Needing a faster lens

AprilRamone · Apr 8, 2007

Hey Guys,
So far, I've been able to get away with using my 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 Canon lens for my portrait and even some wedding work. However, now that I'm delving into more weddings, I know that I'm going to need a faster lens. I have been looking at the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 lens which is quite a bit pricier. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=264304&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
But it sounds wonderful.

But, Sigma offers a similar lens for half the price. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=350968&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Do you think the image quality taken with the Sigma would be so horrible that I couldn't get away with using it? Obviously, I'd rather keep using a Canon lens, but I'm afraid I just can't afford the more expensive one at the moment. But, I could get the cheaper one and then upgrade once I could afford it.

Or, do you have other suggestions for a good fast lens?

Any advice much appreciated!
-April

Don Simon · Apr 9, 2007

The image quality with the Sigma certainly won't be horrible (if it was they wouldn't be successfully selling it at that price

) but I suspect it won't be at its best at f/2.8... but still you will be able to shoot at f/2.8, and when shooting at f/4 surely you'll get better results than with the f/3.5-f/4.5. No doubt Sigmas are noisier and don't feel or handle as nicely as the Canons... but like you said, it's half the price!

As for other suggestions, I believe Tamron and Tokina offer something similar. P.s. when you say a good fast lens I assume you mean a good fast zoom?

Big Mike · Apr 9, 2007

I think I was discussing this with someone last week. The top of the line Canon 'L' lenses are great...the best you can get for your camera. But they are expensive.

You can get a Sigma (Tamron etc) lens that is just as fast for about half the price. There are a few differences between the two. Canon L lenses are built like tanks and some of them are weather sealed...although the Sigma is probably pretty good. The image quality is higher with the Canon...but it's not twice as good.

With this in mind, the Sigma has a better price to performance ratio...which makes it a smart purchase. On the other hand, there is something to be said for having the very best tool for the job.

Mike_E · Apr 9, 2007

Check pbase.com and photosig.com . They both have photos listed by lens so that you can compare.

mike

EOS_JD · Apr 9, 2007

What camera do you use? A great 2 lens budget purchase for weddings would be Tamron 17-50f2.8 and a Sigma 70-200f2.8 - with 2 bodies you can have one on each.

Use a couple of fast primes for lower light and as backup - 50mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.8.

JD

AprilRamone · Apr 9, 2007

Thanks for the advice everyone!

I have been really pleased with my 24-85mm Canon lens so far. It's been a really great all round lens, but it's just not fast enough for what I'm going to need. So, that's why I was drawn to the 24-70 mm 2.8 lens. I thought it would perform similarly and be much better in low light situations where I can't use my flash.

MikeE, thank you for those websites, I will be heading over there shortly

Overall, it sounds like I can get away with using the Sigma for a short while and then upgrade as soon as I can afford it. In the meantime, I'm sure that even though the Sigma might not perform as well at the 2.8 it'll still be better than my current lens which rarely is able to open up past 5.6

Big Mike · Apr 9, 2007

I have been really pleased with my 24-85mm Canon lens so far. It's been a really great all round lens, but it's just not fast enough for what I'm going to need. So, that's why I was drawn to the 24-70 mm 2.8 lens. I thought it would perform similarly and be much better in low light situations where I can't use my flash.

It wouldn't perform similarly...it would be much better. Not only is it a faster lens...but the color and contrast that it renders...are much better than almost any other Canon lens. On the down side, it's a monster...it's big and heavy.

The Sigma is also a good choice, let us know how it goes.

Digital Matt · Apr 9, 2007

I don't think it makes sense to spend $400 of the $1200 you need for the Canon lens. You might as well just buy the Sigma and forget about the Canon then. If I were on a budget, I'd save for the Canon L, because it is the best choice, and buy a 50mm prime in the meantime. You do not need a zoom lens. Yes they come in handy, but if you cannot afford a pricey zoom, then use your feet, and a $75 50mm f/1.8 while you save.