help me scratch my lens itch!

richard plumb · 09-07-2008, 7:55 AM

I think I'm getting a lens itch, just not sure how to scratch it yet.

I had a sigma 10-20 on the short end, and a canon 70-300IS on the long, and sold both and bought a 70-200f4LIS. So 24 is my widest and 200 is my longest.

I'm not sure if I miss the extra reach, but we have a trip to longleat coming up and I'm tempted by something like the 100-400, which I could just bring out when I know I need the reach, rather than trying to manage with the 70-200 and 1.4x teleconverter (btw would the 100-400 work with a 1.4x kenko TC on a 40D?)

I'm also wondering whether to boost the quality of my lenses in the middle. Most of the pics I take are of my kids, so perhaps a longish portrait lens? apart from the 24-105 and 70-200 which are both f4, the only other lens I have is the 60mm 2.8 macro. so maybe something faster and a little longer?

My 24-105 is generally my walkabout lens and sometimes it'd be good to have something wider, but I never really used the very wide bits of the sigma 10-20. So maybe I could live with the kit lens? Or would something like the sigma 18-50 2.8 be a good option? Looked at the lovely canon 17-55IS but realistically that kind of money is only worth it if it'll be my daily walkaround, and my 24-105 means it won't be.

Sorry for the rambling, just wanted to get my thoughts out. I think my main focus might be on something like a nice longish portrait lens (but prime might be tricky given my kids running around?), with the long end maybe being more of a niggle. (maybe worth renting a 100-400 for longleat and see how I get on with it?)

In terms of budget, I could probably spend up to a grand, but naturally would prefer not too.

T0MAT01 · 09-07-2008, 8:32 AM

Having a very similar setup to yourself I know where you're coming from!

Personally I have been looking at a wide/fast prime but just can't bring myself to spend out on a 35/1.4L. By the sounds of it you want something longer than your 60mm prime? If so then either the 85/1.8 or the 135/2L could suit you and they're supposedly both sharp and good VFM but you have the limitation of a prime lens and you already have those focal lengths covered.

As for the 100-400, it's a nice enough lens but if you're not going to carry it with you all the time then is it worth the money rather than just renting one on the odd occasion?

I guess the sensible money would be on something like a Tamron 17-50/2.8 but then it's a 67mm thread which puts me off as my filters wont fit!

As you can see, I haven't really helped. I'm very much in the same boat as you!!

Holowlegs · 09-07-2008, 8:32 AM

Hello there

Let me help you scratch that itch

Quote:

I'm also wondering whether to boost the quality of my lenses in the middle. Most of the pics I take are of my kids, so perhaps a longish portrait lens? apart from the 24-105 and 70-200 which are both f4, the only other lens I have is the 60mm 2.8 macro. so maybe something faster and a little longer?

How about the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 which is faster and longer than the 60mm and I have heard some very good things about this lens.

Quote:

My 24-105 is generally my walkabout lens and sometimes it'd be good to have something wider, but I never really used the very wide bits of the sigma 10-20. So maybe I could live with the kit lens? Or would something like the sigma 18-50 2.8 be a good option? Looked at the lovely canon 17-55IS but realistically that kind of money is only worth it if it'll be my daily walkaround, and my 24-105 means it won't be.

For this option if you go for replacing the kit lens, another lens to think about is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. This is what I replaced the kit lens with and have been very happy with it.

Cheers Holo

dg77 · 09-07-2008, 8:42 AM

The 100-400 4.5-5.6L is a bit soft at 400.
Since your 70-200 is only a f4 and not the 2.8 you obviously don't need the speed so you could go for the 400 f5.6L for about the same money as the 100-400. It doesn't have IS (You could get a 400 2.8 IS for the price of six 400 5.6's or a 400 f4 IS for about four and a half 400 5.6's if you have the budget) and is the only prime left waiting to be updated with IS.
I have heard a new IS version is in the pipeline so you might even be able to pick one up cheap if you are lucky.

py6km · 09-07-2008, 8:53 AM

I just augmented my 24-105 with a 17-40. It's f4 again, so possibly not as fast as you'd like, but I think it will fill a nice little range down at the wide end for me, and is supposed to be a great lens on a FF body if you were ever thinking of moving that way in the future.

I did look at the Tamron one, but I've no experience with 3rd party lenses, and to be honest prefer to buy Canon/Nikon ones wherever possible. That said, it looks to be pretty decent actually.

dazza74 · 09-07-2008, 9:20 AM

Can't help on the lens front but I went to longleat six month's back, I'd say 300mm is minimum so would be worth your while I feel hiring the 100-400 if you can for the extra reach. One tip you might want to consider is going round the tiger enclosures towards the end of the day, long story but I had to drive around the tiger enclosure again and at about 4pm there was very few cars and some of the Tigers and Lions were sitting by the roadside a lot closer than they were earlier in the day one even got up and starting to walk towards the back of my car, frightened the life out of me he was that close

jonnypb · 09-07-2008, 11:12 AM

i'd recommend the tamron 17-50 2.8 over the sigma if you're looking at that range, tamron seems slightly sharper

Jitetsu · 09-07-2008, 11:58 AM

As you're working with a 40D and crop sensor then I think 200mm + 1.6x + 1.4x = 448mm. So a 1.4x teleconverter on your 70-200mm gives you a lot of reach. If you think about how often you really need to go over 450mm then you may well come to an answer about the 100-400mm. I had the 70-200 and 100-400 and it really is a rare day when you think of picking up the 100-400mm and that was with a full frame.

I'm sure this weekend at the royal air tattoo i'll miss having massive zoom but I intend to grab a 1.7x teleconverter for my 70-200 to hopefully get close enough for plenty of fun. At the end of the day you'll throw a teleconverter in a bag without a second thought but you'll look at the 100-400mm and perhaps frequently leave it at home because of the weight.

richard plumb · 09-07-2008, 3:23 PM

true about the weight. Maybe I'll try longer with the 70-200 with TC and perhaps rent a 100-400 for longleat if I have time.

Any more suggestions on portrait lenses? withkids I would expect focus speed and low light ability to be important too, I seem to remember some of them are fabulous but slow and I would probably want to avoid those. I had a sigma 30mm 1.4 for a while, would that plus the 60 plus a longer prime be a good set of portrait lenses? 30mm for indoors/small spaces and a longer lens for outdoors?

Also, how much wider is something like a 17/18mm vs 24? Maybe need to dust off the kit lens and have a play.

deadprez69 · 09-07-2008, 7:17 PM

I had a similar dilemma a few months ago.

I had a 40d, 60mm macro & Tokina 12-24. I was fairly happy with my set up but had the same itch. I made my decision based on which lens I would use the most. I made the jump for a canon 35mm 1.4 & it is amazing. I got it from Kerso for £649 which I thought would be a good investment. I have mainly used it for indoor family portraits.

I do still get thoughts about teaming it with the 135l which I think Kerso can get for £530ish,

& then a 85 1.8

& then a 70 - 200 2.8

richard plumb · 09-07-2008, 7:28 PM

I wondered if the 85 might not be different enough compared to the 60mm macro - only slightly longer and one stop faster. So perhaps the 135 gives me more flexibility? then later maybe get my 30mm 1.4 sigma back

so then I'd have 30mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 and 135mm f2 primes, using the 60 as a combo portrait and macro lens

plus with the 1.4x TC I have, it'd give me an approx 200mm 2.8 (135x1.4)

ghibbett · 10-07-2008, 6:02 AM

A 135L on your 1.6x 40D would be looooooonnnnngggggg!! Fine if the kids are always 15ft away!

Probably the easiest way to make the right decision regarding focal lengths is work out which primes you would like, then set you 24-105 & 70-200 to those focal lengths and try using them as if they were primes. You'll soon figure out what focal length is right for your needs.

Oh yes and I will shamlessly plug the 85 f/1.8 again... (here).

FYI - I paid £229 inc. RMSD for the 85 f/1.8 from Kerso

richard plumb · 10-07-2008, 8:05 AM

thats a good price for the 85. also a good idea about the 70-200 running around set to 85 + 135.

I'm aware of the length, and I think if I went 135 that'd be more an outdoors, kids in garden type lens, and perhaps also useful for sports hall shooting when my son is playing football (my f4 lenses are just too slow and IS doesn't help when kids are running around)

heck, at £229 I could almost buy both and sell one if I don't get on with it

ghibbett · 11-07-2008, 6:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard plumb

heck, at £229 I could almost buy both and sell one if I don't get on with it

Indeed! Much like the nifty fifty, it's a must have!

FWIW, I hear the 135L is meant to be a fantastic lens! It was on my shopping list, but I cant actually see me using that focal length much. My next prime will be a 24L which will be nice and wide on my 5D. Bit pricey mind...

salubrious_k · 11-07-2008, 7:28 AM

I like large aperture lenses and I notice you don't have anything below f2.8.

I don't know the lens very well, but you could consider getting the Sigma 30mm f1.4 for a bit of creative licence and the ability to shoot in dark conditions?

I have the Canon 35mm f1.4 and it's probably my favourite lens at the moment, although it's wider on my 5D than it would be on your 40D. I guess the equivalent on your camera would be the 24mm f1.4... yum!

richard plumb · 11-07-2008, 7:50 PM

tried the 70-200 set to 85 and 135 and thought they were quite nice lengths. A little tight indoors with the 135, but still giving me a nice headshot with some room to breath from 8-10ft.

tempted to consider this lineup, which I could afford. Then if I don't like one later on I could sell on.

sigma 30mm 1.4
canon 85 1.8
canon 135 f2

or blow the whole budget on a 100-400 :P

salubrious_k · 11-07-2008, 10:42 PM

I have the 85 1.8 and can highly recommend it. I also really want the 135, and it may well be my next lens purchase, but then on a 5D the 135 behaves more like an 85 on a crop body.

Tobers · 11-07-2008, 11:06 PM

I looked at the 100-400 but decided to go for a Sigma 100-300 F4 which I can always use with a 1.4x extender to make a 420 F5.6. I like the flexibility. Cheaper than a 100-400 too. Note though that the first one I got didn't focus properly so I returned it (Jessops) and the 2nd one is super.

I've also got a 17-40 which is great, and a 24-105, so I'm F4 all the way. I'd like to be stacked out with 2.8 lenses but they are so expensive I just cant justify it.

So why not go for a 17-40 and a Sigma 100-300

mucca_D · 12-07-2008, 8:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobers

so I'm F4 all the way. I'd like to be stacked out with 2.8 lenses but they are so expensive I just cant justify it.

Your not wrong

It would be interesting to see some comparison shots.

Say 60mm f4 ISon - 60mm f2.8

Then 60mm f4 IS off - 60mm f2.8

Do the test twice inside / outside

Awaits the like this reply with link

richard plumb · 12-07-2008, 9:18 AM

I'm f4IS through and through at the moment, but want something faster for two reasons:

1) kids move. candids outside is fine with the 24-105 or 70-200, but indoors I'm looking at 1/8 second and they don't stand that still. even f2.8 might be pushing it, so a nice f2 or 1.8 would help a lot.

2) DoF. limited especially at short range indoors with the 24-105. the backgrounds are just too close plus f4 to properly blur them out.

TBH, the sigma 30mm 1.4 would probably cover both of the above, but I'm also curious about the 85 or 135 to see how I get on with them.

100-300 f4 sounds good, but I'm already 70-200 f4 with IS, so I'm only gaining 200-300. And I can get that with my 1.4x at the cost of a stop. Granted with the 100-300 you can get to 400 f5.6. But what I've read suggests the 100-400 is better at 400 f5.6 than the 100-300 with a converter. Plus you get IS.

had also considered a canon 300 f4L IS, which would combine with the TC. should be better IQ but then no flexibility of the zoom and for long range stuff I think I'd prefer to have a zoom.

then what about a bigma (50-500), or one of the other recent big sigmas (150-500 OS, 120-400 OS)

Basically I'm going round in circles with the long end...

T0MAT01 · 12-07-2008, 10:16 AM

I wouldn't discount a prime for the long end.
If you use one of those applets that annalyses your exif for each lens, I bet (if you're anything like me) you'll find that at least 75% of your shots taken with the 70-200 are taken at 200mm. In which case it kinda defeats the object of a zoom (which is inherantly at it's worst at it's extremeties).

At the short end, yes I'd have a zoom every day. But for longer stuff I'd say they're well worth considdering.

Holowlegs · 12-07-2008, 10:26 AM

Hello there

Just to give you a helping hand here.

Read this review about the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6, which isn't that good.

I also had a go with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, but didn't really like the pull push zoom, you may like it.

Well going out now to look at this Sigma 70-200. Have notice they have a EF200mm f1.8L USM + hood for £2450 is you fancy it.

Cheers Holo

kluen · 12-07-2008, 1:39 PM

Heya, I grabbed a Sigma 30mm f1.4 a couple of weeks ago as an upgrade to the Canon 50mm f1.8.

The 30mm is a really comfortable length for kids shots indoors and has great IQ.

One of the reviews i read said that it hunted a bit in low light; I havent felt it hunting at all, seems very quick and ive used it in very low light.

Bokeh is also nice and smooth.

Ymegod · 12-07-2008, 2:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jitetsu

As you're working with a 40D and crop sensor then I think 200mm + 1.6x + 1.4x = 448mm. So a 1.4x teleconverter on your 70-200mm gives you a lot of reach. If you think about how often you really need to go over 450mm then you may well come to an answer about the 100-400mm. I had the 70-200 and 100-400 and it really is a rare day when you think of picking up the 100-400mm and that was with a full frame.

I'm sure this weekend at the royal air tattoo i'll miss having massive zoom but I intend to grab a 1.7x teleconverter for my 70-200 to hopefully get close enough for plenty of fun. At the end of the day you'll throw a teleconverter in a bag without a second thought but you'll look at the 100-400mm and perhaps frequently leave it at home because of the weight.

There is no way in this world that you will get 448mm out of a 200mm lens. The 1.6x is a MAGNIFICATION factor and just gives you a different viewpoint.