Posted: 6/13/2010 4:43:18 PM EDT
|
Well I have a Canon 50D with the 28-135mm kit lens. I want a EF 70-200 f2.8L lens but it is in the $1300-1500 price range. I could get a similar Sigma lens for way cheaper.
I guess my question is, Is the extra money spent on a Canon L lens money well spent? I have an Uncle who does photography work on the side and he has always told me "if your going to spend the $$$ do it on lens". I do plan a on a Sigma 150-500mm lens later for wildlife photo's but I am under the impression that the 70-200mm range is where alot of photographers spend there time with. I am currently attempting wildlife shots with the 28-135 and I cannot get the zoom I want, and any shots I take I have to crop them way down. |
|
I can't speak for Sigma lenses but I just bought a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 and it is very well made. I'm an amateur photographer and have no experience with other camera's or lenses so I bought it based on the opinion of some of the pro's here. I haven't had a chance to put some time behind it yet but the few pics I've taken impressed me. I bought mine from B&H. |
|
I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. It's an awesome lens. I never owned the original version, but I did test it side by side with the new version and the 200mm f/2.8L II (prime). That said, I would not get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. It is a bit soft and has chromatic aberration wide open, whereas the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is as sharp as the 200 f/2.8L II wideopen at 200mm.
If you want the extra reach, the 200mm f/2.8L II is an awesome alternative. Yes, it's a fixed focal length lens, but the quality of the glass is awesome, especially for the price: $770 new, currently. I'm not sure if the 70-200 you're looking at is the non IS version. I haven't used the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS, but I have tried out the 70-200 f/4L IS and non-IS and both of those are very sharp wide-open. The f/4L non-IS is about $650 and the f/4L IS is about the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS. Given the choice, I would probably take the 70-200 f/4L IS over the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS, at the same price. If I needed the extra stop of light / faster shutter speed, I would probably just bump the ISO (and your 50D should be decent at higher ISO). I think the IS on the 70-200 will be vital when used for portraits (handheld). As far as the 70-200 Sigma, the one known issue is the quality of the coating on the actual lens barrel. Sigmas are notorious for paint flaking. This doesn't hurt image quality, but it shows what kind of quality control you're getting. All in all, the 70-200 is a very good lens because of it's versatility. I love it on my 7D for wildlife/zoos and I love it on full frame for portraits (both indoors and outdoors). I think you'll be very happy with a lens in this focal range. I guess the main problem is picking which one to get. |
|
I forgot to mention its not just Sigma but Tamron also. Just wondering if the extra money for a Canon L lens is worth it. Im not going to be taking
photos for National Geographic anytime soon so im thinking that a non Canon lens will be fine. ETA: I think I should go out with my uncle one of these weekends and play around with his lens...  He is just such a Canon brand whore that it gets a little old sometimes....
|
|
My experience has differed from previous poster with the Mk1 version of the 70-200 2.8 IS. I don't have issues with softness or CA.
I'm not implying that it is up to par with the Mk2 version, but mine is in no way a slouch of a lens. I could just have a great copy, and/or he could have played around with a crappy copy... who knows. One thing I would advise you to consider is that f/2.8 or faster (smaller #) lenses will activate both horizontal and vertical contrast focusing on your center point. If your lens is slower (larger #) than 2.8, it will only use horizontal (or is it vertical?) contrast to focus, making it operate like the other focus points. If you plan on really working the autofocus in any way, that would be a major downside IMO to the f/4 version of the lens. If that doesn't bother you, there is also the 100-400L to consider. I have messed around at the camera shop with the non-canon lenses, and haven't felt any were complete junk... While I would still use only canon lenses myself, I think you'll still get pictures with Sigma (or other) brand lenses. You have to consider that there will likely be some drawbacks, but at the benefit of being able to buy more lenses. Whatever you do, at least stay a step or two above consumer lenses, if you think you will ever get very serious about photography. Features like larger aperture, FTMF (full time manual focus) and better build/durability will pay off in the long run. Good luck. |
|
Quoted:
My experience has differed from previous poster with the Mk1 version of the 70-200 2.8 IS. I don't have issues with softness or CA. I'm not implying that it is up to par with the Mk2 version, but mine is in no way a slouch of a lens. I could just have a great copy, and/or he could have played around with a crappy copy... who knows. While it is possible the MK I that I tested may have been a "bad copy", but it's improbable. I've got 100% crops posted on a mini-review here: http://www.ocabj.net/?p=791 I'm sure if I asked my coworker to bring it to the office again, it'll shoot good stopped down to f/4 through f/8. |
|
In short go canon "L" glass or go home.
The money IS well spent!!! Just buy one and see. You will not understand untill you do. Bird in flight? Feathers? How about counting tiny trailing hooks and vanes on the feathers. Woe, just wow! That is where the money goes. Kids are cute, female models are pretty. "L" glass let's you see every hair, sun spot and mole |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
My experience has differed from previous poster with the Mk1 version of the 70-200 2.8 IS. I don't have issues with softness or CA. I'm not implying that it is up to par with the Mk2 version, but mine is in no way a slouch of a lens. I could just have a great copy, and/or he could have played around with a crappy copy... who knows. While it is possible the MK I that I tested may have been a "bad copy", but it's improbable. I've got 100% crops posted on a mini-review here: http://www.ocabj.net/?p=791 I'm sure if I asked my coworker to bring it to the office again, it'll shoot good stopped down to f/4 through f/8. Well it's one of three things: either your copy was soft/not focusing accurately, my copy is superb, or our definitions of "soft" do not jive. Here are two taken @ 2.8, actual pixels and saved for web. From a 5d2. 
This is pixel peeping... and I still wouldn't consider (what is actually in focus) to be soft. If you're needing to crop so much you are using actual pixels on a 5D2, you are either using too short of a lens, or should move up to medium format, IMO. |
|
Quoted:
Another question. What lens do most of you use the most? I am guessing for me it would be the 70-200 but maybe not. It will be used mostly for wildlife, cityscape and shots of my daughters playing soccer. If you stuck a gun to my head and told me I could only keep/use one lens... for the way ::I:: shoot, it would be the 70-200 without a doubt. I shoot full frame, so it is a good chunk wider than it would be on a 1.6x crop sensor. That might make a difference in my answer, as 112mm (equivelant) is a pretty zoomed in "wide" side of the lens. There are jobs/projects where I don't even touch the 70-200, so it's by no means an end-all-be-all do everything lens. It's just my most used lens for the way I shoot. For wildlife, I slap on a 1.4x, and it is still pretty lacking most of the time... however most sports I find that combo (or just the lens without the TC) to be sufficient. |
|
Best bang for the buck IMHO for Canon L glass is the 70-200 F4 L...
It is a sweet lens and if you shoot mostly outdoors you won't miss the F2.8 (I never have). It's also very lightweight and easy to handle offhand. God, it's a sweet, sweet piece of glass...I have gotten some incredible pictures from it 
With optics, you get what you pay for....pony up for the good glass and you won't regret it. Invest in a good set of lenses then all you have to worry about is upgrading camera bodies. |