New here, first post.. be gentle. Advice needed.

[Xanctum]

Hello everyone.. just found this site and thought I would post my first thread. First off a tad bit of background and list: 60D, Tam 17-50 2.8 VC, 50 1.8, 100mm F2, Nissin Di622 II Flash. Been shooting with intent for around 1 year. Loved photography for many years.

My current dilemna that needs some input:

I just sold off some gear and other stuff and have about $1600 for a nice lens. This lens will put me at ease for a while and make me happy (In relative terms that is). I am wanting a nice lens to shoot mainly street photos, my kids, portraits and stills. My current 100 F2 is an awesome lens but I get quite frustrated when using it due the long focal length. It's my best lens and it doesn't serve me well in a lot of situations due to the length.

What I have been pondering is the Sigma APO 70-200 2.8 EX DG OS HSM. I have wanted a Canon 70-200 2.8 mark 1 for some time but the whole white lens puts me off not to mention the pricetag that comes with it. I see from Expert infotech I can snag a Sigma for roughly $1650 and have heard a lot of good things about it. One of the only bad things I have heard is that it is soft at 2.8. I have contimplated the Canon F4 IS but am worried it won't be fast enough and the bokeh and subject standing out will not be there. So, do I buy the Sigma at $1650, the F4 at about $1500, or do I throw a spanner in it and look at the 24-70 2.8?

Thanks for reading and good to be here

[rjd]

Hi , welcome to HP!

Forget the 24-70L - it wont offer you anything over the 17-50f2.8 that a few steps forward will.

You say the length of the 100/2 is a problem, then talk about a 70-200.

What is wrong with the 100/2 length? (I assume focal length!) is it too short, too long, not flexable enough?

From what I understand the sigma 70-200f2.8 OS is overall a better lens than the 70-200f2.8 canon, though its a close call.
It should be sharp enough at 2.8 , though not prime sharp.

You can get subject isolation with the f4 version but it takes some effort (i.e. closer subject, further away background etc.

Have you considered the 50/1.4 or 135L?

[rjd]

Ah your in Chc. If your able to we can catch up and you can try y 70-200f2.8?

[Xanctum]

I thought that was the case about the 24-70.. too much overlap. The 100 F2 is not flexible enough for me especially with my kids. I love the portraits the 100mm delivers, but I would like something a bit more flexible. Currently the 100mm is a tad too long. I have considered the options you have mentioned, but thought the 70-200 would be better fit for the gear I have.

[rjd]

Well the 70-200 is certainly a good all rounder.

You can shoot the 100/2 ad 2.8 and see what the subject isolation is like (note 200/2.8 has less dof than 100/2 for the same subject distance etc).

[randomguy]

Welcome!

Looking at your gear, 50/1.8 may be too slow for the kids while 100/2 might be too long.

Perhaps a 50/1.4 (sigma or canon) would be a better lens to consider rather than a telephoto zoom.

135/2L is in your budget but that is very long too (though very fast and sharp)

[Xanctum]

Well the possibility of getting a F4L IS and then having enough money to throw at a 50 1.4 is an intriging option?

[rjd]

Remember IS only helps with camera movement not subject movement... for that you still need shutter speeds...

The f4 (and IS variant)'s main advantage is low weight and small size vs the f2.8's

[BlueRose]

I am happy to rave about the 70-200 F4 IS all over the place, but I think its possibly not quite the best fit for what is required I am wanting a nice lens to shoot mainly street photos, my kids, portraits and stills.

Im going to propose the 17-55 mm F2.8 - its got a lot of flexibility, its fantastic glass, its got the 2.8 for low light, its lower profile and less obvious for street/kid work and I think its within the budget, and if it isnt Tamron and Sigma both do nice versions of it.

The big problem with the 70-200 is the working focal distance, mine is around a metre and a half from memory, not too flexible for indoor kid shots, and the 2.8 is HEAVY and big. I would also propose you throw your $100 at a 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty as it is a cheap fast useful piece of glass to play with, yes the 1.4 is better, but I found in really poor light neither were any better than each other (and I found the 1.4 hunted a bit with focus accuracy in average light too)

[rjd]

He already has a 17-50f2.8VC...

[BlueRose]

DOH! missed that bit - brain not yet adjusted to daylight savings

In that case then yes, TOTALLY consider the 70-200 F4 or 2.8 - the F4 is a lot lighter and smaller and I absolutely adore mine. The bokeh not quite as nice as the 2.8 but that doesnt mean it doesnt do the trick - here are some examples taken with my 70-200 F4 IS - all birds handheld (and the shot of the shag was in a howling easterly)

[Xanctum]

I do have the 50mm 1.8. I find the AF slow and noisy, but can get over it with some great shots. My Tamron is growing on me. I do wish the AF was faster, but hey, it's a great mid range lens. I think I may go for the Canon F4L IS for 1550 as seen on http://einfo.co.nz/shop/lens-canon-c...612d1b932139ea . From the real life shots I have looked at, it seems a winner. Those are some great shots...I may just get it

[sooshee]

...list: 60D, Tam 17-50 2.8 VC, 50 1.8, 100mm F2, Nissin Di622 II Flash. Been shooting with intent for around 1 year. Loved photography for many years.
.....I am wanting a nice lens to shoot mainly street photos, my kids, portraits and stills.

Hi welcome to this forum! Sorry if I am missing something but is looks like you have all the focal lengths covered for your needs. Unless you are referring to "sniper" style of street photography where you need the longer focal length of 70-200mm zoom. Even so, the 100mm on a crop sensor is plenty for that style of shooting. IMHO, if you are a relative newbie, adding another lens to your collection will add complexity which you don't need. Less lens = less decisions to make.

Personally, I would consider replacing the Tammy 17-50 with the Canon 17-55mm which is much higher quality glass. It has also much quicker/more silent AF than the 50 f1.8. I use the 17-55 for 99% of my street photography shots.

[riley989]

Hi welcome to this forum! Sorry if I am missing something but is looks like you have all the focal lengths covered for your needs. Unless you are referring to "sniper" style of street photography where you need the longer focal length of 70-200mm zoom. Even so, the 100mm on a crop sensor is plenty for that style of shooting. IMHO, if you are a relative newbie, adding another lens to your collection will add complexity which you don't need. Less lens = less decisions to make.

Personally, I would consider replacing the Tammy 17-50 with the Canon 17-55mm which is much higher quality glass. It has also much quicker/more silent AF than the 50 f1.8. I use the 17-55 for 99% of my street photography shots.

I think calling the Sigma 70-200 soft is a bit of a stretch, It's been plenty sharp enough for me, and synthetic tests I've seen give it a better sharpness center frame, then the twice as expensive canon 70-200.

Weather you need the canon 70-200 F4 or the sigma 70-200 F2.8 probably comes down to if you need that extra stop of light, or would you rather have a smaller/lighter and weather sealed lens (your body probably isnt weather sealed).

[rjd]

I had an old sigma 70-200f2.8 EX HSM APO and it was plenty sharp at 200/2.8, the new OS one is better.

[Xanctum]

Sorry if I am missing something but is looks like you have all the focal lengths covered for your needs.

Yes I do have the range covered, but the 100 prime isn't "flexible" enough for me. For example, we went to a pony party birthday party and the kids on the farm were back and forth so much keeping the 100mm on wasn't going to work, but then the 50 wouldn't reach at times when I wanted it to. Another example is at the park, while I can get most photos of my kids without problem there are times I want to get them acting natural and not posing or hiding from dad with his camera again and the 50mm isn't ideal. I do like the idea of replacing my Tamron with the much much better 17-55, but that will have to come later.

After sleeping on it I think I will go with the Sigma over the F4 due to it being faster and newer.

[Russ]

Tokina make a 50-135/f2.8 I think: http://www.photowarehouse.co.nz/tokina/

[rjd]

Sigmas 50-150f2.8 OS is kinda out too. Though its so large and expensive you may as well buy the 70-200....

[sooshee]

I think calling the Sigma 70-200 soft is a bit of a stretch, It's been plenty sharp enough for me, and synthetic tests I've seen give it a better sharpness center frame, then the twice as expensive canon 70-200.

I didn't make any comments about the sigma!

[rjd]

The bokeh not quite as nice as the 2.8 but that doesnt mean it doesnt do the trick

Also note that the IS system when active can cause poorer looking bokeh. Better than having a blury image though.

[Adam]

Have you considered replacing the Tamron with a Canon 15-85 IS? It's a stop slower but it is a great lens (my wife has one on her 40d). Its much better than the older 17-85 IS.

[rjd]

2 stops slower... ? I guess at 50mm it is f4.5?

[Xanctum]

Wow, this forum is pretty awesome.. been lurking some other posts and see some really friendly helpful advice.

Back on topic though,

I haven't really considered the 15-85. As it is reputed to be a great lens, I don't think I am a huge fan of the 3.5-5.6 variable aperature. I would want the 17-50 Sigma or 17-55 more so then the 15-85. I could probably sell my Tamron and 50 1.8 for roundabout 500-550 then get a 17-55 and a Sigma with only having to spend 400 out of pocket. But then I may cry inside a bit having no primes to play with. I know I want the world now but my patience level doesn't match my wallet level. I have figured out though that I don't need a wide angle lens as I never shoot wide.. maybe a handful of shots in the past 6 months were in the 20mm range. As well as that, I know I like the 150-200 range with my kids and sit well in the 35-80 range as well with them.

So in conclusion, I am a bit stirred up in the pot of lenses...