mmrmnhrm Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Looking for some shopping advice... At least a couple of times a year, I find myself sitting in darkened auditoriums trying to get off some shots of people doing solos on-stage. Currently using a Canon EFS 17-85mm (f/4-5.6 IS USM) lens with Rebel XTi, and getting off some respectable shots, but it's still clear that I'm sitting way back, and I'm having to use high ISO plus wide-open aperture just to keep my shutter speed above 1/30 (and I've had "how the hell can you hold your hand steady that long" comments from a semi-pro). SO... I know I'm looking for a relatively long focal length to get the zoom in, and I'll need wider glass just to collect more light at that length, but after that, I'm pretty much clueless. Hopefully won't need to spend a couple grand on this, and not limiting myself to just Canon glass, so school me up and give suggestions :dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbotrio Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Canon 85/1.8 or the 100/2 would be my vote if that is long enough. If not, can't go wrong with a 70-200/2.8 IS II Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmrmnhrm Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 ....if that is long enough. That's what I'm not sure of... what is a "long enough" focal length to make the performer(s) fill the whole frame and still look good? Or put another way, if I'm trying to frame someone's little one singing "I"m a Little Teapot" from the nosebleeds of the Worthington-Kilbourne HS auditorium, what will I need to have a non-jittery shutter (1/60? 1/125?), slow enough ISO to not get noise, and enough DOF to adapt to someone not standing in one spot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbotrio Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 That's what I'm not sure of... what is a "long enough" focal length to make the performer(s) fill the whole frame and still look good? Or put another way, if I'm trying to frame someone's little one singing "I"m a Little Teapot" from the nosebleeds of the Worthington-Kilbourne HS auditorium, what will I need to have a non-jittery shutter (1/60? 1/125?), slow enough ISO to not get noise, and enough DOF to adapt to someone not standing in one spot? Oh, 200mm min then in which case you need 2.8 IS. You don't "Need" the Ver II for that but it is much better. You can try my 70-200/4 IS if you want. It's sharp as a tack and great wide-open but not sure if it will do the trick in a dim auditorium or not. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fynz Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Agreed on 200 being the minimum focal length. The 70-200 2.8 IS is the most versatile lens in my bag, and certainly worth every penny. Apart from being great for the types of work you're talking about, the fantastic compression it gives to portraits is also a huge plus if you ever get into that. If you want/need to save a few hundred the Sigma 70-200 2.8 seems to get pretty damn good reviews as well for around $700 less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 70-200 2.8 FTW. Unless you want to put down some serious bank, i think thats the best you are going to get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmrmnhrm Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 You can try my 70-200/4 IS if you want. It's sharp as a tack and great wide-open but not sure if it will do the trick in a dim auditorium or not. Might take you up on that in February (next show I know of that's coming up) if I haven't splurged by then If you want/need to save a few hundred the Sigma 70-200 2.8 seems to get pretty damn good reviews as well for around $700 less. Besides the name, what would I gain/lose by choosing Canon versus Sigma (or any other third-party mfg)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 FWIW I had great luck with my 10-20mm Sigma. It was half what the Nikon cost. I figure if I like it I'll get the real deal in 5 yrs. This has nothing to do with your question except that I like the Sigma. They've also extended their warranty 3 yrs on top of their 1yr warranty so that takes you up to 4 yrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 it is a signifigantly more plastic lens, this however does not mean its a "worse" lens, it just means it doesnt feel as hefty as the 70-200. reading reviews on it you will see that its still a fairly good lens even as a "off" brand lens. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/page2.asp Conclusion - Pros Decent image quality Low vignetting even on full frame Fast and positive autofocus Very good build quality, excellent tripod collar design Low price Conclusion - Cons Relatively weak at 200mm (softness, chromatic aberration, pincushion distortion on full frame) Unconvincing 'macro' performance; soft at wider apertures, significant focus shift on stopping down Red/cyan bokeh chromatic aberration Conclusion - Pros Superb build quality Highly effective image stabilization Excellent autofocus and manual override Consistently high image quality across almost all of the range Conclusion - Cons Slightly soft wide open (most notably on APS-C) Average close-up performance Somewhat susceptible to flare with direct light sources in or close to the frame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Automotive Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 I have a 70-200 2.8 IS, it is the lens of choice. I shoot with it very often. If you shooting in lowlight, F4 is only going to give you one stop greater then what you're achieving with a $300 lens now. So buying a 70-200 f4 would not be worth your time. I have seen many f4's that are sharper then 2.8's and "IS" is an argumentable option. The 70-200 II is not worth the extra pennies in images quality or speed. I shot with a brand new one 3 weeks ago, and my test drive was good, but I wont be upgrading. Jeff already recommended, pick up an 85 1.8 You'll be at your max zoom that you're at now, so maybe attempt to get closer. I just started shooting Cheer Comps again for the year, and with my 70-200 I average 90mm The only other thing I can think of off the top of my head is you'd need to step out of a consumer level body to get cleaner high ISO's. These are all 70-200 2.8 IS, I'm about 45 feet from the mat. Lighting sucks in the convention center, no where near what your trying, but I've shoot that too. I'll dig some up. This is 2.8 ISO 400 at 200MM http://freezeframephto.smugmug.com/photos/i-Z8nH9dR/1/M/i-Z8nH9dR-M.jpg This is 5.6 ISO 1600 at 150MM (reason for 5.6 was just pulled out from group shot [shallow depth of field with 2.8]and needed 5+ in focus) http://freezeframephto.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGf8Ntk/1/M/i-qGf8Ntk-M.jpg This is 2.8 ISO 200 at 70MM http://freezeframephto.smugmug.com/photos/i-XBJRFJ8/1/M/i-XBJRFJ8-M.jpg Just hit me. If you can get closer look into a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8, both will yield very nice results. Both 375-400 used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Canon 100mm f/2 is a low cost alternative. $425 Fast enough for sports and wide enough for low light, excellent AF speed and accuracy. I use it to shoot fights and swimming. Great portrait lens too. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12058-USA/Canon_2518A003_Telephoto_EF_100mm_f_2_0.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 FYI $400 B&H now has the 70-200 2.8 IS II L for $400 off: http://newschoolofphotography.com/rumors-news/34417-canons-70-200-2-8-ii-l-%24400-off.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Automotive Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 FYI $400 B&H now has the 70-200 2.8 IS II L for $400 off: http://newschoolofphotography.com/rumors-news/34417-canons-70-200-2-8-ii-l-%24400-off.html Ended yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmrmnhrm Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Yeah, not going to be able to drop $2k on a piece of glass right now, but browsing the BH site opens the question... if I spend $1k for a 70-200 f/4 (as opposed to f/2.8), or even a 70-300 f/4.5, will I be screwing myself over in the long run? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 IMHO- if you are intending upon shooting in low light situations the 2.8 is the way to go. Plus- if you ever move up to a full frame, it will be even more amazing on that body. Sorry I didn't realize the date when I posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Automotive Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Yeah, not going to be able to drop $2k on a piece of glass right now, but browsing the BH site opens the question... if I spend $1k for a 70-200 f/4 (as opposed to f/2.8), or even a 70-300 f/4.5, will I be screwing myself over in the long run? Read my friend. I have a 70-200 2.8 IS, it is the lens of choice. I shoot with it very often. If you shooting in lowlight, F4 is only going to give you one stop greater then what you're achieving with a $300 lens now. So buying a 70-200 f4 would not be worth your time. I have seen many f4's that are sharper then 2.8's and "IS" is an argumentable option. The 70-200 II is not worth the extra pennies in images quality or speed. I shot with a brand new one 3 weeks ago, and my test drive was good, but I wont be upgrading. Jeff already recommended, pick up an 85 1.8 You'll be at your max zoom that you're at now, so maybe attempt to get closer. I just started shooting Cheer Comps again for the year, and with my 70-200 I average 90mm The only other thing I can think of off the top of my head is you'd need to step out of a consumer level body to get cleaner high ISO's. And if your going to try to throw down 1k on a f4 just wait until you have 1.5k and buy the 2.8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 hold off for the 2.8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 The F4 doesn't allow for enough quality bokeh on anything that's not full frame. It's essentially an f/5.6 lens on a crop body so isolating subjects isn't likely going to happen unless your real close to them and zoom in. Save your money and get the Sigma f/2.8. The latest one is very good and much better than previous generations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmrmnhrm Posted December 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Read my friend. I did, but apart from the basics learned during high school photo class, and the occasional useful nugget dropped by my parents' neighbor, I'm pretty much learning as I go. Right now, I'm frustrated by the glass I have, and I know just enough to recognize that as the limiting factor. It also means I don't really have enough experience to know what's important when shopping... Example: You tag IS as being a questionable feature, but at $840, it seems to be a big deal. Said parents' neighbor once told me shutter speed should be at least equal to focal length, notched one faster (ie, 85mm focal becomes 1/125 shutter). But I've been getting decent shots off at 1/40 or so with no mechanical support on the 17-85 lens I have now, so it's hard to say just how important that "rule" really is. Is it the IS giving me that much of an edge, or is his rule just bunk? One thing Tim suggested was a fixed 100 f/2, though that means I'm only halfway to the 200mm Jeff recommended. Are 2x converters/extenders still around? Or do they make everything look like shit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 I did, but apart from the basics learned during high school photo class, and the occasional useful nugget dropped by my parents' neighbor, I'm pretty much learning as I go. Right now, I'm frustrated by the glass I have, and I know just enough to recognize that as the limiting factor. It also means I don't really have enough experience to know what's important when shopping... Example: You tag IS as being a questionable feature, but at $840, it seems to be a big deal. Said parents' neighbor once told me shutter speed should be at least equal to focal length, notched one faster (ie, 85mm focal becomes 1/125 shutter). But I've been getting decent shots off at 1/40 or so with no mechanical support on the 17-85 lens I have now, so it's hard to say just how important that "rule" really is. Is it the IS giving me that much of an edge, or is his rule just bunk? The rule of shutter speeds is true. It does however need to follow the 1.6x factor your camera has due to it being a smaller sensor, thus your nieghbors insight is relatively true. At 100mm you should shoot hand-held at 1/125 and so forth. What you're seeing in terms of your kit lens is the benefit of IS. IS IMO is a nice to have but not a need to have, however, that will vary depending on what you're shooting. If you're shooting low light indoors you have to balance "what" you're shooting with the benefit of IS. Shooting "people" on stage where they are moving, is going to require shutter speeds to stop their motion, which will more than likely rule out the need of IS to stabilize your simply holding a lens. i.e. Shooting a car show indoors, IS is nice as it stabilizes YOU. Shooting gymnastics indoors, it will help stabilize your camera, but again, you'll need high shutter speeds thus no need for it to be needed to stabilize your camera as the speed alone will do that. Tell us more about how you will be using the lens 75%+ of the time and that will allow for a more realistic opinion on which is best for you. One thing Tim suggested was a fixed 100 f/2, though that means I'm only halfway to the 200mm Jeff recommended. Are 2x converters/extenders still around? Or do they make everything look like shit? Converter wise, ditch the idea for what you've described. Price along of that plus a 100mm will yield a better option of simply applying that money to buying the new Sigma 70-200 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689577-REG/Sigma_589101_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html ^^ is a great lens, I've used it and compared it to the Canon f/2.8 with IS, The very slight difference in Optics aren't worth the delta in price for the Canon, but that's just my opinion. On previous generations of the lens, I wouldn't say that but in this version, it's stellar. Still $1,400 but that's typical for a good quality lens. If you don't need IS, spend the same amount and get the Canon f/2.8 without IS. I use IS a lot only because I pan for sports and given I shoot motorsports, where I keep my shutter speeds low, Mode II stabilizes the up-down motion for me and works great. Based on everything you said, I'd go with the Sigma. It gives you: Affordability (better than Canon) IS up to 4 stops Focal Length Quality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmrmnhrm Posted December 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Tell us more about how you will be using the lens 75%+ of the time and that will allow for a more realistic opinion on which is best for you. Probably easier to show some of the shots I've gotten off with my existing gear: Worthington-Kilbourne HS, 2009. WAAAYY up in the top nosebleeds http://bbhhs96.dyndns.org/~czakelj/cr/IMG_1813.JPG http://bbhhs96.dyndns.org/~czakelj/cr/IMG_1828.JPG Solon HS, 2010. No nosebleeds, but still kinda far back http://bbhhs96.dyndns.org/~czakelj/cr/IMG_2608.JPG http://bbhhs96.dyndns.org/~czakelj/cr/IMG_2637.JPG Based on everything you said, I'd go with the Sigma. I'm getting that feeling as well... if I'm not going to notice a huge difference in the glass, and the extra grand is just for a name, well, I'm not in it for the names or the bragging, just to get better shots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Here is another option- renting a lens from MPEX could be a bit more affordable for you short term Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.