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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 7, 2010, 12:25 PM   #121
Senior Member
 
yohy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Your question may have been answered for you by Tokina. It seems the Tokina 50-135 is no longer available.
There's a good used copy available, and I would have to move quick to buy it. Thus...

Does anyone have an opinion between the two of them?

More importantly: My main question is whether this sort of set up makes sense to you guys. It seems to me that what I lose in range I gain in light, and if I'm willing to take less sharp wildlife pictures this setup makes sense because I can capture spontaneous street scenes with shallower depth of field. This lens would allow me to have a walkaround lens that can be used in markets and other places where the action may not be happening close to me, and I can even snap a portrait-style (read: bokeh) headshot from a distance with this kind of range on the f/2.8.

In fact, these lenses seem in some ways better than the 70-200 f/2.8 on a professional setup because they are light enough to be handheld reliably. I WISH they had IS and I wish Canon made something in this range, but I guess I can't have everything.

NOTE: Close-range, the aperture cannot be wide-open anyway
Given our conversation about indoor, close-range, low-light photography (thanks again, TCav, for your examples), I've realized that I'm going to need at least f/2.8 for a reasonable portrait DOF at close range. This lens will cover that, and give me a range of options depending how close I can be to the person. Yes, I will need flash sometimes, but there's really no alternative because at close range the DOF would be too shallow wider than f/2.8. (I do realize that the lens will not let in as much light as a prime lens.)

With this setup, I wouldn't necessarily need a prime, although I might consider getting a 28mm or 35mm low-light lens -- not for portraits, but just for indoor scenes. This 52mm equivalent would give me some versatility in low light that I wouldn't have with a low-light portrait prime. What do you think?

Last edited by yohy; Nov 7, 2010 at 12:54 PM.
yohy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2010, 12:39 PM   #122
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yohy View Post
There's a good used copy available, and I would have to move quick to buy it. Thus...

Does anyone have an opinion between the two of them?

More importantly: My main question is whether this sort of set up makes sense to you guys. It seems to me that what I lose in range I gain in light, and if I'm willing to take less sharp wildlife pictures this setup makes sense because I can capture spontaneous street scenes with shallower depth of field. This lens would allow me to have a walkaround lens that can be used in markets and other places where the action may not be happening close to me, and I can even snap a portrait-style (read: bokeh) headshot from a distance with this kind of range on the f/2.8.

In fact, these lenses seem in some ways better than the 70-200 f/2.8 on a professional setup because they are light enough to be handheld reliably. I WISH they had IS and I wish Canon made something in this range, but I guess I can't have everything.

NOTE: Close-range, the aperture cannot be wide-open anyway
Given our conversation about indoor, close-range, low-light photography (thanks again, TCav, for your examples), I've realized that I'm going to need at least f/2.8 for a reasonable portrait DOF at close range. This lens will cover that, and give me a range of options depending how close I can be to the person. Yes, I will need flash sometimes, but there's really no alternative because at close range the DOF would be too shallow wider than f/2.8. (I do realize that the lens will not let in as much light as a prime lens.)

With this setup, I wouldn't necessarily need a prime, although I might consider getting a 35mm low-light lens -- not for portraits, but just for indoor scenes. This 52mm equivalent would give me some versatility in low light that I wouldn't have with a low-light portrait prime. What do you think?
I think those are good options for what you want to do, and those lenses are smaller and lighter because they are APS-C only lenses. Plus, with the Sigma 50-150/2.8 on a 1.4X teleconverter, you'd have a pretty good 70-210/4.0 lens for wildlife shooting. (I think a 2X TC would be stretching it. That would give you a 100-300/5.6 lens which isn't very worthwhile.)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2010, 12:44 PM   #123
Senior Member
 
yohy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I think those are good options for what you want to do, and those lenses are smaller and lighter because they are APS-C only lenses. Plus, with the Sigma 50-150/2.8 on a 1.4X teleconverter, you'd have a pretty good 70-210/4.0 lens for wildlife shooting. (I think a 2X TC would be stretching it. That would give you a 100-300/5.6 lens which isn't very worthwhile.)
Thanks for the quick response!! When using the TC, will handholding the Sigma (which has no tripod mount) be unwieldy given lack of IS?

(Why hasn't Canon done anything in this niche, and why is there no IS?)

I'm definitely leaning toward the Sigma because of the quieter motor and better IF. If I get one soon, I can try it around town and make sure it's a good copy. Any tips on how to test it?
yohy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2010, 1:34 PM   #124
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yohy View Post
Thanks for the quick response!! When using the TC, will handholding the Sigma (which has no tripod mount) be unwieldy given lack of IS?
If you can stick to the rule of thumb that says the shutter speed should be the reciprocal of the 35mm equivalent focal length, you can almost certainly do without IS. So with the 50-150/2.8 at the long end, you should keep the shutter speed at 1/250 or faster. With a 1.4X TC, you should keep the shutter speed faster than 1/320.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yohy View Post
If I get one soon, I can try it around town and make sure it's a good copy. Any tips on how to test it?
Shoot some street scenes, like you'd expect to see in Southeast Asia. Also, in a well lit room, hang a complete sheet of newsprint (facing pages from the classified section will work nicely). Set the camera on a tripod at distances from the newsprint that will fill the 'Live View' display at a vairiety of focal lengths, and critique and compare the resulting images.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2010, 4:21 PM   #125
Senior Member
 
yohy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 120
Default

Thanks again, TCav (and Hards and Shoturtle, from the other thread).

Here's the setup I am now thinking about:
  • (A) Body: 40D -- replace with 60D?
  • (B) Standard Zoom: Sigma 17-70 non-IS "macro" -- replace with 17-55 f/2.8 IS?**
  • (C) Tele Zoom/Portrait: Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (with 1.4x teleconverter for occasional safari)
  • (D) Low-Light+Standard Prime: Canon 28mm f/1.8
  • (E) **Macro/Portrait Prime: If, per (B) above, I replace my Sigma "macro" lens, should I throw in a small macro/portrait prime? (maybe Sigma 70mm, Canon 60mm, or Tamron 60mm?) I'd like to keep a light load.
Thanks so much to all of you for helping me figure this out! I think my setup is going to be very effective and efficient when all is said and done. I realize that if and when I upgrade to the 5DMkIII, I will not be able to use the 50-150 lens, but lenses' resale value tends to be pretty good, so I'll just cross that bridge when I get to it. In the end, the heavier FF platform may not be as good for the type of adventure photo-journalistic shoots I plan to do, and so I might just keep the APS-C setup for travel and get the 5dMkIII for local endeavors....

Last edited by yohy; Nov 8, 2010 at 12:49 AM.
yohy 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 12:57 PM.