Trying to find a zoom that can handle both portraits and action.

Discussion in 'Canon Lenses' started by jamesgoff3600, Mar 12, 2018.

  1. jamesgoff3600

    jamesgoff3600 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2018
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello everyone!
    This is my first post here! :)
    I have a canon 80d and I have a 55-250 stm and a canon 70-300 is usm.
    I am looking into getting a lens so that I can take portraits and also be able to capture action, meaning fast focusing and accurate focus. I have been looking into the canon 70-200 f2.8 because I rented it and it was so much better than my current lenses! But what are your thoughts on the sigma 50-100 f1.8 vs a 70-200 f2.8 for a crop camera? I know the 70-200 is a workhorse but using it on a crop camera it's like an f4 lens so the bokeh won't be like it is on full frame. I know that I am losing the 100-200mm range with the sigma but with a 1.8 aperture in a zoom lens is tempting. It's equivalent to using an f2.8 lens on full frame and I've read that it's incredibly sharp.
    How would you compare these two lenses? Which do you think would be best for a crop camera? I do plan on eventually going full frame one day and the sigma is only efs mount, but I probably won't be buying full frame for a few years.
    Thanks!

    Sent from my [device_name] using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    41,574
    Likes Received:
    15,781
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The 50-100 is the only f/1.8 zoom I am aware of for a still camera. As such, it's beyond comparisons with common lenses like 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 zooms. At 50-100mm in length, the Sigma is also more-useful indoors or at close range than any 70-200 lens. One cannot compare a 50-100 f/1.8 with a 70-200, on a crop-freame body. One is MADE FOR APS-C...the 70-200 was never, ever "made for" APS-C, but is a holdover from the 24x36mm 35mm film era.
     
  3. ac12

    ac12 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    313
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Research the 50-100 lens, I've seen reports of focus issues with that lens. Some have the problem, others don't.
    This puts into question its reliability for accurate focusing.

    The 50-100 does not have IS, which I consider a requirement today, in any of my longer lenses that will be used hand-held.
    Without IS, you are back to relying on technique to stabilize the camera at lower shutter speeds.
    Is 100mm long enough that it needs IS? Depending on what you are shooting, the answer could be yes. For some, 100 is short enough that they can hold steady without IS. But if you are in LOW light, and down at 1/30 sec or slower, you will wish you had IS.

    Specifically, what kind of action photos are you talking about? And where are you vs the subject?
    The 50-100 will work for some sports and not for others.
    • Example1, the 50-100 would work on the soccer sidelines, but not well if you are up in the bleachers. In the bleachers, you need a longer lens because of the added distance from the bleachers to the sideline. But even on the sidelines, it does not have the reach to reach to the other side of the field.
    • Example2. It would probably work well for gym volleyball or basketball from the bleachers. A long enough reach to work from the bleachers, and fast enough to deal with the lower indoor lighting.
    But remember the old saying "jack of all trades, is a master of none."
    So don't expect it to do everything.
     
  4. jaomul

    jaomul Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,614
    Likes Received:
    1,504
    Location:
    Cork Ireland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Sigma used to do a 50-150mm f2.8 OS lens. Supposedly very good. Might fit the bill if you can find one used
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. tirediron

    tirediron Watch the Birdy! Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    42,344
    Likes Received:
    13,049
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    First of all, the "Crop factor" has nothing to do with aperture, so f2.8 is f2.8 is f2.8. A 50-100 f1.8 while fast, doesn't sound like an especially useful range to me, especially for sports work. You would also be working with razor-thin DoF which could make sharp images difficult to attain. Wide open at 25, and at 100mm your f1.8 lens is going to have about 1/4" total DoF whereas your 2.8 will have 2' 1"; over 40% more; when you're dealing with such a narrow range to begin with, 40% more is a lot (notwithstanding the fact that of course you can shoot the f1.8 at 2.8, but they why not just buy the 2.8 to begin with?).

    I can see it being an okay portrait lens, assuming the optics measure up, but for sports/action work? Pass.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. astroNikon

    astroNikon 'ya all Bananas I tell 'ya Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    13,561
    Likes Received:
    3,296
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    What's your budget ?? ... that's usually most people's limiting factor.
     
  7. TCampbell

    TCampbell Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    3,510
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Location:
    Dearborn, MI
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    John, the way crop-factor gets hooked into aperture is via depth of field calculations. It's technically based on the photographer's behavior.

    For purposes of calculating exposure, f/2.8 is f/2.8 is f/2.8. For purposes of calculating how much depth of field you get, there's a nuance where you multiply the focal ratio by the crop factor. But again... that's based on the presumption that a photographer will change their subject distance when using a crop-factor camera vs. a full-frame camera (assuming the same lens focal length).

    E.g. if you wanted to compose the frame for a certain physical size (say it's head & shoulders portrait). With a full-frame camera you'd stand at some distance to get that composition. With a crop-frame camera you'd stand a bit farther away to get the same composition. When you step farther away to achieve the composition, the DoF increased and that means the amount of background blur decreased.

    How much did the blur decrease? It turns out... mathematically if you multiply the aperture by the crop-factor... you get the same DoF.

    E.g. if I got a certain amount of blur at 200mm & f/2.8 with a full frame camera, then use that same 200mm & f/2.8 with a crop-frame camera then the blur is reduced. The reduced blur in the crop-frame camera at f/2.8 will match what a full-frame lens would have done if I multiplied the true focal ratio by the crop-factor (in this case, f/2.8 x 1.6 = f/4.5).

    Here's a YouTube video that demonstrates how it works (with real photos):

     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. ac12

    ac12 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    313
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yes, the 50-150 DX is a more practical sport lens, similar to a 70-200 on a FX/FF camera.
    Unfoturnately, the VR version seems to have be built in a 70-200 f/2.8 shell, so there was no savings of bulk or weight.
    Then Sigma discontinued it. DRAT
     
  9. jamesgoff3600

    jamesgoff3600 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2018
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually yes, crop factor does affect the perceived aperature. The amount of light coming into the lens and hitting the sensor will be the same on both full frame and crop at the same aperture but on crop the depth of field won't be as narrow as on full frame at the same aperture. To find out what aperture it's equivalent to you have to multiply the aperture by the crop factor 1.6 for canon to find what the depth of field will be. The light coming in will remain the same.
     
  10. jamesgoff3600

    jamesgoff3600 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2018
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well I can't get both! :) but around $1,000 the sigma is $1,099 and I can find a used 70-200 f2.8 for around $999
     
  11. jamesgoff3600

    jamesgoff3600 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2018
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thanks for replying to that! That's the same video I was thinking about too!
     
  12. ac12

    ac12 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    313
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit


    This has been a bug of mine for a while.
    The 70-200 on a DX/crop camera is a bit too long on the short end. You can always crop into a pix, but you can't get more than what the camera took. And this class of lens went from 80-200 to 70-200, so the short end got shorter to give a wider view. Put it on a DX/crop body and you go narrower.
    The old Sigma 50-150 was a DX version of the 70-200, but then Sigma discontinued it. A smaller/lighter version 2 of the VR model would have been a GREAT lens.
    The current Sigma 50-100 gives up the extra 50mm on the long end for a wider aperture. Is the wider aperture worth the loss in focal length? Not for me. It seems to be more a specialty lens.
    The lack of a GOOD DX/crop equivalent to the 70-200 is what is pushing me to go up to FX/FF.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

best cameras