Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 8, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 65
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Back again in some need of help. I've recently started looking for a good moderate zoom, professional quality lens, and would love to have both a F/2.8 AND Image Stabilization/Vibration Reduction/etc and have found none that combine a F/2.8 and IS, my first two thoughts were Canon's 24-70 F/2.8 II L USM and the 24-105 F/4 L IS USM, and I'd like to be able to find a lens that combines the F/2.8 and IS. For the work I'm doing I need a zoom lens and something like the 70-200 F/2.8 is not an option for how close quarters. Anyone know a lens that combines the two for a Full Frame body?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconkendra-paige:
Kendra-Paige Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013   Photographer
Do you mind if I ask what you'll be photographing that you'll require f/2.8, wider focal lengths, and IS? You may want to consider using a camera body with an upgraded AF system (rent to try it out), because this helped me immensely when it came to getting sharper photographs. I've found IS/VR to be a bit unreliable to be honest, having used the Canon 70-200 2.8L II, and the Canon 100mm 2.8L IS. Once I put those lenses on my 5D Mark III, they performed like a dream. Even using my 85mm 1.2L (which is notorious for its slow focus), was quick and snappy on the Mark III.

I realize my suggestion is not the cheap one, but it may be something to consider as you upgrade your equipment, because this is the one body upgrade (I went from xTi -> 7D -> 5D Mark II -> 5D Mark III) that really made an incredible difference in my work.

Just to give an example:


That's shot at f/9, 1/800, and ISO 12800 (which is insane to not have high noise at that value), and that is the first time I've been able to capture butterflies in flight, something I've tried to do (with proper exposure at the time of the photograph being taken, mind you), for years now.

So, just a suggestion, you might want to rent an upgraded body and see if improved AF can compensate for the lack of IS.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I volunteer/work for a non-profit organization that does high fidelity audio recording for US Military families/soldiers designed to both keep them in contact well the soldier is overseas or simply posted away from the family, as well as to preserve and capture the soldier's and families' voices, so they never lose it, all this at no cost to the Military, soldiers, or families. MFV's Pilot Program is based on the Ft. Carson Military Post in Colorado. While said recordings take place I am taking photos so they can both have those and send them to whoever to show them what they're doing, as well as for MFV's purposes to show others what they do. If you care to take a look MFV's website you may be able to see that although the images are not terribly they don't quite pop like they can: [link] (feel more than free to take a look around as well ;))

Now this often times requires me to shoot indoors with low light and no flash (too intrusive). Right now I'm using a point and shoot to do so, we are looking to get equipment (from Canon) to give us the flexibility we truly do need, both to be able to shoot at high ISOs and wide apertures to stop the action of the younger kids flailing about ;) The 5D Mk III is the first camera I thought of for both it's full frame noise handling capabilities, silent shutter (imperative that it is not loud), and of course the wide array (upgraded AF system :)) of other features that will serve to further the professional look and feel of our images. The lens needs to be able to take in a room and get multiple people sitting throughout the lens as well as close in on someone without having to change lenses or get too intrusive. Although IS/VR is not terribly important at 24mm, it becomes more important on the other side of things.

Sorry to leave you a novel to read but you asked for it :D

And finally, that image is really gorgeous, nicely done on it! I appreciate the advice immensely!
Reply
:iconrockthesky:
rockTheSky Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Your post doesn't make much sense. You want a lens that can hit f/2.8 throughout the entire zoom range and that it have either IS (Canon) or VR (Nikon)? There are plenty of Nikon lenses that can remain at f/2.8 throughout the entire zoom range and have Vibration reduction. What's the problem?
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I have actually seen none that both maintain VR and F/2.8 that are any wider than the 70-200 F/2.8 which is too close for me to effectively use, something that starts around say 24mm, I've seen nothing. However I'd to be proved wrong if you can name a few!
Reply
:iconrockthesky:
rockTheSky Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Oh, I apologize. I see now what you were asking. I doubt you'll see something start at 24 that has VR. Not much point in equipping a lens with IS or VR with such a wide zoom.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
No problem I appreciate the feedback :)
I can see where you're coming from, and where they are coming from, but when you're going to 70mm or 105mm and in a somewhat low-light situation than IS/VR would be nice! Again, not so much on the wide end of things since in theory you can handhold 1/25, but for 105 it'd be nice to not have to aim for at least 1/125.
Reply
:iconrockthesky:
rockTheSky Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
You definitely don't need VR or IS at 70mm if you can have f/2.8 throughout the entire zoom range. As you get closer to 100~ I can sort of see why you might need it. What camera do you have? Try pushing up the ISO a little more, and since it doesn't seem possible to get the sort of lens you're after, combine it with a shutter of about 1/80 and learn some hand-holding techniques for more stable photos. That's all I can think of.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I agree to a point, but I mean think of a lens like the Canon 24-70 2.8 Mk II, for an extra thousand dollars in price over the mark I, besides the better image quality I'd almost expect it to be there. I agree with the ISO and that was my plan just wondering if there was a good combo. Also, IS/VR would be helpful for video as well. I appreciate the feedback very much though!
Reply
:iconrockthesky:
rockTheSky Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
"for an extra thousand dollars in price over the mark I, besides the better image quality I'd almost expect it to be there."

Well I guess that was my point. Lens manufacturers aren't just going to throw in a technology for the hell of it. Especially when said technology (IS/VR) isn't really warranted because of the fast glass (wide aperture, which typically requires faster shutter speeds anyway), coupled with a zoom range that really doesn't need it.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Goes either way, when you're making professional equipment I'd think you'd pull all stops to give the best you can, even 2.8 can't hold up to certain lighting conditions. Or if you're stopping down for a landscape in hopes of getting the phenomenal quality of the lens IS wouldn't hurt if you don't have a tri/monopod...
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconrcooper102:
rcooper102 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Here is an fstoppers video comparing the Canon 24-70 and the Tamron. ([link]!) He does an interesting test where he is recording video and then turns on the Vibration Control mid record to show the impact it really does have. Handheld at 1/80th of a second with VC you will likely be noticeably sharper. At even slower shutter speeds you can make photos that you couldn't otherwise make.

The reality is though, no matter how good your hand holding technique is, a guy using that same technique AND stabilisation will make sharper pictures at slow shutter speeds assuming his technique is just as good as yours. I would define that as a useful feature.
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Professional Photographer
stick with canon, I have found sigma and other 3rd party brands to seriously lack in the optical department. You get what you pay for at the end of the day.
Reply
:iconrcooper102:
rcooper102 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
I disagree, while everyone's experience will vary I have found third party optics to be fantastic, where I have found them lacking is in build quality, they wear out quicker and sometimes need to be returned. (Although in many cases you could buy 2 for the price of the on brand version which suggests that they should have shorter lifespans) Look at Lindsay Adler, she has a fantastic portfolio and shoots only with sigma. Many of my favourite shots I have ever taken were with a Tokina or Sigma while a Nikon lens sat in my backpack.

A while back I won a Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 OS in a competition, when I saw what I won I pretty much wrote it off as a cheap low quality lens that I would never use. Boy was I wrong, even though it is a $400 lens I have found that it often does better than lenses that cost several times more. Sure it isn't the fastest lens in the world but I am often impressed by the razor sharp images that are free of CR and other optical imperfections that it can make.

You have to be prepared to return a lemon or two because the third parties do not have quite the same level of quality control but optically they do very well. Hell, Sigma's new 35mm F1.4 outperforms Canon or Nikon equivalents in every review I have seen. Tokina's 100mm F2.8 Macro and 16-28 F2.8 also have been known to outperform on brand equivalents.

If You are shooting handheld at lower shutter speeds the VC in the Tamron 24-70 will far outperform any slight optical difference between it and the Canon 24-70 F2.8
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Professional Photographer
I have had really bad experiences with Sigma, That's why I have stuck to Canon and because I can afford it.

Because of my field of photography I am often required to crop images, the 70-200 is ii with a 2x extender easily out performs sigma and is more shap if not just as sharp as a 400mm 5.6 L but with 4-stops IS. No CA is present. For what I do Canon is the only way to go.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013

"I have had really bad experiences with Sigma, ..."

 

A lot of people did, back in the day. At one point, the better photography stores were refusing to carry them, because they had so many complaints. Back when people were still using Minolta's SRT series film cameras, Sigma's sloppy lens tolerances actually destroyed quite a few cameras. You see, Minolta's SRT series SLRs had abnormally close tolerances and the leading edge of the reflex mirror would almost graze the back of the lens when you tripped the shutter. In a good many cases, if you had a Sigma lens in there (or even worse, a Quantaray), the mirror would HIT the back of the lens and it would chip, crack or break. Now imagine what happens to a camera that has abnormally close tolerances when it has tiny glass chips floating around in it. I'm told they are a lot better now, but I do not trust them and I will never buy a Sigma or Quantaray lens for as long as I live.

Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013  Professional Photographer
I have touched them and think I got radiation poisoning form them. Worst glass I have ever used.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013
The old Super Takumars were not great either. The glass turned yellow or brown.
Reply
:iconphoenix-enigma:
phoenix-enigma Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013
More likely (by a very small margin) to actually give you radiation poisoning, too!
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013  Professional Photographer
Heyy you would never have to buy a sepia filter :D
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013
Unless you picked one that turned yellow instead of brown.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Professional Photographer
sharp*
Reply
:icondelahkel:
Delahkel Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
Hmm, can you tell me which Sigma lenses you've tried? (gotta love the Sigma lottery).
Just wondering, have you tried the new offerings from Sigma and Tamron? They seem to hold their own pretty well.
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
I have tried the sigma 85mm f1.4 prime as well as the 70-200 non is version. Had to return both and didn't want to deal with the lottery like you said.
Reply
:icondelahkel:
Delahkel Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
Oh, I agree about the non OS Sigma 70-200, didn't like it at all. The new one though is comparable to the Canon 70-200 mark I.

Now I haven't tried the Canon 85 1.2 myself (all the talk about the slow AF scared me from even renting it), but the Sigma is being compared favorably to the Canon. Can you tell me what you didn't like about it (the Sigma 85)?
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
The 85mm 1.4 that I got was way too soft for my liking, so i opted for the canon version in the end, Though I did compare my canon to my friends sigma and there wasnt much difference, I guess its just really hit and miss on getting a good copy of a lens.
Reply
:icondelahkel:
Delahkel Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
Yeah, that seems to be the problem with Sigma lenses :/ but from what they've said, it seems like they've tightened their quality control, which I'm hoping is more than just talk. We'll see :/
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
:), Yeah I have heard the same. Seems like they are getting better. Happy shooting
Reply
:icondelahkel:
Delahkel Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
Yup, better for me, since I'm still a student/intern (even though I do wedding work professionally, it barely covers the bills in season), and while demanding a lot from my gear, I don't make enough money to buy some of the L glass I need. It's nice to have valid options.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Thanks for the advice. I'm not exactly an OEM fanboy but you can't argue with the fact that Canon make phenomenal products and they're an optical company. Thanks again for the advice!
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
I think that's generally true, however exceptions do exist. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I remember years back folks would snub Canon's "L" macro lenses for Sigma's pro lenses.

But, yeah, Canon has some astonishingly good lenses. But, those are the "L" ones, I'm not as brand loyal to the consumer lenses.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Absolutely, I'm a fan of whatever works, if Sigma proves they're better than Canon in every way then sure that's who I'll go with but if Canon does the same then of course I'm going to pick them.

However, keeping in mind Canon probably makes more consumer products than Sigma, I mean hey they have the 18-55 for a hundred bucks, what do you expect? If Sigma made an 18-55 for a hundred, I wouldn't be surprised if it was on the same level.
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
That's why my workhorse lens for years was a the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Di, which for the price is a pretty good lens. It's not going to compete with the L equivalent, but it was the best lens I could afford at the time.

I may have to upgrade that as I'm not sure how well it's going to handle my new 7D.

But as with all things, it's best to look at images that people have taken with it. I generally like to look for ones that are prone to the effects I care about and see how they handled it.

On a side note, I was shocked that Canon has apparently discontinued that $70 50mm they had in favor of a $125 model. Kind of unfortunate, sometimes it's nice to have a cheap lens that you don't have to worry too much about for things like macro conversions.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Interesting choice, sounds like a good lens!

I agree with you though about looking at the images. I appreciate the feedback!

It is an interesting choice. I haven't actually used either however 125 is still a ridiculous price for the quality.
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013
Hmm, I guess it's the same lens that I have, not sure why they felt entitled to just about double the price.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Hmm that's a shame! Companies have some weird ideas at times!
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Professional Photographer
no problem, im not a fanboy either, I have owned both canon and sigma... Returned 2 sigma lenses and in the end stuck with canon. Its just my 2-cents from my experience.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Hmm ok that makes sense again I appreciate it! Happy shooting :D
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
you too :)
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Check out: [link]

I haven't used it, but it's a Sigma HSM lens and the reviews are generally positive. The thing though is that it isn't a constant aperture it's F2.8-4. But, it's a lot less expensive and it's probably worth investigating even if you opt not to buy it.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Thanks I appreciate it :) The constant aperture is a bit important, I need to zoom in on stuff without having to adjust shutter speeds/ISO, which of course you can always set it up with F/4 and just use that but not preferable. Thanks again!
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
No problem, it's just an option to consider. With the savings you could even buy an external flash.

But, it's generally worth considering all the options. It might well be that you do need the more expensive lens. I know I need my 70-200mm F2.8L IS and actually use the extra features from time to time.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
True, I can't rely on flash for my purposes however.

And yes that's true, more expensive is probably what I'll need but thanks again :D
Reply
:icondelahkel:
Delahkel Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Professional Photographer
Tamron 24-70 VC, your only option.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Appreciate it!
Reply
:iconolda-g:
Olda-G Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I haven't used it, but there is the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC as a possibility.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Thanks for the comeback I appreciate it!
Reply
:iconslinkyjynx:
SlinkyJynx Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Olda-G is right, not only is this lens sharp as hell, it fits both your criteria! I totally forgot it existed, check out the writeup here: [link]
Reply
:iconslinkyjynx:
SlinkyJynx Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Hi man, I don't know of a lens like that on the market right now, adding IS to a wide angle zoom doesn't make sense in terms of cost...Remember that the depth of field difference between f/2.8 and f/4 at anything under 70mm is MINIMAL. In this case either the 24-70 or 24-105 would be fine but it boils down to the following: If you need to freeze movement and action, you need the f/2.8. If not, the F/4 would make more sense both in budget and also overall result. IS is ALWAYS better than a faster aperture when it comes to video too, as a side. Hope this helps :)
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I agree a 24-70 F/2.8 IS USM, or a 24-105 F/2.8 USM IS would be both ridiculously big and expensive, it's still a bit surprising though, I mean, they make some ridiculous lenses still! I appreciate the comeback!
Reply
Add a Comment: