Help me select a lens, please!

Hi, I'm looking to fill a gap in my lens collection and want to get a zoom lens for a Canon T4i that has a fairly low f/stop (2 or 2.8). I currently have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and a Canon 100mm IS, also a f/2.8. And the Tamron 18-270 (for walk around use).

I'd like to see what my options are for something reasonable (less than $750 if possible) to fill the gap from 50-maybe 105 at a low f/stop. I've seen the Canon 24-105 but thats a fixed 4.0 on the aperture and I'm just not sure about that one. Any help, suggestions, pointers or tips would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!:confused:

I went to B&H selected EOS mount
$770 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens for Canon EOS DSLR Cameras

you can get 70-200 70-300 22-250 etc etc... but none below f/4
For $1100 sigma 50-150, $1300 70-200

I have not used any of those lenses.
I have a 24-105L and am very happy with it. but it is not under $750 either.

Mission impossible here :rolleyes:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM non-IS $709

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._f_4L_USM.html

In that price range, forget zoom, think prime(s). For that budget, you could get one or two of the: 50/1.4, EF-S 60/2.8, 85/1.8, or 100/2.

That's where I was heading too. 85/1.8 or sigma 85/1.4 (if you get a good one). Zeiss and samyang 85/1.4 are no AF, and 85/1.2L is way out of range.
50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are also in range, but you've already got 50/2.8 in the zoom.

My money's on the EF 85/1.8, $3-400 for a good used one. Then maybe $50/1.whatever you've got left as change.

Alternatively, if you're lucky you can get a 135/2L for about $7-800 used. It's a beautiful lens, but probably just a bit too long and expensive...

Thanks to everyone. Here are some details I should have provided concerning my current lenses:
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with VC (Vibration Compensation)
Canon 100mm f/2.8 with IS (I got this for macro and it works beautifully)
Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 with OS
I want to cover that 50-100mm span with something in the 2.8 range if possible. The Tamron 18-270 is a walk around lens I use primarily on another camera.

I've been thinking about the Canon 24-105 and found it for $880 with the Canon US warranty but just wasn't sure about the IQ of a f/4.0 for that much money.

Another question along the same line, I'm considering returning my Sigma 150-500 and getting the Canon 70-200 with a 1.4 teleconverter to keep the range for wildlife shots. My hesitation there is loss of OS and f stops Thoughts?

Well if you really love your zooms, and want faster, then there's the 70-200 f/2.8 L (non-IS). Save up another $200, they're about $900-1100 used depending on condition and luck...

I'm going to look at the 85s you suggested. I forgot to mention I already have the Canon 1.8 50. I started with that one a year ago and still enjoy shooting with it whenever I pop it on the camera! Thanks again for everyone's help and feel free to keep the suggestions coming!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyoung315

I'm considering returning my Sigma 150-500 and getting the Canon 70-200 with a 1.4 teleconverter to keep the range for wildlife shots. My hesitation there is loss of OS and f stops Thoughts?

---

Canon
70-200 F4 L IMAGE STABILIZATION - $1,014 used - http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-...99089813R?r=FE

About the cost of the sigma.

I agree with others though, 85mm prime :cool:

Thanks Mark. I'm looking for the Canon 85mm 1.8 now but have a question for you. Adding a teleconverter to the 70-200 you sent me a link for...will I still be receiving better IQ than I am with the Sigma 150-500?

The one warning about the 85mm f/1.8 is the large amount of purple fringing you'll get in high-contrast parts of the image (sun reflections on water, metal). I love my 85, but some shots are ruined by the purple. Lightroom apparently recently added a purple-killing algorithm. Perhaps someone else can comment on it's real-world effectiveness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyoung315

Thanks Mark. I'm looking for the Canon 85mm 1.8 now but have a question for you. Adding a teleconverter to the 70-200 you sent me a link for...will I still be receiving better IQ than I am with the Sigma 150-500?

---

I think so. Check the ISO crops on Bryan's site here.
Hope this link works:rolleyes: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=7&APIComp=1

You guys are a great help and I thank you for sharing your knowledge and insight. I've pretty much decided on the 85 and am just hunting down a good price. If anyone has guidance on the 70-200 with a teleconverter option I'd love to hear it.

Thanks again.

The Canon Store has refurbished units at a good price. Throughout the year, 20% off and free shipping can be found. Gotta get it quick when that happens. Goes pretty fast.

Sent from my IPhone V using Tapatalk 3 Beta

[QUOTE]I want to cover that 50-100mm span with something in the 2.8 range if possible[/QUOTE
I love my 85mm 1.8, but almost have never used it again since i got the 135mm 2.0. i use my feet to cover the 50-100mm range, what i mean is that for 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.8, you probably need one of them.

Quote:

---

Another question along the same line, I'm considering returning my Sigma 150-500 and getting the Canon 70-200 with a 1.4 teleconverter to keep the range for wildlife shots. My hesitation there is loss of OS and f stops Thoughts?

---

I had the 150-500mm, sold it due to the IQ is not very good, 70-200 lenses are genaral or portrait lenses, with 1.4XTC, the IQ probably better than the Sigma 150-500mm(70-200mm 2.8II is the best), but still not very good IMO, if u shoot more like wildlife, sports..., you may want to consider 300mm 4.0 or 400mm 5.6, or 100-400mm 5.6, depending on the focal length you need and on your budget.

+1....sell the 150-500 mm and buy either the 70-300L, or the 100-400L if you choose focal length over aperture. But, as you stated you want aperture over focal length, some have used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with a 2x TC to get to 400 mm. From what I have read and seen posted here, that can produce very good results at 400 mm, but not as good as a lens that gets you there without the TC.

Of course, I can see filling your void with the 85 f/1.8 as well. It is very well regarded and near the top of my wish list.

Hi again! I've been comparing and reviewing as much information as I could find about the Canon 70-200 models, well, minus the 2.8 IS model, just too far out of reach price-wise. I'm leaning toward the 70-200 f/4, the price is great and the IQ appears to be pretty good. I'm toying with the idea of the IS model but then I have to wonder is it worth the extra 350-500 bucks? Seriously, is it? I'm thinking that extra money could pay for the 85mm so many of you have suggested. Thanks for all of your help and please, stay cool if you're in the hot parts of the US today!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyoung315

I have to wonder is it worth the extra 350-500 bucks? Seriously, is it?

---

If you plan to hand hold, Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

If you plan to hand hold, Yes

---

You must have been watching me just now! I was taking some dragonfly shots at a nearby lake a few minutes ago with the Sigma 150-500. I turned off the OS to see ho steady I was...I turned it back on just a couple of shots later! 70-200 IS it is...probably a used 2.8 if I stumble across the right price.

Mark, I've never purchased from KEH before. Between he two optins here, http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-...99089813R?r=FE, which would you recommend? The distinction between the LN and EX+ seems so minor would the extra $50 even be worth it?

I have another week to return the used Sigma I purchased from Amazon, thats why I'm picking everyones brain so much this weekend.

-Chris

There's a lot more to the IS version than just IS. It has improved optics on the IS version, making it one of the sharpest of Canon's zooms.

Here's Bryan's ISO test chart comparison. Mouse over either the little arrow above the image, or the image itself, to see the IS version.

So David, between the 4 and 2.8 IS models (not II version), would i be doing myself a disservice by purchasing the f/4 and not going ahead for the 2.8? I'd like to add in a 2x teleconveter to get back the lost reach from the Sigma. Or should I not worry as much about that and focus on cropping a sharper picture, when necessary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyoung315

So David, between the 4 and 2.8 IS models (not II version), would i be doing myself a disservice by purchasing the f/4 and not going ahead for the 2.8? I'd like to add in a 2x teleconveter to get back the lost reach from the Sigma. Or should I not worry as much about that and focus on cropping a sharper picture, when necessary?

---

Don't forget about weight. The 2.8 is significantly larger and heavier than the f/4. The IQ difference is negligible. It's all about the extra stop of light and whether you need it.

I'll almost certainly be using it outside with lots of sunlight. The Sigma has actually taken some very pleasing shots with great bokah but it never gives crisp sharp subjects, they are always just under sharp but still very nice. Thats a 5-6.3 variable aperture, does the IS f/4 Canon with a 2x teleconverteron that lens sound like a good idea or would I possibly step forward to lean backwards adding the teleconverter?

If you'll be outside, the f/4 is the way to go; but your camera won't AF with the 2x converter on this lens. For that you'd need the f/2.8.

I wouldn't make decisions based on the 2x converter unless you're looking at the big L super teles that take it pretty well (like the 500mm f/4 II). But the f/2.8 with a 2x is probably better than the sigma at 400mm. Check Bryan's ISO crops and compare.

As kingb has pointed out, the f/4 lens with 2X extender wont AF on your camera. You would need the f/2.8 lens to be able to add the 2X and still keep the maximum aperture at f/5.6 to AF on your camera.

Initially you mentioned that you wanted to fill the gap between 50-105mm. For that the 85mm f/1.8 is great, but you also own the 100mm f/2.8 and they are pretty close in focal length, unless you need f/1.8. Now, it appears that you're looking at longer focal length's which is totally fine by the way. If you really need 300 or 400mm, then the 100-400mm is a good choice too which is more expensive, however you would save some money by not needing to purchase the extenders.

Another option is the "135mm f/2L" ($1000) that was mentioned earlier in this thread. It's a great lens with fast AF, that produces beautiful images. There's no IS, but I find that it's such a fast and lightweight lens that you generally have room to raise the shutter-speed, therefore IS becomes less important. The 135mm can handle the extenders, however it does take a a fairly big hit in IQ with the 2X extender. Generally speaking, it's a good rule to stop down 1/3 to 1 f-stop with the extenders if possible, to reduce the hit in IQ. Of course, the 2X on this lens only gets you to 270mm.

Acceptable with the 1.4X, if you stop down a bit:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=3&APIComp=3


Not that great with the 2X, also stopped down a bit:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API= 4&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =6&APIComp=3


Another option is the "200mm f/2.8L II" ($800) which can also take the 1.4x or 2x extender. It seems to handle the extenders better than the 135mm. Since the 70-200mm f/4 can't accept the 2X on your camera, I will compare the 200mm f/2.8L II to the more expensive 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with 1.4X and 2X.

Comparing 1.4X:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=6&APIComp=1


Comparing 2X:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=7&APIComp=1


Also, keep in mind that the extenders are not cheap, especially if you need two of them, so it's also important to think of what your most frequent focal length will be, and look at the extenders as a bonus.

It's going to be hard to find one lens that covers all of your criteria at that price. So, lets try and figure out what your primary use will be.

Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Initially you mentioned that you wanted to fill the gap between 50-105mm.

It's going to be hard to find one lens that covers all of your criteria at that price. So, lets try and figure out what your primary use will be.

---

I think Rich's point is excellent. IMO, the idea of 'filling a gap' is irrelevant. Lens selection should be based on what you want to shoot, and then your budget.

So...what's this lens for? Portraits, sports/events, general walkaround, something else?

The gap idea stemmed from the 100mm being a fair amount more on my crop sensor, I am extremely pleased with all of the shots I get from that lens but thought I would need something shorter for portrait work. The 70-200 talk is a different lens issue entirely. I have a Sigma 150-500 that I am not totally pleased with and before returning it I wanted input on a superior replacement for it while being mindful of my budget. This lens will be for wildlife, distance wildlife photography. Sorry if i muddied any waters in previous posts.

The 70-200 will disappoint for "distance wildlife." For that you need 400mm at minimum. There's no good answer that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, as you've experienced with your sigma. 100-400 or 400 f/5.6 prime or 70-300L are the best options for under $1600.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyoung315

Mark, I've never purchased from KEH before.

-Chris

---

KEH is great. They have a 7 day no question asked return policy. All you pay is shipping. They also give all equipment a 6 month warranty. http://www.keh.com/help.aspx#pe17 All the equipment I have purchased from them has been great.

If you go the extender route, here are a few shots I found that I had on flickr using the 1.4x II. They are not the best shots but hopefully will give you some idea. I can probably dig up some better ones if need be.

This one is with the 200mm f/2.8L II @ f/4...
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3068/5...fd1e9717_z.jpg
IMG_6025_DxO by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

This one is with the 135L @f/2.8 ...
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5011/5...4e574416_z.jpg
IMG_9254 by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

100-400mm (manually focused) @ f/8 ...
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5187/5...a8944866_z.jpg
Male Cardinal by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

70-200mm f/4 IS ...
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5023/5...221fa41b_z.jpg
IMG_0015 by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

I have yet to use an extender on my Sigma 50-150mm OS lens but am very curious as to what the results would be like.

Good luck with your decision and be sure to let us know what you decide on and post some photos taken with it.

Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

KEH is great. They have a 7 day no question asked return policy. All you pay is shipping. They also give all equipment a 6 month warranty. http://www.keh.com/help.aspx#pe17 All the equipment I have purchased from them has been great.

---

I returned a lens to them about a month ago and they paid for the return shipping and refunded my original shipping fees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I returned a lens to them about a month ago and they paid for the return shipping and refunded my original shipping fees.

---

Thanks Denise, these is the real world kind of examples I needed! I'd really like to see any others you have using a teleconverter. Even though you say these are not the best, they have the sharpness I don't seem to get out of the Sigma.

Thank you for the KEH information, that mkes me feel great about purchasing from them!

-Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyoung315

Thanks Denise, these is the real world kind of examples I needed! I'd really like to see any others you have using a teleconverter. Even though you say these are not the best, they have the sharpness I don't seem to get out of the Sigma.

Thank you for the KEH information, that mkes me feel great about purchasing from them!

-Chris

---

I've got a bunch of them with the 135L and 1.4x II.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6825585...teleconverter/

Dave