Switch to 70-200 2.8L IS or keep Sigma?

photobug

Fellow DGrinners,

I have a Sigma 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 EX OS APO lens, used on my Canon 20D. I've used it for various events, esp soccer games ... often at 300mm or more. I have to say that I have been quite pleased with its optical quality. Its autofocus could be faster, but that has rarely seemed to be an issue, in practice.

In a couple of months I'll be shooting at my daughter's dance recital in available (stage) lighting. Even though the stage lighting is fairly bright, when I last shot a dance recital of hers, I had to shoot 1/60 second at f/5.6 at ISO 1600 (at 135mm, on another lens). A faster shutter speed would certainly have helped, and the only way to get that appears to be faster glass (or new 1D mkIII at ISO 6400 :lust ... but given that's not in the cards...).

I've heard nothing but rave comments about the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens. That would provide a stop or two more light than the Sigma, probably a bit faster AF, and maybe a tad better image stabilization ... ahem, at a premium, of course. So I'm thinking about selling the Sigma and picking up the 2.8L IS.

I'm looking for comments from the gang re the tradeoffs here (aside from the obvious price differential). Would you see this change as a "no-brainer"? Or will I regret giving up the 200-400mm long end of the range (for outdoor shots)? (is a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter a reasonable option to recover that range, if I later feel the need -- despite the stop or two of light loss and softer image?)

Appreciate your comments!

Scott_Quier

I currently have both lenses and, for me, it would be a no-brainer! The 70-200 will give you 2 stops, the IS is a quantum level better in the EF than in the siggy and the AF is OMG better.

For indoor work, I think the 200 will be long enough, providing you aren't sitting in the nose-bleed section of the theater and it is just that much wider at the shorter end.

I believe, if you make the trade, you wont look back. I also think you may find that you will want to pick up the EF 100-400L sometime in the near future as I think "L" is addictive! I know I lust after the 1-4 and will be replacing my 80-400 Sigma sometime before the Glacier trip!

claudermilk

To me, it's a no-brainer as well. I have used the 70-200/2.8 IS in that situation many times and cannot imagine trying to use a 4.5-5.6 lens when even the 2.8 is challenged at times. The 200-400 would probably be missed at first, but most theaters aren't large enough to really make that loss hurt too much.

I would not bother with the TCs on that lens in low light. I tried the 2x and dropped that idea halfway through the first night once--results were that bad. On the flip side, I have seen decent results mainly with the 1.4 in nice bright daylight from some birders. Remember that you lose 1-2 stops on those, so it drops you right back to where you are on the Sigma, with the additional problem of extra optics to make things even worse.

Oh, and don't be afraid of bumping to 3200 on your 20D. Check my Dance galleries to see what it's capable of.

photobug

Scott_Quier wrote:

I currently have both lenses and, for me, it would be a no-brainer! The 70-200 will give you 2 stops, the IS is a quantum level better in the EF than in the Siggy and the AF is OMG better. ...I believe, if you make the trade, you wont look back.

Nothing like the voice of experience, from one who owns both lenses. Thanks very much, Scott!

For indoor work, I think the 200 will be long enough, providing you aren't sitting in the nose-bleed section of the theater and it is just that much wider at the shorter end.

I may not have been clear in my original posting (I'll fix that now), but I do not expect to use more than 200mm focal length for the indoor shots. The 300mm+ focal length would be for outdoor shots, e.g. soccer games.

I also think you may find that you will want to pick up the EF 100-400L sometime in the near future as I think "L" is addictive!

I don't expect being able to swing that any time soon ... so I was thinking (hoping?) that I might get by with the 70-200 plus a 1.4x teleconverter for the outdoor situations for quite a while.

photobug

claudermilk wrote:

To me, it's a no-brainer as well. I have used the 70-200/2.8 IS in that situation many times and cannot imagine trying to use a 4.5-5.6 lens when even the 2.8 is challenged at times.

OK, thanks for the feedback!

I would not bother with the TCs on that lens in low light.

No problem -- I was only thinking of using a TC for outdoor work.

...don't be afraid of bumping to ISO 3200 on your 20D. Check my Dance galleries to see what it's capable of.

OK ... I have been a bit shy of going that "last click", even though plug-ins like Neat Image and Noise Ninja can really help a lot with the high-ISO shots. (thanks for sharing your images!) I'll give that a try -- between ISO 3200 and f/2.8, I should be able to get up to quite useful shutter speeds for the dance performance .

Art Scott

Photobug,

If you can, if there is......a tech rehearsal (that being the final rehearsal before the recital) see if you can go and take some test shots to see how the lighting actually is so you don't have to guess at your settings....as this is a once iin a liftime event.....

Not sure how they do this for where she is at....at the University I used to work for...we would do full blown dance stage lighting.....front lighting , top lighting and tons of side lighting in all sort of colors (a lightng designer was normally hired to design the set) and then of course it all blended with the music.....
So if they have a tech rehearsal that would be a great opotuity for you to practice.

Good luck

The 70 - 200 2.8 is a great choice.

photobug

Shooting dress rehearsal

Art Scott wrote:

Iif there is......a tech[dress] rehearsal before the recital, see if you can go and take some test shots to see how the lighting actually is so you don't have to guess at your settings

Yes, there is a dress rehearsal, but I think it is held during my work hours :cry, 1/2 hour drive from my office, so it may be tough to get there. (And the head of the dance school is pretty strict/grumpy, so I'm not even sure she'd let me on stage for a minute even then.) I did especially want to go to the dress rehearsal so I could properly set a custom white balance, as that will be nearly impossible to do during the event (not aware of any neutral colors that will be present on-stage, so I'd like to shoot at least a white card on-stage.)

My experience from previous times is that standard mode settings (Av or Program) tend to overexpose the dancers -- probably due to the auto-exposure algorithms being thrown off by performers being brightly lit while the larger background is relatively dark. So I plan to use about -1EV exposure compensation next time.

The 70 - 200 2.8 is a great choice.

I'm getting very consistent feedback re that, so I guess now I'll "have to" do it ....

TeamSpeed

I have had both, currently I have the IS, but the Sigma is no slouch.

If you are curious between the two, I have 3 hockey albums on my site that you can look at. There is one album that is from the Sigma, and the other two are with the Canon IS. There is at least one 10-22 shot, but it should be very obvious which, and there is one or two Bigma shots in there too.

http://invisicord.com/studio/index.php?level=collection&id=1

Scott_Quier

photobug wrote:

I did especially want to go to the dress rehearsal so I could properly set a custom white balance, as that will be nearly impossible to do during the event (not aware of any neutral colors that will be present on-stage, so I'd like to shoot at least a white card on-stage.)

If my experience is anything to go by, I would bet that getting a decent custom white balance will be nearly impossible as the stage lighting may change from moment to moment. I tried that with a local production and ended up having to do the best I could in post. I'm just glad that I shoot in RAW, as setting color temperature in a JPG would have been very difficult.

Art Scott

photobug wrote:

Yes, there is a dress rehearsal, but I think it is held during my work hours :cry, 1/2 hour drive from my office, so it may be tough to get there. (And the head of the dance school is pretty strict/grumpy, so I'm not even sure she'd let me on stage for a minute even then.) I did especially want to go to the dress rehearsal so I could properly set a custom white balance, as that will be nearly impossible to do during the event (not aware of any neutral colors that will be present on-stage, so I'd like to shoot at least a white card on-stage.)

My experience from previous times is that standard mode settings (Av or Program) tend to overexpose the dancers -- probably due to the auto-exposure algorithms being thrown off by performers being brightly lit while the larger background is relatively dark. So I plan to use about -1EV exposure compensation next time.

I'm getting very consistent feedback re that, so I guess now I'll "have to" do it ....

For the Dress Rehearsal...You would not need to be on stage....I have alwaysshot my camera on Auto White Balance and just fixed it in ACR....

here is a link to my Portfolio with 2 shots from the last Dance Performance I worked at Wichita State U. ..... I was shooting the siggy 70-210 at iso 1600 f4.5 about 1/45 sec........since I was the sound engineer for the event I pretty much was just grabbing shots how ever they fell.....
This was also a test for my in camera anti shake and it performed really well I thought....

You shouldn't have too much trouble with over exposure shooting in aperture priority unless the lighting designer does something in either all white light or those really ugly yellows that just kills the looks of anyones skin........

Good Luck to you

claudermilk

Getting to dress/tech rehearsal if possible definitely helps a lot. Even no being able to get *on* stage, you can move around a bit & get close. If you shoot at the venue for a while & become known to the producer, they might eventually allow you on stage--I've gotten some fantastic shots that way that would be impossible from the norma back-of-the-theater shooting location.

For WB, I've found I have the best luck setting to the Kelvin mode & setting it to 3200 (approximately where stage tungstens are). This gives the proper feel from the gelled lights--I have noticed lighting techs REALLY like red gels and doing any radical WB correction in post throws the reds off first and worst. For example, this page was shot that way--note the radical lighting colors, little to no color correction was performed. Same thing with this page (ok, so I used the 300/2.8 on those , but the WB technique was the same & the client was blown away with the images)

photobug

Magic WB number for stage lighting = 3200K

claudermilk wrote:

If you shoot at the venue for a while & become known to the producer, they might eventually allow you on stage

This is a once-a-year event and the head of the dance studio is a lady known to be, let's just say, unyielding, so I don't hope to ever be allowed on-stage. If I was hired by the studio to shoot it (instead of just being a proud parent), I would have leverage to request an on-stage vantage point.

For WB, I've found I have the best luck setting to the Kelvin mode & setting it to 3200 (approximately where stage tungstens are).

Ahhhh, this is very helpful. In the absense of setting a true custom white balance (which is difficult in this situation), that sounds like "the ticket". THANKS, Chris!

For example, this page was shot that way--note the radical lighting colors, little to no color correction was performed. Same thing with this page (ok, so I used the 300/2.8 on those , but the WB technique was the same & the client was blown away with the images)

I can tell that some where shot wide-open, due to the shallow depth-of-field.

What ISO are you shooting at, and what kind of shutter speeds do you typically end up with?

salazar

photobug wrote:

My experience from previous times is that standard mode settings (Av or Program) tend to overexpose the dancers -- probably due to the auto-exposure algorithms being thrown off by performers being brightly lit while the larger background is relatively dark. So I plan to use about -1EV exposure compensation next time.

Here are a couple of shots taken recently at my local theatre. The first, with the grey background was shot at 0EV, the second, with the black background was shot at -2EV. I had to keep winding the exposure compensation back and forth as they moved in front of and away from the lighter background. These were shot at ISO 800 as I forgot to set it up to ISO 1600. This was a friend's Rebel XT I was using. Auto White balance on both.

#1

#2

claudermilk

photobug wrote:

This is a once-a-year event and the head of the dance studio is a lady known to be, let's just say, unyielding, so I don't hope to ever be allowed on-stage. If I was hired by the studio to shoot it (instead of just being a proud parent), I would have leverage to request an on-stage vantage point.

:giggle UNderstood. Even being allowed to hang out at tech & getting *close* to the stage is helpful.

Ahhhh, this is very helpful. In the absense of setting a true custom white balance (which is difficult in this situation), that sounds like "the ticket". THANKS, Chris!

No problem. Took me a while to figure this one out. I found that stage lighting is normally tungsten & its about 3000-3400K, so thought "DUH! Set the WB to that, dummy!"

I can tell that some where shot wide-open, due to the shallow depth-of-field.

What ISO are you shooting at, and what kind of shutter speeds do you typically end up with?

You can see the EXIF on those shots. They are all shot Av wide open (so at least f2.8 with the 70-200/2.8IS I normally use, but up to f1.2 when I can get my hands on an 85L), ISO is 3200--yes really. Shutter speed varies from about 1/40 at worst (IS and a steady hand is your friend) to up to about 1/500. You will note the first linked gallery I was on manual WB (set to 3200K) and on the second I was on auto; doh! Took longer to adjust in PP--and the color on some isn't as good as it could have been--I was just figuring out the cutom K settings about then.

dcyphert

Lens advice
I need some advice about my next lens purchase...I currently use basically two lenses, a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (a good walk-a-round/portrait lens) and a Canon 70-300 mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens with lens hood (mainly for outside sports in daylight). I was thinking of getting something that would be better in low light, especially at a High school night football game under the lights. I hear and read so much about 'L' series lenses, and even though they are expensive, I was considering this option. Can anyone give me some insight or experience with using these types of lenses, or any other suggested lens that would suit what I want.

jdryan3

dcyphert wrote:

...I currently use basically two lenses, a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (a good walk-a-round/portrait lens) and a Canon 70-300 mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens with lens hood (mainly for outside sports in daylight). I was thinking of getting something that would be better in low light, ...

I replaced the 28-135 with 24-70 f/2.8 L. Love it - keep it on the camera all most of the time. Search this site (many, many threads) re: the 24-70 vs the 24-105 f/4 IS debate. I highlighted 'low light' in your original post since I feel the f/2.8 will better serve you than the IS, especially in no flash situations.

I also used to have the 75-300 USM II, which I replaced with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (IS in this case is great!). Not cheap, but no regrets. For the extra reach, I added the 1.4x extender for a few hundred $$. As an FYI, I use these on the 5D.

claudermilk

Those two lenses are definitely too slow for low light shooting. Part of what you get with the L zooms is a constant f2.8, which helps both AF performance and shutter speed. These lenses are also built like tanks to withstand the heavy use they will endure in a professional setting. Finally, they typically have top-quality optics. Be warned, once you drink the "L" Kool-Aid there is no going back.

I have the 24-70, and have used several 70-200s (usually the f2.8IS, but also the older f4), and the monster 300/2.8IS. Every one of them has performed extremely well. The top of my to-buy list is the 70-200/2.8 (debating the IS right now--I know how nice it is, but it doesn't help stop subject motion).

I personally would not bother with a TC on the 70-200/2.8IS in low light. I've tried it and was VERY disappointed. In good lighting where you can stop down to the f8 range, things seem to be very different from examples I've seen, but IMHO it's not worth the reach at f2.8.

Some other options I would look at are Sigma's offerings. Some users say the 70-200 is nearly as good as Canon's. For longer reach, the 120-300/2.8 is very tempting, and I've seen pretty good reviews of it (it is on my "someday" list).