Best bang for the buck...medium size zoom lens?

[reyna24]

Hello i am sure that this has been discussed in the past but i want to ask one more time; since its a big investment, well for a hobbyist like me.

I need a good zoom lens to go with my Canon 40D. I will be shooting outdoors and indoors (low light ie. church,concerts,camps) . Which one do y'all recommend as the best bang for the buck? I am leaning towards canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS but its the priciest of all them.

If y'all have taken pictures with any of these cameras and would like to share them that would be great or if you have any other lens suggestions that would be great as well.



Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS US

Canon 70-200mm f4L w/ or w/o IS

Sigma 70-200mm

Tamron 70-200mm

[CaptainTom]

I had a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and loved the lens. best bang for the buck.
I now have the Canon 70-200 IS and love the lens because of the IS.

I do not regret buying the Sigma. It's resale value is pretty good.
All of the tele pix on this page were made with the Sigma.

[reyna24]

Your sigma lens...........Zoomed in to 200 did u see any shake in your pictures?

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by reyna24

Your sigma lens...........Zoomed in to 200 did u see any shake in your pictures?

I'm not the steadiest of camera operators, but all of the plane photos were hand held, and they are pretty sharp.

[reyna24]

Did you ever compare the canon f/2.8 vs the f/4? I keep hearing that the f/4 is a bit sharper but i don't think its fast enough for indoors.

[CaptainTom]

I owned a 75-300 IS that I sold immediately. Not a good lens in my opinion.
I've read good reviews of the f4 IS, but don't have any first hand experience.
My feeling is that if my lens is f2.8 and I want to shoot at f4, I am closer to the sweet spot than if i shoot wide open with an f4.

[MRCPix]

I love my 70-200f4L but if you shoot in a lot of low light where you need the f2.8 it won't work for you, but if you are using flash or other lighting then that is not a issue

[Riff Raff]

Originally Posted by reyna24

I am leaning towards canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS but its the priciest of all them.

I just picked it up recently for my Digital Rebel XTi, and am loving it. It is heavy at just over three pounds, and my forearms were sore for a couple of days after my first day out with it. Granted, I shot with it at two different events (skateboarding contest followed by Rocky Horror) so I was using it for several hours that day. On the plus side, it makes my 24-70 f/2.8L seem positively light! Here are a few random photos I picked out. The first one isn't a great photograph but is a good example of the 2.8 IS in action I think, since it's almost fully zoomed in (190mm), taken in extremely low light (spotlight with red gel in dark theater), and with a slow shutter speed (1/60 sec versus the 1/300 sec you'd normally take as a minimum for handholding at 190mm on a 1.6x crop):


ISO 800 | 190mm | 1/60 sec at f/2.8


ISO 800 | 140mm | 1/160 sec at f/2.8


ISO 800 | 195mm | 1/160 sec at f/2.8


ISO 800 | 70mm | 1/160 sec at f/2.8

[venchka]

Y'all think 2.8 is fast becasue you can't get any zoom lenses faster from Canon & Nikon. Ok, so the bodies are getting faster so it works out ok overall.

I had an occasion to use my 70-200 2.8 L recently. In fact, I probably used it more in 4 days than any other time since I bought it back in the 90s. It's a beast. Long. Heavy. A real bear for those times when all you really need is something between 70mm & 100mm. It doesn't focus very close either. That is a very real problem.

On the other hand, when you absolutely positively have to have 200mm, it's quite nice. As a matter of fact, I think it is really nice at 200mm and minimum focus distance.

See what I mean...

[Duffy Pratt]

When considering the features, don't forget to take into account the size and weight. I could have gotten the f/2.8 or the 2.8IS, but opted for the f/4 because its smaller and much easier to handle. IS wasn't an issue for me because I tend to take action shots.

Since then, I've gotten the 300mm f/4, which compares in size to the 2.8 IS. So the size factor wouldn't be as important to me anymore. But I still like the f/4, simply because its easy to pack it and two other lenses into a sling bag for travelling. Taking a bigger lens on a trip starts to become more of an issue for me. So if I ever decided to get the 2.8 version, I would probably add it to the collection and still keep the f/4.

Duffy

[darktiger]

I am a hobbyist just like you. I tried out all the zoom lens in your list and settled on the Canon 70-200IS L. It was the best out of that group, plus B&H had it on sale for $1499 so I did not pass that up. Great lens, I would make the same choice again...

[reyna24]

1499? pm me the link please

[Riff Raff]

Best I saw was $1599 with the PS070733O4I item number. That's what I paid last month at least.

[MattMoore]

unless you plan on using a tri-/monopod all the time, I would defintely recommend the IS.

Especially when your "old-man shaky hands" like me at 200mm.

[Daniel W.]

Remember in your purchase to check around at HCE and the whatnot depending on your area. HCE had the Canon (not sure if it was IS or not) for $1349 (IIRC), as did Camera Co-Op. I just got the Sigma 70-200/2.8, and I'm pretty happy with it. I have managed to scratch the plastic on the focus distance indicator though... whish it came with the little sticky plastic. It seems to focus slower on my 1D than a Canon I tried out.

Dont forget the 80-200/2.8L, which although outdated is regarded as a relatively nice lens. You can pick up older versions of the sigma on KEH too... for almost half the price of what I paid. I'd bet the coatings may not be as great, and focusing are slower but I haven't tried them, so cannot offer any opinion on them.