Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 10, 2006, 5:33 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

I need a lens for landscape, around the house and in the school gymnasium. I can't always use the flash in the gym so I'm leaning toward the 2.8. I already have the 70-200 2.8 and the 300 f4.

Will I miss the additional length of the 24-105 or the one stop? Which is better optically?

Thanks

//jim
killdeer0007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 10, 2006, 6:04 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 429
Default

I am also looking for a better lens in the gym so I am going to watch this post too. Does your 70-200 2.8 do you a good job from the stands?
RP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2006, 6:11 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 429
Default

Never mind my question. I just looked at the price of the 70-200. With that your not shooting from the stands. What about the 28-70mm f2.8-4? Would that work or would you loose too much at the other end to work?
RP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2006, 7:17 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

A lot depends on the size of the gym. I've shot in large gyms for gymnastic meets and small YMCA gyms for volleyball. I've used my Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 in the large gyms, but it is too long for the smaller gyms. I have a Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 and also use my Canon 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 in the smaller gyms. Your going to need at the very least f2.8 no matter what focal length you decide, and f1.8 would be better but you won't find a zoom lens with 1.8 constant aperture.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2006, 10:04 PM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

killdeer0007 wrote:
Quote:
Will I miss the additional length of the 24-105 or the one stop? Which is better optically?
The 24-105mm is better optically, almost in every measurements:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...4_is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

You might need the extra 1-stop, but you won't get the same sharpness with the 24-70 @ f/2.8 (and even when closed down to f/4)

-> IMO you're much better off with any of the "digital only' 17/18 - 50/55 f/2.8 zooms
(Especially for landscape and around the house you'll miss more @ the 17/18mm end than the long)
NHL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 6:52 AM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Jim,

My question on the gymnasium shots - is 2.8 fast enough? Have you tried your 70-200 2.8? Is it fast enough for the lighting in question. The 24-105 certainly won't be fast enough if subjects are moving.

Beyond that, what are you shooting in the gym and from where?

It may be tough to get one lens to fit both needs: gym shots and landscape. It really comes down to how fast the lens needs to be for the low light stuff (i.e. is a zoom going to even cut it) and what focal length you need.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 9:37 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

Thanks everyone for your input. I'm leaning toward the 24-105 F4 because of the longer reach and the reviews - thanks NHL for the links.

John - the 70-200 F2.8 is a fantastic lens. I take pictures of all kinds of presentations and sports in a medium sized gym. The biggest drawback is the tungsten lights. I take pictures from all over the gym so I'm not right in the performers faces.

If I only use the lens for landscape - any recommendations?

//jim
killdeer0007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 11:49 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

killdeer0007 wrote:
Quote:
If I only use the lens for landscape - any recommendations?
Yeap - even sharper than the 24-105 at full wide open (f/2.8 ): http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm

... and in case you need something lighter on the wallet: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
NHL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 11:59 AM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I tend to agree on the 17-55 as long as you are certain you want to stay with a 1.6 crop body. I currently shoot with the 17-40L and think it's a great lens. If I were buying over, I might strongly consider the 17-55 for the extra stop. But, I am still a bit hesitant because I forsee potentially jumpint to the 1.3x crop body in a year or two (depending on what canon does in the next 18 months with a 30d replacement and 1dmkII N). So with that in mind, buying a digital lens doesn't make sense for me. But for those that are staying in 1.6 land they are great options.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 3:38 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 429
Default

I know this is a cheep priced lens but is it worth anything? Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4 DG AF

I am trying to find a 2.8 or so lens that I can use in gyms and not be held to a prime. I am trying to stay under $200 USD. I like the wide angle and it still has a little zoom. I have a fixed 50/f1.8 but I want a zoom. Any help.



RP33
RP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:34 PM.