have that lens

I should have my new Sigma 10-22 mm the day after tommorow. can't wait!

 

[Metallicat]

i got it for i think $484( that sticks in my mind so probably is wrong about 3-4 months ago..the only caution..i love it BUT( big but, not just my own hehe) is the f is3.5-3.6...i think i am where you are...i want more zoom but large aperture for my next lens...which are all in the at least 550-600 +range.. i'm trying to chose between canon 70-200 f4L ( probably the best bang for the buck) vs 70-300 f4-5.6 IS( is and little more zoom but not the aperture i really want) vs sigma 70-200 f2.8 (great ap but not as sharp photos from what i can tell adn $200+ more)

there is a tokina 80(?)-400 i was looking at that had pretty good reviews but again i think it's 4 or 4.5-5.6

next in line for me after i figure this one out is tokina i think either fisheye or 24-?? think that is a f2.8 also( can't remember my brain is fried)...and i think around $500..need to go plant that money tree now

My DD has the 70-200 L lens. she loves it.