still researching fast long zooms

divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
edited February 22, 2009 in Cameras
Just starting to do my homework here. Can't buy anything yet, but things ars (HALLELUJAH) starting to pick up a little roun' these here parts, so I'm letting myself at least think about the possibilities. I currently have the old EF 70-20 (trombone style), and a 55-250is. They're both ok, but I could sure use something faster. Those lenses can both produce great images, but neither is a terribly fast focuser, and neither excel in low light.

I have searched, but most of the discussions seemed to be the Canon 2.8 vs 4.0is, both of which are out of my price range at the moment and that I'll need to go with a 3rd-party lens. Are there any well-regarded long Sigmas or Tamrons (or Tokinas or... ::fill in the blank::) that might work for me? I keep seeing references to a longer Sigma, but it seems to come in several old/new flavours and I've yet to figure out which is which since online reviews/forums are not always posting the correct designations on them :scratch

I absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE my Tamron 17-50 2.8. If I could find a similarly sharp and accurate, fast, not-too-heavy ~70-200 with a proportionally sweet price tag, I'd be one happy girl. Is there anything out there?

Thanks in advance!
facebook | photo site |

Comments

  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited February 21, 2009
    Have you considered the Canon 70-200 f/4L? Unless you absolutely need something faster, it's an excellent value--sharp as a tack, quick to focus and not horribly heavy. You can probably find a used one for around $500.

    Just a thought.
    My Pics
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2009
    Richard wrote:
    Have you considered the Canon 70-200 f/4L? Unless you absolutely need something faster, it's an excellent value--sharp as a tack, quick to focus and not horribly heavy. You can probably find a used one for around $500.

    Just a thought.

    I probably will need the extra speed - stage shots are likely to be part of what I need it to do, so a wider aperture would probably be good if there's anything out there which could do the job at a price I can afford.

    I'll bear the 4L in mind, however - it would probably be better than the two options I have in the bag right now, so it's not out of the running. Thanks for the assessment of it.
    facebook | photo site |
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2009
    divamum wrote:
    I probably will need the extra speed - stage shots are likely to be part of what I need it to do, so a wider aperture would probably be good if there's anything out there which could do the job at a price I can afford.

    I'll bear the 4L in mind, however - it would probably be better than the two options I have in the bag right now, so it's not out of the running. Thanks for the assessment of it.

    You can save a little money by going to a higher iso and using a noise reduction software......like noiseware or noise ninja.........I very seldom shoot my f2.8 70-210 at f2.8........I want more DOF especially on my stage shots where I may not be able to focus on the eyes but want them in as good of focus as I can get............

    Now getting a newer lens to make up for your older ones slow focusing.....that I understand.

    I have had a hard time transitioning to digital because I kept reading that the sensors were more sensitive than film......and I thought Wooooo Hoooo.......shooting at iso 50 at concerts yeeeeeah!!!!.......when in reality my first concert (tommy James and the Shondells) with crap loads of bright vibrant light was not what I had thought I would get......dark....dark.... dark............ I have come to the conclusion that digital sensors are not nearly as sensitive as my Fuji film was and I am still to this day very disappointed, but learning to cope wtih that fact.........ENUFF WHINNING ALREADY!!!!!!!

    So look more at trading your older lens for ones that will focus faster in low light and that will work well when you decide a better body would serve you better at meeting your needs..........Of course I have wondered for a long while why Canon "L" lenses are not all FAST GLASS......most of it starts in around F4 and up ....... of course in the zoom world the fastest I have ran across are the F2.8's......and long primes stop at around f2.........

    get acouple of trial versions of the noise reduction software and see if it will help you get the results you want and need.

    I use Sigma Lenses and Have been very happy with my photos......but I have older copies of the now 70-200 (mine is not hsm....it is an older 70-210 APO f2.8)..................
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited February 21, 2009
    On a tight budget, and using a Canon crop 1.6x camera, the arguably best theatrical lens is a moderate telephoto prime. Since you already have the Tamron 17-55mm, f2.8 I would suggest a good compliment would be either the Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM or EF 100mm, f2 USM. Both are fairly usable even wide open but sweeten quickly as the aperture closes to middle apertures. Of the two I would probably suggest that the 85mm, f1.8 is just slightly better overall, especially at f2.

    Andy got some great concert images some time ago:

    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=11413
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Ann McRaeAnn McRae Registered Users Posts: 4,584 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2009
    I might add the 135mmf2 into the list. Absolutely love this lens, for portraiture iloveyou.giflustiloveyou.gif and it works quite well in low light. Not as fast as the 85mmf1.8 in low light, but it still manages to get me good soccer shots indoors.

    ann

    My Galleries     My Photography BLOG
    Ramblings About Me
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2009
    Art Scott wrote:
    You can save a little money by going to a higher iso and using a noise reduction software......like noiseware or noise ninja........

    Oh yeah. I'm a BIG fan of the noiseware community edition thumb.gif

    Thanks to NW I can (usually) resolve noise issues - my real problem is that I frequently find I need more shutter speed and faster focus than either of my existing lenses can deliver. It's a shame, because I REALLY like the IQ on the 55-250is - it's a decent lens in many circumstances and really sharp. It's rather like a long zoom version of the 50mm 1.8 - impressive when you can give it the light it needs, but frustrating in the dark....
    Art Scott wrote:
    So look more at trading your older lens for ones that will focus faster in low light

    Exactly the plan. I can only do this if I sell some existing stuff (either and/or both the long zooms I have, and maybe the 50mm 1.8 which I don't think I've put on the camera since I got the Tammy so if I wind up with a fairly fast prime as Ziggy suggests, I'm still covered on that front...)
    ziggy53 wrote:
    On a tight budget, and using a Canon crop 1.6x camera, the arguably best theatrical lens is a moderate telephoto prime. Since you already have the Tamron 17-55mm, f2.8 I would suggest a good compliment would be either the Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM or EF 100mm, f2 USM. Both are fairly usable even wide open but sweeten quickly as the aperture closes to middle apertures. Of the two I would probably suggest that the 85mm, f1.8 is just slightly better overall, especially at f2.

    Oooo..... those look VERY interesting. I've been interested in the 85mm for a while and had planned to get it by now, but then I ran out of money. :cry The prices on both of those look fairly reasonable too :whew My only thought is that if I have to sell both zooms I might find the 100mm a more useful length, to keep one lens with some reach in the bag - is the quality it delivers significantly less than the 85mm?
    Andy got some great concert images some time ago:

    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=11413

    All I can say is.... drool. What fantastic shots. If I can ever capture low light pictures that are THAT sharp and clear I'll be very pleased indeed!!!
    Ann McRae wrote:
    I might add the 135mmf2 into the list. Absolutely love this lens, for portraiture iloveyou.giflustiloveyou.gif and it works quite well in low light. Not as fast as the 85mmf1.8 in low light, but it still manages to get me good soccer shots indoors.

    I WISH. Wayyyyy out of my price range even used, sadly :cry

    Great suggestions everybody. I'll be keeping these all in mind (and if I go the rental route next month, will definitely check these guys out too).

    Thanks!

    As a final note, I'd love any further comments on this Sigma 70-2xx that keeps coming up - do I gather it's the older NON macro version that's well regarded (Art, that's the one you have, right?). I'm still confused about this lens and which is the one that is fast and sharp.... headscratch.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited February 21, 2009
    divamum wrote:
    ... My only thought is that if I have to sell both zooms I might find the 100mm a more useful length, to keep one lens with some reach in the bag - is the quality it delivers significantly less than the 85mm?
    .... headscratch.gif

    The 85mm and 100mm are more similar than different. The 100mm is very well regarded and just a little more expensive. The slight improvement of the 85mm is going to be marginal in most cases.

    Both get good reviews:

    http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/164-canon-ef-85mm-f18-usm-test-report--review
    http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/166-canon-ef-100mm-f2-usm-lab-test-report--review
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • codruscodrus Registered Users Posts: 71 Big grins
    edited February 21, 2009
    divamum wrote:
    I probably will need the extra speed - stage shots are likely to be part of what I need it to do, so a wider aperture would probably be good if there's anything out there which could do the job at a price I can afford.

    I'm guessing you have a 1.6x crop camera? If so, another lens to look at is the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC HSM.

    --Ian
    http://codrus.smugmug.com
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2009
    codrus wrote:
    I'm guessing you have a 1.6x crop camera? If so, another lens to look at is the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC HSM.

    --Ian

    Actually the 70-200 f2.8 would be even better...IMHO ........but I am sure it is a tad bit heaver than the 50-150
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited February 22, 2009
    Thanks for the additional suggestions.

    One final question about the two primes: do they respond well to being paired with a teleconverter? I'm wondering if that might be a good solution for the (infrequent but occasional) times I need longer reach.... headscratch.gif

    Just wondering!

    Again, my thanks for all this great info :)
    facebook | photo site |
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited February 22, 2009
    divamum wrote:
    Thanks for the additional suggestions.

    One final question about the two primes: do they respond well to being paired with a teleconverter? I'm wondering if that might be a good solution for the (infrequent but occasional) times I need longer reach.... headscratch.gif

    Just wondering!

    Again, my thanks for all this great info :)

    I don't think either of the Canon teleconverters are compatible with either the 85mm or 100mm lenses because the teleconverter protrudes into the lens in front. (The Canon 135mm is the shortest prime that Canon recommends, except for the 135 "soft focus" which does not work.)

    I think that some of the third party teleconverters will mount but that you will experience loss of sharpness at and near the edges as well as probable color aberrations off the central axis.

    For snapshots it is not a problem but for enlargements it would be.

    Just for future reference I find that the EF 1.4x II works great on both the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L and the EF 70-200mm, f4L. I have been able to use an older Tamron 1.4x "F" series converter on my EF 50mm, f1.4 but oddly, it works best at minimum focus distance. (I suspect that is because the rear element of the lens is further away from the front element of the converter at MFD.)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • gembobsgembobs Registered Users Posts: 51 Big grins
    edited February 22, 2009
    I have just ordered a Tamron SP 70-200 f2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro, I think it retails around $650 ish in the states (I paid £430 in the UK).

    From what I have seen it looks pretty good. The AF speed and noise has been critised (sp?) by others, but the optics have been praised from what I have seen. I have read that someone thinks the AF speed is about 1/2 to 2/3 the speed of the canon equivalent.

    I don't know if it will work for you (loud and slow AF, maybe too expensive), but it may be worth having a look?

    Hope that helps
    My Smugmug

    My Gear
Sign In or Register to comment.