In the market for a new lens.

rojoloco · Dec 29, 2013

I've been researching new lenses and I stumbled across this forum so I thought I'd join. I have a Canon Rebel XS with the standard 18-55 right now. While it can take some decent pictures, I am certainly felt unsatisfied in many situations. First, I hate how it can't zoom in far enough to get anything far away. Second, I hate how it performs horribly in low light situations. While it would solve most of my problems, unfortunately, I can't afford the 70-200 2.8 IS. However, I've been looking at the 70-200 f/4 lens. I know this won't help in low light at all but I think it'll be nice with zoom. I've also heard the quality is well above the 75-300 lens. For low light, I was thinking of the 50 f/1.4 as I've heard nothing but good things. However, this will leave me hanging when I try to zoom since I won't be able to.

My main purposes are landscapes, car shows, wildlife, and indoor/outdoor sports events. I'm assuming most of my needs would be met between the 2 lenses except for indoor sports or twilight zoom. Am I correct in this assumption? I have a budget of about $600 and was eyeballing some used lenses on keh.com. Of course, if anybody has another recommendation, I'd be more than happy to hear it. Thanks!

justinmartin · Dec 29, 2013

I was in the same spot many years ago and decided to go the used route and found a 50 1.4 and a 28-135 to be a decent starting point before heavily investing in my glass. I was able to get them both for in and around $600 for both.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm

wyogirl · Dec 29, 2013

you can get a Tamron brand 70-200 2.8 (non IS version) for about $700 new, not sure about used. And I like the Canon 50mm 1.8, as its only about $100 and has tested as sharper than the 1.4

Personally I would rather have a faster Tamron lens than a slower Canon lens

im2c0ol · Dec 29, 2013

May also consider 35mm f2 on the crop body. I myself have a lot of troubles with the 50mm f1.4 indoors on 5DMKII. So I just ordered a 24-70mm f2.8 mainly for indoor plus outdoor.

I just sold the 70-200mm f4. It's a great lens for outdoor, very sharps. You can't go wrong with it. As for 28-135mm it's nice and as sharp bit a bit heavier. Although it's a nice lens, but I know you probably need a longer reach. You should able to get a decent condition used on craigslist for less than $500.

Smokeyr67 · Dec 29, 2013

I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (old non IS version) and I've been extremely happy with it for over 10 years, so it would be worth looking at a second hand one IMO.

grafxman · Dec 29, 2013

I've taken thousands of photos indoors and outside with Sigma's 18-250mm on my 7D. It's done everything I've ever wanted in a general purpose, spontaneous photography walk around lens. Most of the photos in these sets: Henry Plant Museum - a set on Flickr, Mel Fisher Maritime Museum - a set on Flickr, Audubon House - a set on Flickr, East Martello Museum - a set on Flickr, were taken with that lens. Other sets have hundreds and hundreds of photos taken with that lens. It focuses pretty good in low light. Many of the photos in the Henry Plant Museum set were shot in near total darkness. if you check the EXIF information you will that long shutter speeds and high ISOs were required for some of the shots in that particular set. Taking a photo in low light requires practice and some skill. Tuck your elbows in tight against your ribs. Spread your legs a little bit. Take a breath then exhale about half way. Then snap the photo. If your camera will allow it, set it up to use the back focus button only. That way you focus with that button and then the scene is in focus so it won't try to refocus when the shutter button is depressed. Hope this helps. Good luck.

rojoloco · Dec 29, 2013

I hadn't even heard of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I see I can get a used one for $100 more than a used Canon 70-200 f/4. I read a few reviews and they said the lower f-stop was a bit less clear and didn't clear up until around 4 anyway. Has anyone else experienced this? While I would love 2.8 capabilities, I don't want to sacrifice lens quality if the extra stops aren't all that. Know what I mean?

Smokeyr67 · Dec 29, 2013

I can only say that I'm very happy with the performance of mine from 2.8 up, that's being used with film and APS-C

wyogirl · Dec 29, 2013

A lot of the "lack of sharpness" is from shooting wide open, hand held at the longest focal length... which will happen no matter the lens. I'm not saying it will be as sharp as an L lens, I'm just saying that if you use it correctly, it should be more than satisfactory. I believe the Tamron ranks just a tad bit higher than the Sigma for this particular lens, but I'm sure its 6 to one, half dozen to the other .

rojoloco · Dec 30, 2013

Okay, I'm getting closer to my decision. It's really between these 3 lenses:

1) Canon 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). I can get one for about $450.

2) Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I can get one for about $800. Is the IS really worth the extra $350 though?

3) Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I do love the idea of 2.8 capabilities as I stated earlier. I can get one for about $550. Unfortunately, it just isn't quite the same quality as an "L" series lens.

I'll be making a sacrifice regardless which lens I go with. I'll either be sacrificing 2.8 capabilities, IS, or money. I think, based on my budget, it has to come down to one of these three. If I get option #2, I won't be able to get a 50mm. If I get option #1, I can get that and the 50mm. If I go option #3, I could possibly still get the 50mm but I just can't seem to wonder if I'll regret not getting the L series lens.

trojancast · Dec 31, 2013

Always, always, always get the IS lens. Here endith the lesson

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

rojoloco · Dec 31, 2013

I think I might go outside and take some comparison shots on my 18-55. Maybe shoot some shots with IS on and turned off. I know IS will be more crucial on a 70-200 but it should give me an idea of how stable I can be without IS. If I can't handle 55mm, there's no hope of any further. However, if there's no noticeable difference, I may be able to save $350 I wasn't prepared to spend.

wyogirl · Dec 31, 2013

Most people can hand hold (without IS) at 1/30, so to me, IS is only helpful at super slow shutter speeds when I would use a tripod anyway. I hardly ever find myself in a situation where I need to hand hold at less than 1/50 so to me, IS is not crucial.

(someone correct me if I'm wrong) but the nifty 50 (50mm 1.8) doesn't have IS and I use that all the time with no issue what so ever. Also, its only $100... just a FYI.

Although as a second thought, hand holding at 200mm would require a faster shutter speed, but I think I can probably hand hold that at about 1/80.... guess its all personal.

imagemaker46 · Dec 31, 2013

Keep saving until you can afford to buy a 70-200 2.8, the wait will be worth it, the lens is worth owning. For what you want, it will be the best lens you will ever own.

rojoloco · Dec 31, 2013

Amanda, I echo your reasoning. I rarely need to go below 1/30 and that is easily a handheld speed. I figure, if I have to go slower than that, I'm probably exceeding what I would use that lens for anyway (unless I had a tripod). Also, you are correct about the 50mm. There is no IS on it either. I'm still torn between the 1.4 and 1.8. I've read the 1.8 is slightly sharper at wider settings (though lacks the ability to hit 1.4) but that they are identical at the narrower range. I can get either one used for dirt cheap.