What lens? Photo geeks wanted please :)

[Wick]

I need to extend my range and have come up with 3 strong contenders at various prices.

Currently shooting with a 450D but have nothing over 50mm which I find quite limiting.

1. Canon 70-200 F4.0 L (the non IS one)
2. Sigma 70-200 F2.8 APO EX DG - My head says go with this one, not sure I'll see any benefit by going for the "L" and the ability to shoot at 2.8 is very appealing!
3. Canon 85mm prime F1.8

What would you have, and why?

At present I have the kit 18-55mm and a 50mm 1.8.

I'll also be looking to ditch my kit lens soon, so if you have any alternative that you'd like to throw in the mix as a walkabout lens feel free (the 24-70 2.8 jumps to mind).

Any help greatly appreciated...

Sam

 

[SamP]

Im not a huge fan of my 24 - 70. Get the 85 1.8 and save money for mroe primes!

 

[Wick]

Looks like a great portrait/wedding lens, but I still think I may lack reach over the other two...

Constantly changing lenses is hassle lol but I do appreciate the function that primes serve for low cost high aperture, exactly why I love my fifty so much!

 

[unofficialPete]

What are you shooting?

I used to have a 10-22, 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 f4, covered pretty much everything!

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

70-200 is a great wedding lens. 70mm is pretty wide, but that's on full frame which I assume you're not? I use a Nikon 70-200 a lot, partly because its razor sharp too!

If you're not on full frame, then 70-200mm would become quite an awkward focal range.

 

[JamesBryan]

70-200 is a great wedding lens. 70mm is pretty wide, but that's on full frame which I assume you're not? I use a Nikon 70-200 a lot, partly because its razor sharp too!

If you're not on full frame, then 70-200mm would become quite an awkward focal range.

He's not on full frame Dan, It's a 450D.

As said though... What are you shooting?
If you have an f/1.8 i wouldn't get the Sigma 85mm unless you're after quality glass.

I've got the Canon 70-200mm and i can say it is a nice lens to use and the images are great.

 

[Wick]

I'd like to start shooting sports and also have a bit more range for day to day use. Regularly go out and take the camera but find I cant get sharp images at any considerable distance (balloons, moon, wildlife, etc...). Just starting to get into photography a bit more seriously and my last holiday I was on, I had the opportunity to snap animals and dolphins etc... But they were just out of reach with the 55mm even after a pp crop.

Dan - The 450D is not full frame, I believe that uses a crop factor of x1.6. Although I have no experience of old 35 film cameras so the phrase is unfamiliar to me, despite understanding the basic concept behind the terminology.

Also want to avoid getting a general cheap 100-300 etc... As I know I will get annoyed with the performance under low light....

 

[JamesBryan]

Sounds like you need a telephoto lens then...

I'd personally go for the Canon 70-200, they're around £479 at the minute where as the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is like £900+ isn't it?

as for the 1.6x crop factor, it basically means the 70-200mm is effectively a 112mm-320mm. On a full frame 70mm IS 70mm and so on.

 

[Wick]

Two variations....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B001046ES2/?tag=cliospnet01-21

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-200mm-Canon-Digital-Conventional/dp/B003HC8V9A/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

And debating a last minute bid on this... Bargain but not enough time to get any details on it...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/250921460966?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649#ht_500wt_898

(No stealing people lol)

EDIT: Passed on that ebay one... I was expecting it to finish between 170-180!

 

[JamesBryan]

The first link is a Macro lens! You don't want that one

 

[SamP]

I'd personally go for the Canon 70-200, they're around £479 at the minute where as the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is like £900+ isn't it?

as for the 1.6x crop factor, it basically means the 70-200mm is effectively a 112mm-320mm. On a full frame 70mm IS 70mm and so on.

Yes, but 479 quid is for the F4 non IS version, which compared to the 2.8 IS Sigma is about 5 stops (effectively) slower.

The first link is a Macro lens! You don't want that one

Its still a good lens. Hell, the Canon 100L macro is one of the best lenses Canon make for portraiture and thats a macro...

 

[Wick]

The first link is a Macro lens! You don't want that one

Can anyone shed some light on this? I thought macro just meant it was capable of focusing at a shorter distance (typically <.80m) or am I wrong on that?

If that's the case is it no good whatsoever for telephoto use?

 

[capturedbyjames]

Can anyone shed some light on this? I thought macro just meant it was capable of focusing at a shorter distance (typically <.80m) or am I wrong on that?

If that's the case is it no good whatsoever for telephoto use?

I used a Sigma 70-200 macro for motorsport and it was fine. You'll be alright...

 

[JamesBryan]

As long as it's got an Ultrasonic/Hyper Sonic autofocus motor it'll be fine.

 

[SamP]

Macro generally just means it can do 2:1/1:1 magnification.

 

[Wick]

Thanks for the input everyone. So the macro is a contender as doing a bit of both... (Read up on it tonight and some say it's fine to shoot telephoto, others say Macro/Telephoto is chalk and cheese).

Still torn, the F4L looks like a decent bit of kit but the non IS is putting me off slightly.

 

[SamP]

Any reason you're stuck to those 3 lenses?

 

[Wick]

I used a Sigma 70-200 macro for motorsport and it was fine. You'll be alright...

Just Flickr'd. Some really great shots. Loving the gravel tossed up by the Focus and Subaru!! Hope you don't mind me sharing but this at full size is just fantastic!!

700_0468.jpg by capturedbyjames, on Flickr

 

[dunganick]

Non IS is no issue at all for sports/motorsports.

The 70-200 F4 would be my choice.

The Sigma is a fine lens, but typically Sigma lenses don't take teleconverters so well (even though its f2.8). They also depreciate more than Canon glass and tend to wear more due to the rubbish coating on the body of the lens (unless you get one of the very latest models).

The 70-200 F4 if bought used will not loose any money. It should hold a 1.4tc quite well too.

For what its worth... i would seriously consider the Sigma 100-300 F4. Still one of my favourite lenses i've ever owned.

Heres a 100-300F4 + canon 1.4xtc 1092187734_YXiQn-L-1.jpg

Straight up 100-300 615202409_WYA4M-L-3.jpg and 510240104_8ZDEo-L-2.jpg

Looking back at those makes me wish i had never sold it.

 

[Wick]

Any reason you're stuck to those 3 lenses?

Not at all. Seemed to tick all the boxes and fall within budget (few floating about second hand at reasonable proces). Would love a Canon 70-200 2.8 L, but dear god that's a pricey one! I'd also like to buy quality glass first time around. I am at a stage where although I am still very much a beginner (only shooting DSLR for just under a year now) I have really started to notice the poor performance of lower quality lenses.

 

[Wick]

Non IS is no issue at all for sports/motorsports.

The 70-200 F4 would be my choice.

The Sigma is a fine lens, but typically Sigma lenses don't take teleconverters so well (even though its f2.8). They also depreciate more than Canon glass and tend to wear more due to the rubbish coating on the body of the lens (unless you get one of the very latest models).

The 70-200 F4 if bought used will not loose any money. It should hold a 1.4tc quite well too.

For what its worth... i would seriously consider the Sigma 100-300 F4. Still one of my favourite lenses i've ever owned.

Heres a 100-300F4 + canon 1.4xtc 1092187734_YXiQn-L-1.jpg

Straight up 100-300 615202409_WYA4M-L-3.jpg and 510240104_8ZDEo-L-2.jpg

Looking back at those makes me wish i had never sold it.

You have my attention lol!! Very nice photos and certainly something to consider regarding the Canon quality and depreciation...

Edit: Additionally, I would welcome the suggestion of alternatives, if anyone else would care to share

 

[dunganick]

70-200 2.8 Non IS and a 1.4TC (this is what i shoot with mostly and its surprisingly effective)

Or on a budget. 70-200 F4 non IS and also a 300 F4 Non IS. These sell for about 350-400 on ebay (if you keep an eye out). There is a member on here with a shot of an Owl in flight that i think he used one of these for - it is a stunning shot.

I do love the Sigma, especially for cost effectiveness. But their QC is still not as good as Canons so you do have to check your getting a 'sharp one'.
On the upside their servicing is more realistic and better value, and the EX lenses have a 3 year warranty that they often honour once its expired.

 

[unofficialPete]

Just sold my very good condition F4 Non-IS for £320, the guy got a bargain! Great lens and as it was used mostly for sport, never really wished for IS.

 

[Wick]

Cheers guys. The non IS was the thing that was mainly throwing me, but I am now leaning towards the Canon 70-200 F4 if people are still shooting some decent stuff with it. I am watching a few on Ebay and will keep an eye on gumtree and TP classifieds!

No way I can stretch to a canon 2.8 unfortunately. But I think if I ever got to that stage, I'd probably upgrade the body lol. I can't see myself outgrowing the 450D for a good few years yet, so for the time being I'll be happy with some good quality reasonably priced glass