Finally, a lens that does the 20D's size justice...

ScottMcLeod

Sexy sexy sexy...

I can't wait to put it to good use!

Bob Bell

How about a hint for us non sigma users?

StevenV

Bob Bell wrote:

How about a hint for us non sigma users?

it looks a lot like the 70-200 to me

DoctorIt

It is a 70-200. Looks like Scotty beat up on the local camera shop and he got the deal he wanted.

This is a great lens, some say better than the newer DG version. I was happy with mine before I upgraded to the Nikkor.

SpeshulEd

I was looking at one of these for concert photography, how does it fare in low light handheld conditions?

I was debating between this and the canon version with the IS, but the sigma is much cheaper.

HeldDown

lol! There hasn't BEEN any "low light" since Scott bought the glass
The Sigma performs 90% as well as the L, but the lack of IS might throw you off. I don't care for IS personally, and at 60% the cost, the Sigma's definetely a great deal. Buy it and don't regret it.

Jeffro

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Sexy sexy sexy...

I can't wait to put it to good use!

This one looks pretty sexy too!

HeldDown

Sorry Scott, but Jeffro wins

StevenV

HeldDown wrote:

lol! There hasn't BEEN any "low light" since Scott bought the glass

just stop by your local park and shoot an 8pm rec league baseball game.

ScottMcLeod

StevenV wrote:

just stop by your local park and shoot an 8pm rec league baseball game.

When I get a night off, i'll go hunting for low light to test it in.

-Scott

SpeshulEd

ScottMcLeod wrote:

When I get a night off, i'll go hunting for low light to test it in.

-Scott

I'd very much appreciate that. I'm very interested in this lens.

Chase

The IS is really worth every penny when it comes to stage and dance photography. I was wanting the sigma until i caved and bought a used IS for 1500 off of fm.com.

ScottMcLeod

Chase wrote:

The IS is really worth every penny when it comes to stage and dance photography. I was wanting the sigma until i caved and bought a used IS for 1500 off of fm.com.

Oh, probably. When I have another 1000$CDN to spend on an IS version, I'll spend 1000$ and sell my sigma.

Until then, I need that 1000$ to pay for 2 month's rent next year.

Chase

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Oh, probably. When I have another 1000$CDN to spend on an IS version, I'll spend 1000$ and sell my sigma.

Until then, I need that 1000$ to pay for 2 month's rent next year.

Are you shooting professionally or just as a hobby?

sthig

I've had this lens for a while. I use it coupled with the 2x extender.

It works very well in low-light and it is indeed sexy (and I prerfer it than a giant white lens hanging off my camera...)...

HOWEVER

It's a tad soft and the AF is slooooow compared to an L lens. I use it to do a lot of rollerderby pictures and it's never failed me.

Here are some shots I took at a circus with it. It did a wonderful job
http://www.scojobo.com/gallery/1442042

HeldDown

Scott and I are both semi-professional Performing Arts photographers. The only thing keeing the "semi"there is the face we're still at school.
Trust me, I've shot a lot of theatre and dance, and I've never yearned for IS. Some of the best theater shots I ever took were with the kit lens. I'm quite sure a 70-200 f/2.8L IS isn't even close to required for a beautiful dance shots. If it is, somebody forgot to tell Rutt.

ScottMcLeod

HeldDown wrote:

Scott and I are both semi-professional Performing Arts photographers. The only thing keeing the "semi"there is the face we're still at school.
Trust me, I've shot a lot of theatre and dance, and I've never yearned for IS. Some of the best theater shots I ever took were with the kit lens. I'm quite sure a 70-200 f/2.8L IS isn't even close to required for a beautiful dance shots. If it is, somebody forgot to tell Rutt.

Agreed. My best shots originally came from my 50mm f/1.8 and my Kitt.

Chase

HeldDown wrote:

Scott and I are both semi-professional Performing Arts photographers. The only thing keeing the "semi"there is the face we're still at school.
Trust me, I've shot a lot of theatre and dance, and I've never yearned for IS. Some of the best theater shots I ever took were with the kit lens. I'm quite sure a 70-200 f/2.8L IS isn't even close to required for a beautiful dance shots. If it is, somebody forgot to tell Rutt.

Its definately not required. It just improves my keeper percentage dramatically......mostly cause where i shoot dance i typically get anything from iso 1600 f2.8 1/60th to maybe 1/250th if I am lucky.....its a dungeon, and IS and a fast zoom lens really help when you are trying to get good shots of all 20 dancers on stage. I am still in school as well ( just going to college this next year), and I somehow justified it to myself after renting one.

wxwax

70-200 is such a great lens to have, you'll love it. It can do all sorts of fun things.

ScottMcLeod

Chase wrote:

Its definately not required. It just improves my keeper percentage dramatically......mostly cause where i shoot dance i typically get anything from iso 1600 f2.8 1/60th to maybe 1/250th if I am lucky.....its a dungeon, and IS and a fast zoom lens really help when you are trying to get good shots of all 20 dancers on stage. I am still in school as well ( just going to college this next year), and I somehow justified it to myself after renting one.

You're carrying about... 7000$CDN of Camera equipment, and you're not even in college yet?

Catto

IS or not IS? That IS the question...

Chase wrote:

The IS is really worth every penny when it comes to stage and dance photography...

I'm with Chase on this one, I have to say - okay, of course the IS doesn't help ALL that much if your subject is moving too fast for the shutter speed anyway, but it does mean you can get a solid sharp shot at 1/80th (if not less), handheld at 200mm. And if they ARE moving, it helps with smooth panning too!

I had the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L for a couple of years, before I went up to the IS version; and apart from the famous IS / body lockups, which do happen, there's no way I'd trade it for anything. In fact I really wish for IS in all my other lenses as well - just like I wish the 1DMkII had eye-control focus, like my EOS3 used to...

Anyway, that's my opinion - as Chase said, it increases my keepers dramatically, and instead of them being 'pretty sharp, considering the situation', I can count the eyelashes on my subject - even with a 1.4x teleconvertor, and handheld.

That's actually the only downside of it - your standard of what's a keeper goes up, too!
R

p.s. example - http://www.catto.co.nz/festival06/index.php?img=6 - 1/60th at 135mm, handheld, and a moving target. (He's on a rising scissorlift.)

Chase

ScottMcLeod wrote:

You're carrying about... 7000$CDN of Camera equipment, and you're not even in college yet?

Nope. I am going to Pepperdine in the fall. My parents bought me my first 300d and a tamron 28-300 2 years ago for christmas. I have paid for all my equipment through photo work since then.....with more on the way hopefully (17-55 IS, 580ex, and a telephoto flash bracket for night game field sports)