Should I buy this Sigma glass?

HeldDown

Hey guys,
Been lurking for a while -- never felt I had too much to add, so I kept quiet. However, now I have a question: I found a good deal on a Sigma 28-70 2.8-4 EF lens for my 300D. I do a lot of very disparate shooting, but my main hobby is theatrical photography -- therefore, I have a need for a low light lens. I managed to get myself a Canon 50mm 1.8 mk2, which is very nice, but the zoom option is something I miss. Unless I'm wrong, the 28-70 should perform as 44-112 on the 300D, which would be nice, wouldn't overlap with my other two lenses too much, and is still fairly fast.
However, has anyone used this lens before? Is it fairly sharp? Good quality? Any specific comments or complaints about it? What's a "good" price for it in your opinion?
Thanks so much guys, and sorry for the long, question-y first post![font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

limbik

Personally I would opt for something constant f2.8, like the Tamron 28-75, or even the Sigma 24-70. In the $3-400 range they are affordable and can both produce excellent results. I'm partial to the Tamron myself.

Chase

limbik wrote:

Personally I would opt for something constant f2.8, like the Tamron 28-75, or even the Sigma 24-70. In the $3-400 range they are affordable and can both produce excellent results. I'm partial to the Tamron myself.

Agreed, but i prefer sigma 24-70 f2.8.

HeldDown

Well, deal fell through, but I started thinking. I've started doing a lot of theatrical photography, but unfortunately only have the 18-55 kit lens and a 50mm 1.8 (which is beautiful.) I was looking for a nice fastish zoom for low-light conditions -- so I could pull 1/60th without having to shoot at ISO 3200 (Which sucks!). I'm currently looking at two lenses: the Sigma 28-70 2.4-4 High Speed Zoom, which is decently fast at 2.4 but 28mm is hardly what I'd call "zoom." Even the effective 112mm on my rebel at max is f/4, which is a little dark. Zoom wise, it's not TOO different from my kit -- about 25% farther at the high end. and only 1.6 faster. The other lens I was looking at is the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 Super Macro II, which, while is only MARGINALLY better aperature wise than my kit, gives me five and a half times the zoom, and is probably a better "all-around" lens.
Price wise, it's about $175 for the 70-300 and $120 for the 28-70, both shipped from Sigma4Less. So, opinions: go with the less expensive lens that is faster but doesn't really change my range options, or go with the nice far zoom and not gain anything stop-wise?

Thanks, and sorry for ANOTHER rambling post!

Higgmeister

Hi HeldDown,
What a quandary. I'm not the best person to answer this, so I'll pose a few questions for you to ponder. First, one of the lenses is close to the kit lens in focal length but faster. You need to ask yourself if the kit lens is sufficient, focal wise, and is just too slow. If so, then you are good to go with the 28-70 and just sell your kit lens. If the kit lens doesn't reach out enough, but the speeds are adequate, then go with the 70-300 which would complement you kit lens.
To me, it sounds like neither one of these lenses is going to do what you need, but you are the only one that can answer that.

Good luck,
Chris

HeldDown

You're quite right in saying that neither of these is going to be anywhere near perfect for me. It's kind of a Catch 22 situation, but unfortunately I just can't afford really good glass -- I've got around $200 max I can justify on a new lens. Therefore, I'd like to keep it as all-around-useful as possible. Today I tried out a Sigma 55-200 4-5.6, which I found really dark. I also found that at 200mm, I'd have to shoot pretty fast to get decent shots at 5.6 -- way too fast to get good theatre shots.
Anyways, I'm going to go do some hands-on research at Henry's. Thanks again guys!

Higgmeister

HeldDown wrote:

You're quite right in saying that neither of these is going to be anywhere near perfect for me. It's kind of a Catch 22 situation, but unfortunately I just can't afford really good glass -- I've got around $200 max I can justify on a new lens. Therefore, I'd like to keep it as all-around-useful as possible. Today I tried out a Sigma 55-200 4-5.6, which I found really dark. I also found that at 200mm, I'd have to shoot pretty fast to get decent shots at 5.6 -- way too fast to get good theatre shots.
Anyways, I'm going to go do some hands-on research at Henry's. Thanks again guys!

I'm not familiar with the lenses you mentioned and for the price, it's going to be hard to get what you need. Another lens in the speed of 4.5-5.6 is the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. I bought mine used here for $150 and see a few on ebay for less and more. Just a thought, and there are other places besides ebay for lenses.

Chris

Mike Curtis

HeldDown wrote:

I was looking for a nice fastish zoom for low-light conditions -- so I could pull 1/60th without having to shoot at ISO 3200 (Which sucks!).

f/4 at 75mm isn't what I would call fast. It's a little faster than a kit lens, but getting 1/60 second in a low light theatre is asking a bit much unless you like high ISO. Save a couple hundred and grab the constant f/2.8 zoom from Sigma or Tamron. Both are better choices for low light than what you have. Another option could be use a tele converter on your 50mm lens (if that is possible... I've never done it). Right now, your best option is to use the 50mm lens and get closer to the stage.

Mike

Chase

It seems like you have an unrealistic goal with your budget. I know thats not what you want to hear, but to get fast glass, you will probably need at least 400 bucks. A sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a good option for theatre as well, as its a nice focal length at an affordable price, 600 or so bucks.


Dont waste money on cheap zooms. I bought a cheazy 28-300 tamron when i first got my 300d, and now I wonder what I was thinking and could have better used the money to buy something fast and useful. Also, cheap consumer lenses dont hold their value anywhere nearly as well as nice fast more pro lenses.

ScottMcLeod

Chase wrote:

It seems like you have an unrealistic goal with your budget. I know thats not what you want to hear, but to get fast glass, you will probably need at least 400 bucks. A sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a good option for theatre as well, as its a nice focal length at an affordable price, 600 or so bucks.


Dont waste money on cheap zooms. I bought a cheazy 28-300 tamron when i first got my 300d, and now I wonder what I was thinking and could have better used the money to buy something fast and useful. Also, cheap consumer lenses dont hold their value anywhere nearly as well as nice fast more pro lenses.

Hey everyone, I'd like to take the credit (blame? ) for bringing this grinner to the boards. I helped him snag a brand-new 300D for cheap (I got tired of him borrowing mine when we were roomies last year).

He's basically looking for the same fast glass that I'm hunting for, without spending a buttload of money.

I paid about 350$(CDN) for my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (incl shipping), and i'v eseen them slip by for cheaper than that in the past few weeks on FredMiranda.

Otherwise, the 18-50 f/2.8 (or is it 1.8?) Sigma is a nice lens for low light work, but unfortunately quite pricey.

Just my 0.02$. Gotta get to bed. Watch out for this guy (HeldDown)'s photo skills. He's got an eye for things that I don't even see. (some of the shots he's taken with his Sony P73 are just astounding.

gtc

old screwmounts?
what about a fast 50mm ,say f1.4,on your 1.5 crop camera would be equivalent to 75mm and you wouldn't need to use flash

an old Asahi Pentax screw mount,manual focus, 135mm 2.5 smc Takumar with an adapter plate would give you arround a 200mm equivalent at f2.5 for about $100 and they are very sharp lenses

i have the takumar 200/4 and its very sharp and only cost me $150

HeldDown wrote:

You're quite right in saying that neither of these is going to be anywhere near perfect for me. It's kind of a Catch 22 situation, but unfortunately I just can't afford really good glass -- I've got around $200 max I can justify on a new lens. Therefore, I'd like to keep it as all-around-useful as possible. Today I tried out a Sigma 55-200 4-5.6, which I found really dark. I also found that at 200mm, I'd have to shoot pretty fast to get decent shots at 5.6 -- way too fast to get good theatre shots.
Anyways, I'm going to go do some hands-on research at Henry's. Thanks again guys!

ScottMcLeod

gtc wrote:

what about a fast 50mm ,say f1.4,on your 1.5 crop camera would be equivalent to 75mm and you wouldn't need to use flash

an old Asahi Pentax screw mount,manual focus, 135mm 2.5 smc Takumar with an adapter plate would give you arround a 200mm equivalent at f2.5 for about $100 and they are very sharp lenses

i have the takumar 200/4 and its very sharp and only cost me $150

Very true... but from what I know, you lose a stop in the teleconverter...

ziggy53

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Very true... but from what I know, you lose a stop in the teleconverter...

Scott,

The adapter for older Canon lenses is an optical and mechanical adapter, but the one for Pentax/universal Screw is a simple plate, no optics at all.

It works great but is fully manual ala the old "preset" technology, so you set focus manually and then set aperture manually. Critical focus is a little tough but do-able.

ziggy53

ScottMcLeod

ziggy53 wrote:

Scott,

The adapter for older Canon lenses is an optical and mechanical adapter, but the one for Pentax/universal Screw is a simple plate, no optics at all.

It works great but is fully manual ala the old "preset" technology, so you set focus manually and then set aperture manually. Critical focus is a little tough but do-able.

ziggy53

Hum. Wicked. I might grab one of those converters. I know my dad has a bunch of old SMC Takumar glass that he doesn't use anymore...

HeldDown

Thanks for the kind words Scott!
I'd love to pick up the Tamron you've got -- let's keep our eyes peeled on FM. As for a fast prime, I've got a 50mm 1.8, which is very nice, but the equivalent 80mm is still a little wide in some situations. I've considered a teleconverter, but I'd rather get new glass anyways.

Thanks for all the input guys!