28-135 IS or Sigma 24-70 2.8

Trying to figure out the best lens combination for doing church, social and school events

with 20d.

 

I currently have a canon 85 1.8, 50 1.8 and a 28-135 IS. I have been thinking about

selling the 28-135 IS and getting either a Sigma 24-70 2.8 or a Tamron 28-75 2.8. I will

also be adding a Sigma 70-200 2.8 when I get the funds.

On reason that I don't like the 28-135 is speed. I want to have more control of ambient

light when using a flash. I feel that the 2.8 lens will help me with this.

Please let me know if this sounds like a sensible reason to get rid of the 28-135. It may be

more of my inexperience in working in this environment than any short comings with the

speed of the lens. I have been shooting mostly youth sports before now.

 

Any input appreciated.

 

Thanks!

On the short end, the difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 is pretty small, especially with the advantage of IS. You will obviously see a bigger difference on the long end, but that's also where the IS really begins to shine. Bottom line: Unless you are regularly shooting fast-moving sports, I doubt that you will see much of an improvement in speed and will lose a lot of room on the long end with a 24-70mm lens.

 

If you really want to improve things from a speed standpoint, would you consider using primes instead? The Canon 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are all excellent. Sigma and Tamron also have some good fast primes in the wider end. Plus, some of these lenses are so inexpensive that you won't need to sell your 28-135 to get them!

I've shot about 20,000 pictures using the 28-135 IS, and I've just purchased the Sigma

24-70. I then went on vacation to Hawaii with both lenses, and the 28-135 never came

out of the bag. I'm using a 20D as well.

 

The Sigma is faster, sharper, and produces nicer images overall. I bought it both for the

speed and creative control of 2.8 in a convenient zoom package. I also wanted those extra

4mm on the wide end (and boy do they come in handy!), though I do miss the long end of

the Canon every once in a while. That said, with about 2000 shots with the Sigma so far, I

really only missed the 70-135 range on about 15 shots. If I'm going to shoot telephoto

stuff, I'll use a longer lens (I've kept the Canon and have a longer lens as well).

 

I think you could very well replace your 28-135 with the Sigma, but I would recommend

buying the Sigma first if you can afford it. That way, you can see if it fits your style and see

how often you reach for the other lens when shooting.

I can confirm what Adam says. I had the 28-135 IS (and it is a good lens, no question about it). Then I bought Canon 24-70/2.8L and the 28-135 stayed in the bag since then...

 

The difference is sharpness (not so much the speed of the lens).

From what I hear both Sigma and Tamron are not far behind Canon's 24-70. Of course I miss the 28-135 a bit (particularly when I have to change the lens), but image quality is better.

Jake:

 

I shoot a lot of indoor church events with no flash and find the IS feature of the Canon 28-135 lens to be invaluable. I seem to end up shooting on the long end quite a bit. I have had photos published that were taken around 135mm at shutter speeds as slow as 1/6 second. I could not do this at all with a hand held lens with an f/2.8 aperture.

 

I should add that I can't consistently get good people shots at 1/6 second, even with IS. To do that I need to be up around 1/15 to 1/30 second. I can't get good shots at all (hand held) around 100-135mm at 1/8 to 1/30 second with an f/2.8 lens without IS. Some folks are a lot steadier than I am.

 

Since you already have two fast f/1.8 lenses at 50mm and 85mm, I would suggest you use them when you really need a fast lens for hand held work and keep the 28-135 for the rest of your indoor, ambient light work.

 

If you were shooting mostly outside and/or on a tripod, or with flash, then I would go for the faster and sharper f/2.8 lens without image stabilization, and use the Sigma 70-200 when you need a longer lens.

 

You could do a simple test just to be sure. Beg, borrow, or rent an f/2.8 lens without IS and shoot an indoor event with both it and the 28-135 IS lens and compare results. If you do try this comparison test, let us know how it comes out.

 

Happy Shooting!

 

Jim

<p> Zoom? I'd get the Tamron because it has an excellent optical reputation and <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">excellent compatibility reputation</a>. Yes, I know that the complaints on Sigma incompatibility problems dropped considerably in the last year. However, I can't get rid of the old saying - Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - echoing in my head.... </p>

<p> However, for an owner of 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 I'd recommend the 24/2.8 instead. Later you can add 135/2.8 instead of the very heavy 70-200/2.8 and you have an excellent kit with light weight.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

You didn't mention the Tamron 28-75, but I would agree with Yakim if you don't need the

4mm on the wide end. This lens is less expensive than the Sigma for the same quality and

speed. I needed the wider angle, so I went with the Sigma.

The Sigma 24-70 is an excellent lens. See my site: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/2470

 

Also, I've got some test shots with my 28-135IS there also, and I am working on putting together a bigger test in the coming weeks with various standard zooms. Look around my Pbase site for images and info.

You may want to consider one of the new 18-200mm lenses just introduced by Tamron and Sigma. I have the Canon 28-135mm and an waiting for the reviews on these lenses with the objective of buying one. The 20D range would be 28-300mm.

 

Herb

I own the 28-135 IS (great all-around, but a little lacking after you see the 2.8 zooms), and would hands down recommend the Sigma 24-70 EX (esp. the Macro version). Outstanding lens, very well built (better than the Tmaron), much sharper than the 28-135, sharper than the Tmaron in the ones I had access too, and it goes to 24mm. Only downside is it's heavy. The combo I bought to replace my 28-135 (which I keep for vacations only now) is the Sigma 24-70, plus a 70-200 f/4L. I'm very happy with both.

 

For indoor events too I've added a Sigma 20/1.8 in addition to the two primes you mention (Canon 50 and 85 1.8). You should have a great kit by the time you're done (then start thinking about wide angle, perhaps the 10-22 or Sigma 12-24)

 

Yakim's concerns mostly apply to older Sigmas, but I don't think he's actually really owned a Sigma...my Sigma experience has been nothing but positive (the rule is that Canon's always good, but they often just didn't manufacture the lenses in the range I wanted, or if they did, sell them in divorce-inducing prices... overall lenses like the 20 1.8, or the Sigma 12-24 have been great and made me pretty skeptical about the whole factory vs non-factory debate.)

<p> <i>You may want to consider one of the new 18-200mm lenses just introduced by Tamron and Sigma. </i> </p>

<p>You won't if <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#28200">history</a> counts for something.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

While I own two Sigma lenses, I have to partially agree with Yakim: the only Sigma lenses which (so far) havent had compatibility problems are EX series. There is always a danger that something will stop working, but EX (and particularly with HSM) appear to be problem free (and 18-200 is not EX).

I would get the Sigma 24-70 over the Tamron 28-75 in your situation to gain the 24mm end over the 75mm, especially since you are closer "covered" by the 85/1.8 now, and wouldn't need the overlap when you get the 70-200. If I didn't buy the Canon 24-70, I would have gotten the Sigma. The 24-70 range also matches well with the 12-24 or 10-22 if you want to go wide.

LOL Yakim you are speaking like my cynical father, this isn't US foreign policy we're talking about (about forgetting history and going on misguided interventions), it's engineering! :)

 

Sigma EX is quite a nice system, if you would evaluate them objectively and form your opinion based on what you examine for yourself, weighing them on their merits, they are very compelling lenses; in doing shopping for my 70-200,I even ran across comments that even that lens has backfocus issues with the 20D, and that's a top notch pro lens.

 

See here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&thecat=27

 

 

-cs

I'm getting boring on this point, but given what appears to be some QC variation in Tamron and Sigma lenses, buy locally with a good return policy if you can. Quite a few posters have said that their second or third samples were just great, the first ones being surprisingly bad

 

My 28-135 has sent several allgedly better lenses back to the shop (and no, I haven't tried a Canon 24-70L yet, I work for the State of NC, whose motto is "Raises will be delivered by the flying pigs!")

Does anyone here know about the Sigma 24-60? I haven't been able to find any good

information on it ...