Zoom lenses

[RadioNate]

I'm always interested in this debate but I just wanted to say I love the Canon 55-250IS. For a cheap lens I've gotten some truly excellent shots with it. I paid $99 for it as part of a deal when I got the T2i and I really couldn't be happier with it.

That totally shocked me. For a really budget friendly lens it has been excellent.

On that note. I also have a 28-135 IS that I hate. I get better shots with the 18-55 kit lens. I need to send it to Canon because something isn't right with it. I had a local shop look at it recently but they thought it was ok. It's not. I'd stay clear of that one because I believe there are some bad copies out there.

 

[WDWFigment]

Bump.

Considering the Sigma 24-70 (likely the non-HSM) and the Tamron 28-75. Anyone else have experience with either?

 

[Suburbanmom]

Bump.

Considering the Sigma 24-70 (likely the non-HSM) and the Tamron 28-75. Anyone else have experience with either?

I used the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (non-HSM) for about a year. I was happy at first, but then as I became more critical of my work, I concluded the 2.8 was too soft for my liking. Since I take a lot of portraits and have begun selling my work, it was really important to me to have it be as sharp as possible. It was also slow to focus and experienced some lens creep which was not that big of a deal to me, but still weighed in my decision to sell the lens. I replaced it with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and have been very happy. It cost almost 3 times as much, but I haven't regretted it even once. That Nikon lens is a beast.

That said - the Sigma was not a BAD lens and I wouldn't necissarily discourage someone from buying one. It was ruggedly built and very sharp around f/4-f/9 or so. Just know that it can be a little soft at the open end.

 

[wenrob]

Bump.

Considering the Sigma 24-70 (likely the non-HSM) and the Tamron 28-75. Anyone else have experience with either?

My Tamron 28-75 is my favorite lens. I find it quite sharp even wide open. I'm just a Mamarazzi at this point but I have framed prints in my house that get remarked on regularly. I'm pretty happy with it.

I've heard about the lens creep but I've never experienced it personally.

 

[gruZ]

I have to agree with the last few posters about the Sigma. I had the 24-70 version and it was too soft for my liking towards the wide end - even sent it back to Sigma for calibration and it was still too soft.

I've since upgraded to the Nikon version - yes it is very expensive - yes it is a beast - but it is without question the sharpest glass I've ever seen, and have never regretted the purchase. In fact, after owning it for more than a year I still am consistently amazed at the detail it produces.

 

[handicap18]

I have the Sigma 24-70mm and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. I'm thinking of sending in for calibration. I seem to get to many out of focus shots with it.

I love the build and it is a great range (better than I originally thought). I also have the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and have that on my camera more. This is a very sharp lens and focus if spot on for me. I did a wedding last weekend and after the first few dozen shots I wasn't happy with the results and switched to the 17-50mm. Much better.

I really want to like the 24-70mm, but right now I'm not sure.

 

[DoleWhipDVC]

I currently have the cannon 40d with the 28-135 optional lens mounted. I've gotten some great shots and have used a lot of the disboard advice to get better captures (even won a few of the contests on the "just for fun" board). I have been really bitten by the, "I've got to have a zoom lens" bug lately but have been putting it off due to cost. I was shooting geese on a pond yesterday and I'm now just totally frustrated that I can't get the close-up look I want with my pics. This has also happened in the parks several times.

Question one - I'm looking at the canon 70-200 with IM. However, the difference between the f/2.8 and the f/4 is about 800 bucks and I'm confused as to the advantage of the 4 over the 2.8 Obviously this deals with aperture, but I also was told one is better for action shots in low light. I take a lot of martial arts photos which include motion capture at tournaments and want to get sharp close-ups of that movement as well as the stationary (or slower moving) options at the parks, nature walks, etc...

Question two - Would I really see that much difference between the 135mm and a 200mm lens or should I get crazy and save up for the 70-300mm?

I have a basic understanding of f-stops, ISO settings and the like, but am far from being a pro. I'm trying to learn as I go. I'm happy with most of my pictures, but my goals are to shoot better (clearer) and get closer to my subjects while doing it. I've gotten really helpful advice from many of you in the past, so any help you could send would be very much appreciated.

 

[boBQuincy]

Assuming a 50mm lens has a magnification of 1 (a pretty close assumption) a 135mm has a magnification of about 2.7 and a 200mm has a magnification of 4. From experience I have found that when we think we need a 200 we really need a 300. The problems are: more magnification also magnifies any camera movement (IS helps) and the longer the lens the smaller the aperture (for the same diameter front glass).

IS and larger glass can compensate but also add $$$, size, and weight. f/4 lets in half the light of f/2.8 and funny enough the f/4 costs and weighs about half as much too! As Ursula (kind of) said, "photography is full of tough choices..."

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I own both a 70-200 f2.8 and a 100-300 f4 lens. With my current camera body, Pentax K10 with max ISO of 1600 and noisy above 800, the f4 lens does not work well for low light action shots. For those I have to use the 2.8 lens. The shutter speed is just to slow for stop action. With the newer bodies with high ISO capabilities, the f4 should work better, at least thats my hope when I upgrade bodies.

 

[Frantasmic]

The 4.0 70-200 is a good lens for mostly outdoor shots. The 4.0 minimum aperture takes really good shots outside and does better than most inside, but for the action and venue you describe, you should consider the 2.8 aperture or lower. That doesn't mean you should get the 70-200. It is a great lens that is very versatile. But, it does come with a steep price tag.

A compromise might be the 135mm f2.0 or the 200mm f2.8 L lens. These are fixed lenses (primes), so you give up the zoom capability. However, both of these are great for indoor, low-light action sports. You'd just have to move around to make sure you get the shot you want.

You still aren't stuck with these choices, however. The Sigma 50-150 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 are both good lenses too. They aren't quite as sharp as the Canon L lenses, according to most reports. But, many "settle" for them since they are under $1000 each. The differences, to many, isn't worth the extra $800+.

What you could do, is google "canon forums." The first one in the list has a forum with pictures from their posters from every lens imaginable, so you can see how those pictures look. You could also goodl the lens name + flickr to see flickr pictures with that lens.

 

[mom2rtk]

The Sigma 50-150 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 are both good lenses too. They aren't quite as sharp as the Canon L lenses, according to most reports. But, many "settle" for them since they are under $1000 each. The differences, to many, isn't worth the extra $800+.

I have the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 and have been very happy with it. Just FYI.... I was on the B&H site recently and saw it listed, but it's now noted as discontinued. So if you have any interest in one of those, I'd look sooner rather than later.

I do find myself wanting a little more reach sometimes, but I also like that the 50mm end is more usable to me in a variety of situations than the 70 short end on the 70-200 would be.

 

[AlbertZeroK]

One reason the 70-200 f/2.8 is $800 more is that they just released a new version of that lens refereed to as the Mark II or Mk II, new lenses are always EXPENSIVE. Yes, I'm a fanatic and I upgraded my 70-200 f/2.8 IS from the old one to the Mark II at a cost of $700, the difference was the new lens hood, not worth it, but a slight increase in image quality, but a HUGE increase in IS capabilities. But the 70-200 f/4 IS is still the old version, which makes the price difference HUGE. I can tell you that the 70-200 IS f/2.8 is among one of the most loved lenses to Nikon and Canon users. The Mark II only adds to that game and now some are talking about it being even better than the Nikon version of the same lens. I can't recommend this lens high enough.

Sigma makes a great knock off of the 70-200 f/2.8 which is worth considering, especially considering the $2400 price tag of the new canon version.

As for light issues, my 50d at 1600 is horrible, until I clean it up in Lightroom 3.2 which features awsome noise reduction capablities. In fact, with that capability, I shoot at 1600 without caring anymore about noise. You want as much light as possible. Primes are nice, I use my 85L f/1.2 in low light with great results. I also tend to shoot and crop the pictures I want out. I can tell you though that indoor shooting isn't fun without a flash and the bigger your aperture (smaller the number), the better luck you'll have.

I will forwarn you, holding up a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens all day and shooting with it, takes some endurance, it's a big lens. I'm a big guy and I even get tired with the weight of it.

Also, consider the Canon 85mm f/1.8 which is a great little lens.

 

[DoleWhipDVC]

Ummm... Now I'm really confused. I though the longer the reach (like 200mm) the closer I would be to my subject. How can a lens that only goes to 85mm get me close like a 200mm? Maybe I'm not understanding your advice In any event I'm really sold on IS so the lens has to have that feature, but it seems many maufacturers are compatable with the 40d. Is it o.k. to use other brands on the canon or should I always try to keep my system "pure" when buying accessories? Don't I have to worry about quality?

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Whether you purchase your manufacturer's version or a third party is a personal decision. There was such a discussion a while back. Some folks were adamant that they would only purchase their particular manufacturer's lens and to others it didn't matter as much. In my particular case, my manufacturer specializes in good primes and APS-C lenses. Their strong point is not long zooms. Therefore, I went with third party. Both my 70-200 f2.8 and 100-300 f4 are Sigma lenses. I couldn't be happier with them. I did have an AF problem with the 70-200 that they fixed very quickly. The Sigma customer service was exceptional! My 100-300 is exceptionally sharp and probably the best lens in my kit.

From AlbertZeroK
I will forwarn you, holding up a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens all day and shooting with it, takes some endurance, it's a big lens.

If you think the 70-200 is big, try lugging the 100-300 around all day! Its a third bigger! If its images weren't so good, It would sit on the shelf!

Anyway, I would like to state, I am far, far from a professional photographer therefore the quality of image I get from the Sigma lenses far exceeds my expectations. Good luck on your choices.

 

[Frantasmic]

AlbertZeroK recommended the 85mm f1.8

You said:

How can a lens that only goes to 85mm get me close like a 200mm?

You are correct in that it won't get in as close as the 200mm. However, if you are able to move to frame your subject, the poster is only stating that the 85mm f1.8 will provide very good, indoor action shots.

I agree. It is one of my favorite lenses. But, it is a prime.

It sounds like you really want IS, and you really want a zoom since you will probably be in the stands, sometimes close to the floor, sometimes higher up. So, you basically have two choices: the expensive Canon lens, which takes great shots, but is heavy and expensive or the Sigma or other brand.

Here's the link to the forum I was suggesting (I hope it is okay to link to that site). The last few pages show some volleyball shots done with the Sigma lens to give you a sample of how it works inside a gym.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=424175&page=26

 

[AlbertZeroK]

I should have said Prime lenses are the best for indoor shooting because they work in lower light situations. I agree with Frantasmic, you're likely looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 from canon or Sigma.

Would I buy a Sigma 70-200? Yes. If the Canon was outside my budget, then yes, I'd get the Sigma and not the canon lens. There is one other thing you should know about the new canon 70-200, it is believed to be one of the fastest focusing lenses canon has ever made - and yes, it's FAST and yes, it's much faster than the Sigma. That being said, the Sigma is a good choice and I don't really know if you would see the difference in many situations.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

The only two 70-200's with IS/OS to fit the Canon cameras are the Canon ($2,069) and the Sigma ($1,699). Both of the latest versions have the USM/HSM motors and both focus extremely fast and are quiet. In real world situations you will probably notice little difference in the focusing speed. If you don't need IS/OS, then prices go down drastically. A non-OS Sigma lens goes for $799 and the Tamron for $729 (no fast focusing motor). These are B & H prices.

 

[pjacobi]

I suggest you start with consumer grade telephoto lens:
Canon 55-250 IS f/4-5.6
Canon 70-300 USM IS f/4-5.6

Don't expect any lens to take great pictures. You got to *LEARN* how to make the lens take great picture! With telephoto lenses, you have lots of lessons to learn.

Be more concerned about learning technique, rather than equipment.


-Paul

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

Before I dropped that kind of money on a lens, I would rent one from either www.borrowlenses.com (which I've used to rent a 400mm zoom for some HS football shots last year) or www.lensrentals.com which comes highly recommended.

Quickly checking www.lensrentals.com, you can get the f/4 lens for 7 days for $75 (including shipping) or $120 for the f/2.8 lens for the same time period.

I'm thinking about renting at least one lens for my upcoming trip in December. Either I'm going to get a really fast prime (like maybe the 50mm f/1.4) or the 100-400mm zoom. We're staying at Animal Kingdom Lodge and I would love to have a nize zoom like that for shooting the animals.

 

[DoleWhipDVC]

Great advice from everyone. Thanks and thanks again! Paul, you're right I will work on technique as I learn the capabilities of my equipment. I'll check out the price/availability of the lenses you mentioned.

ChiSoxKeith, rental seems like a great idea! Even if I take a rental along for 2 weeks I'll still pay less than buying one AND I'll get to learn the pros/cons of the lens while actually shooting at a much lower price.

Thanks to everyone who responded. If anyone wants to add more thoughts, I'm all "ears"