Options
Next lens
:bash
Going nuts with finding a more versatilve mid-range zoom to use with my 7d. I tried for several months to track down a Sigma 50-150, but they are hard to find used in a Canon mount and it seems that the Canon ones have significant focusing issues at 2.8 (for some reason, this lens is much more popular for Nikon). The lens has now been discontinued and, while the new version - with OS - has been announced, it may be a while before it hits the market, and I suspect it's going to be fairly pricey, too. It also is going to be heavier and larger.
Next up was trying to hold out for a 24-70 II, ideally with IS. While there are constantly rumours, nothing concrete is yet on the horizon afaik; I also reckon that even if such a lens is going to be released, it will be out of my price range (if the Mk I is $1400, then won't a Mk II - esp if it has IS - be likely to be $1700 or more?), and will take months for stock to be available.
Which leads me now to considering either:
1. 24-70. If I got this, I'd keep my Tam 17-50 for the (rare) occasions I need wider, and sell my 85 1.8 (a great lens, but I don't really use it that often). I'm extremely tempted by this.
2. 17-55is While it doesn't increase reach, the IS could make it a very valuable lens for theatre shooting (the Tam isn't really up to it - I usually use the 50 1.4). If I got this, I'd keep the 85 1.8 and sell the Tamron (which would be like selling a very loyal friend, but if needs must....)
The wide end isn't a big deal for what I do - I really need reach more than width as a rule. I need fast, accurate AF. I want that "sparkle" in the IQ that I get with the 135L. Lightweight and small is better, although I'll carry extra weight for great optics.
I'm leaning towards looking for a well-priced 24-70, but then I keep reading that crop sensors don't really bring out the best in it, and it's also heavy.
I shoot with a 7d (with an xsi as backup). FF is in my future for sure, but not likely until next year at the earliest.
Aargh - somebody help me make a decision, here! I've considered renting, but since I buy my lenses used, it's probably more cost-effective to buy and then resell if I'm not happy with the decision, so I'm sniffing around....
Going nuts with finding a more versatilve mid-range zoom to use with my 7d. I tried for several months to track down a Sigma 50-150, but they are hard to find used in a Canon mount and it seems that the Canon ones have significant focusing issues at 2.8 (for some reason, this lens is much more popular for Nikon). The lens has now been discontinued and, while the new version - with OS - has been announced, it may be a while before it hits the market, and I suspect it's going to be fairly pricey, too. It also is going to be heavier and larger.
Next up was trying to hold out for a 24-70 II, ideally with IS. While there are constantly rumours, nothing concrete is yet on the horizon afaik; I also reckon that even if such a lens is going to be released, it will be out of my price range (if the Mk I is $1400, then won't a Mk II - esp if it has IS - be likely to be $1700 or more?), and will take months for stock to be available.
Which leads me now to considering either:
1. 24-70. If I got this, I'd keep my Tam 17-50 for the (rare) occasions I need wider, and sell my 85 1.8 (a great lens, but I don't really use it that often). I'm extremely tempted by this.
2. 17-55is While it doesn't increase reach, the IS could make it a very valuable lens for theatre shooting (the Tam isn't really up to it - I usually use the 50 1.4). If I got this, I'd keep the 85 1.8 and sell the Tamron (which would be like selling a very loyal friend, but if needs must....)
The wide end isn't a big deal for what I do - I really need reach more than width as a rule. I need fast, accurate AF. I want that "sparkle" in the IQ that I get with the 135L. Lightweight and small is better, although I'll carry extra weight for great optics.
I'm leaning towards looking for a well-priced 24-70, but then I keep reading that crop sensors don't really bring out the best in it, and it's also heavy.
I shoot with a 7d (with an xsi as backup). FF is in my future for sure, but not likely until next year at the earliest.
Aargh - somebody help me make a decision, here! I've considered renting, but since I buy my lenses used, it's probably more cost-effective to buy and then resell if I'm not happy with the decision, so I'm sniffing around....
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
But for portraiture, 24-70 on crop is actually REALLY good! I like it MUCH more than 17-50 for portraits on crop, and almost as much as 50-150 for action on crop...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Woo Hoo!!! DM is slaking her lens lust.
Enjoy the new glass. Put it trough it's paces when it arrives and make sure it meets your expectations.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
@Matt :cry :cry :cry If it's still available, send me deets... the KEH purchase hasn't even shipped yet so could possibly be cancelled
If you ever hear of another one please DO let me know - that thing is a beast to find in a Canon mount (the only one I came across turned out to have focus issues at 2.8 - the owner hadn't realised it until I asked for test shots, and immediately pulled the listing and kept the item instead).
My feeling is the length on the 24-70 will be good, as long as I can live with the weight and the images it produces. We'll find out, I guess!
Congrats on the purchase! I may bug Matt if I find I have the change since I don't own a Canon lens in that range!
If you look down Borrowlenses FB page they had at least 2 coupons yesterday one Nikon the other a Sony...and of course mine was two weeks ago for the 85 1.2v2...saw a 50 1.2 ( found it, !yesterday!) the other day too~
Also, follow or check them on twitter. They do weekly coupons, so they vary.
twitter.com/borrowlenses
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/03/24-70-ii-in-april-cr2/
Nothing solid, but it's from a good source.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
My 24-70 F2.8 L rarely gets used on a crop body - it is so big and heavy I just do not favor that combination, it seems unbalanced fore and aft, but the lens is very sharp. But so is my favorite, 24-105 f4 L IS. The 24-70 L is probably maxed out for sharpness at f5.6 to f8. But very good wide open...
I find it hard to imagine that you have difficulty with AF with a 7D and stage lighting. Is it really that dark on the players when you are photographing them? The 7D using the three AF point algorithm really works superbly for me, and compares very favorably to my 1DMK4, which probably has the best AF Canon makes.
I am not trying to question you here, Diva, it may be just that dark when you are working and I am not aware of it.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I take your point, and there is also the bulk and weight to factor in. And with no IS at least a monopod in the theatre would be critical. But even so, I'd be putting a 70-200 f2.8 above a current 24-70 on my list. The difference in flength would be stunningly framed close-in shots. I'm thinking from the results end, not only from the specs+price end. There's no substitute for the thrill of a lens that gives you exactly what you wanted and more! You'd also save the blood (IQ) you spill by having to drastically crop for an approximation of a longer flength. If you did go the extra with a used 70-200 f2.8 with warranty, and it wasn't suitable for whatever reason, you could resell almost without losing a buck. If you haven't had the longer length experience yet I'd say it was well overdue!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I don't have problems with accuracy of AF - the 7d is magical on that score - but it really is that dark sometimes. My regular concert gig usually only has 2 lights, one either side of the stage. I often shoot the shows my daughter is in, which means school auditoriums with poor lighting. Even in shows with sophisticated, professional lighting, there's a lot of high contrast "effect" lighting these days, which means many dark patches.
If I tell you that my "usual" settings when using my 135L are f2.2-3.2 @ iso1600-2000 to eke out a 1/160 or 1/200 shutter speed (I'm not one of life's great steady handholders, so that's as low as I like to go), that gives you some idea.... This is why I'll often use the 50 1.4 and crop down, too, because I can go with a lower shutter speed and thus drop the ISO back a bit. EVentually, I'll need a FF camera so I have enough extra ISO for this not to be any kind of an issue, but at the moment, I'm still striking a balance.
Concert
ISO 2000 - 1/160 - f2.2 - 135L
iso 2500 - 1/160 - f2.2 135L
Kids' show
ISO 1600 - 1/125 - f2.0 - 50mm
I had the 200L 2.8 for a while - byoootiful lens, but I sold it to get the 135 and definitely feel that's a more useable focal length for me. I'd actually consider getting another copy of the 200 at some point if I want more reach - it's really a lovely piece of lightweight, high quality gear.
And again, nothing but good things to say about the Sigmas. Sharp, built to last, (maybe not the paint finish, but at least the mechanics and optics) ...and WAY affordable compared to the L's...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Matt, I've got the 35L (with a 40D) and I love it, it's brilliant, but... I keep it hidden away, because I've become so untrusting of its focal length. I would often use it for people shots, but then I think I'm going to have some distortion mar the shot, when I don't want distortion, that is. I guess I really must force myself to take a chance with it more often.
If I keep it at closest at least double the MFD from S, say ~ 1m (when I don't want distortion), have I pretty much guaranteed there won't be any distortion on the 1.6 crop?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
A 35mm lens used with a crop 1.5x/1.6x, APS-C sized sensor is a normal/standard Field-Of-View (FOV), similar to the FOV of a 50mm lens on a FF-135 format camera.
The perspective will be very nice for a full length or 3/4 length image, or a group image. For many people, myself included, I prefer something longer for a head shot or head-and-shoulders.
There are a few glamor/fashion photographers who prefer using an extremely long focal length for head shots, around 500mm or so. It all depends upon your personal preference, and that of your subject(s).
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I checked that lens out online a few months back, Art - saw an awful lot of reviews that, in addition to the usual focus-needed-calibrating-at-Sigma-Central issues, complained the AF wasn't really that fast and it hunts a bit in the dark, which leads me back to the same problems as I would have with the Tamron 28-75 (which, if I'm honest, would be my first choice as a 3rd-party lens, simply because I've been so happy with the 17-50). If this L doesn't work out as I hope, I may check into the Sigma again, so thanks for the reminder
Neil, I"ve found that even at 50mm on a crop sensor I have to be careful if I'm close - remember those from-above shots I did of Mini-D last month that were just that leeeeetle bit too close with a 50mm? For close portraits, I do like something between 50-75 if I have the room (hence the purchase of this lens!!).
The 35mmL at f1.4 is so much faster, and that is so much fun! I will just have to get out and develop technique with it. Good thing is that because of that very same edgy f-length that I am nervous of it offers some creative possibilities. What I don't want is "creative possibilities" appearing when I don't order them!
Thanks again, guys!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Off the top of my head, here's a shot on the 35 1.4 L and a 5D mk1:
...And here's a shot on a crop sensor at 17mm:
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix