Needing a faster lens

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by AprilRamone, Apr 8, 2007.

  1. AprilRamone

    AprilRamone TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,280
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Denver
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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
     
  2. Don Simon

    Don Simon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  3. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,817
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  4. Mike_E

    Mike_E No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,327
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    The Upper West Side of Mississippi (you have no i
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Check pbase.com and photosig.com . They both have photos listed by lens so that you can compare.

    mike
     
  5. EOS_JD

    EOS_JD TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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
     
  6. AprilRamone

    AprilRamone TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,280
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Denver
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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
     
  7. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,817
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  8. Digital Matt

    Digital Matt alter ego: Analog Matt

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,346
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     

Share This Page