INSTEAD of the venerable 70-200/f2.8.... what?

[stefographer]

<p>So while i could sell me firstborn into human trafficking in order to afford the four figure price tag of the legendary 70-200/f2.8.... I'd rather like to keep the lil' bugger around (at least until he starts talking..)<br>

So what other lenses- preferably actual Canon (altho i've had good experiences with 3rd party glass) has everybody had experience with- good for portraiture, nudes, low light....<br>

I've been looking at some primes- which i've never owned- but the lower price tag on most of them makes them VERRRY appealing...</p>

<p>Wot say thou, Photo.net'ers......?</p>

[stefographer]

<p>Oh yeah- the priority is also the 2.8 or bigger aperture....</p>

<p>Thanks everybody!</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Might be easier to know what about the 70-200 would be most used for you. The ~70-135 range or the ~180-200 range.</p>

<p>If I had to suggest a cheaper version of the canon 70-200/2.8 and couldn't suggest the 70-200/4, I would suggest that someone look at the Sigma 70-200/2.8. For a reason I can't remember, I had one for a while years ago and found it to perform well enough. At least well enough to sell photos to national magazines.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yeah there are two times you may consider the trade for the lens a "good" deal (age two to three, and the high-school years). Other than that they actually are quite nice to have around.<br>

The f/2.8 restriction is the deal killer. If you must have that, you must spend money, although some f/2.8 lenses from other vendors are a little cheap<em>er</em> , but mostly not exactly "cheap."<br>

Photozone.de has some good reviews of some of these, but the only one I have is an excellent f/2.8 prime macro 90mm from Tamron. It's an excellent lens, even in comparison to the equivalent Canon 100mm.<br>

I'd suggest going for IS instead of f/stop. The EF 70-300mm IS lens is really fairly decent and very much cheaper. For even less than that, the new kit tele, the EF-S 55-250mm IS would work unless you have a 35mm-sensor.</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>I'm looking to get the new 100 macro with IS, very fast AF, very very sharp, nice bokeh, superb for close ups and portraits and "only" $1,000 for top flight IS, AF, weatherproofing and build quality.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>85/1.8 or 100/2</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>I second Bob's suggestion of the 100mm 2.0 and would also add the 200mm 2.8 L. Compared to the 70-200mm 2.8 L, its sharper, lighter & far less expensive than the zoom.</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>Another vote for the 85mm and 100mm primes. Perhaps used?</p>

<p>Also, the older 80-200m f/2.8L "Magic Stovepipe" might be an affordable option.</p>

[pjmeade]

My first choice would be the 70-200/4, it's got everything you want other than the /2.8. Depending on what body you have,

the noice characteristics may well enable you to push the iso to compensate for the loss of f-stop.

 

The 85/1.8 that Bob suggests is another winner.

[model mayhem gallery]

The sigma 70-200 f2.8 di ii is an excellent lens and very comparable to the canon 70-200 f2.8l. I useit on mycanon 5d2

the build quality is very good it is black not white which I also enjoy. Focus is slightly slower than canon L but hunts less

in low light. Oh did I mention it is about half the price of canon.

[bobatkins]

<p>There's always the 135/2.8 SF too. Much cheaper than the 135/2</p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>I have had the non IS verion of the 70-200/2.8 for 5 or 6 years. It is my most used lens and it is the one lens that gives me the most consistently excellent output.</p>

<p>It has many uses from near-macro (with the 500D supplementary lens) to long telephoto (with the Canon 1.4 teleconverter...on a tripod...stopped-down to f8 or f11) and everything in-between (it is a pretty darn good portrait lens) except for wide angle of course.</p>

<p>If you don't need to employ the lens right away, to earn money for rugrat food and materials, just wait and save your money...that lens is worth the wait. If you need it for a job right now...rent one (if you are in the US or Canada, these folks have them http://www.lensrentals.com/for-canon).</p>

<p>Many complain that the EF70-200/2.8 is so heavy...I used this lens as my "daily carry" for years (it was all I could afford)...you get used to the weight...it is also worth the "weight".</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>If you're not going to use it that often, then just rent it when you actually do need it.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>If you're not going to use it that often, then just rent it when you actually do need it.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I do not like big lenses but the Canon 70-200 2.8 is the one lens I would never part with. You should try getting one used. People are always selling non IS versions to upgrade.</p>

<p>Jay, How well does that 500D work on the 70-200? do you have some samples? </p>

[marco_hidalgo]

<p>Prime shooting is not for everyone, but I love it. I shoot with a 90/2, Canon closes would be:<br>

85/1.8 or 100/2</p>

 

[stefographer]

<p>Such great responses.... Thanks all...<br>

Yeah- i forgot to say i shoot just with the XSi for now... So gonna try to stay with EF lenses, so they're compatible when i upgrade to full-frame.....<br>

So the Sigma really is comparable, quality-wise, eh?</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_berkowski]

<p>I rented the old version (80-200) and felt that shorter end was where I stayed for portraits. And that was on film (so full frame). I'd find it hard to do anything near 200 for portraits on a crop body, but you may shoot differently than I do, of course.<br>

I use a 100 f/2 for portraits, playground, and low light on a full frame body. On a crop, 85 1.8 or 50 1.4 seem to be better choices. Since you're looking for substitus for 70-200, you won't be interested in a 50, though.</p>

[rjtully]

<p>24-105mm f/4L IS USM I know...not 2.8 but a great all around lens. Very sharp and will do what you are looking for.</p>

[graham john miles]

<p>Just a second here. It's a tad under $2000. For a state of the art piece of glass that sounds like a steal to me. If someone offered you a state of the art car such as a mercedes or porsche for that price you wouldn't hesitate. Just buy the damn thing and pay it off over a couple of years, that'll be less than a hundred a month, most people spend that on beer alone. Why settle for anything less when this is what you lust after? Doesn't make sense.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Sean</p>

<p>If you go for the non-IS version then quite honestly there is not much prime-wise that you can get that will save you a lot of money - without giving up lots of flexibility. There's the 85 f1.8 or 100/2 which will save you, but you won't have a great reach. Likewise the 135mm is fantastic and fast but is not exactly cheap either and most would argue that the zoom is more useful. The 200mm/2.8 is excellent and a bit cheaper, but it is a little long for everyday use as an only tele in the range. The 200/2.8 paired with an 85mm would come in cheaper than the IS version and these would work nicely together, the downside being that the weight is probably much the same for these two and they do not have IS </p>

 

[gertle]

<p>Generalizing the requirements from the OP - portraiture, nudes, low light...f2.8 or faster...Xsi body. I'm another one to vote for the 85/f1.8 or 100/f2, both are excellent. I traded my 100 for the 85 when I went to a digital (1.6x) body. For full figure on the Xsi you might find something in the 35-50mm range might work as well. The 70-200 is indeed a great lens, but does require available space for indoor protraits on a crop body. Yes 70 is less than 85 but, for portraiture at that focal length, IMHO the 85 is a much better value.</p>

[photographicsafaris]

<p>Depending upon budget: 85 1.8 and 135 f2 and 1.4 extender</p>

<p>Gives you three focal lengths in the range you are looking at 2/3rds the price and higher image quality, mostly faster too.<br>

85mm f1.8<br>

135mm f2<br>

190mm f2.8<br>

Though not image stabilised.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Take a look at the Tokina 50-135mm 2.8 and or the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8. Smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Canon bazooka and those that own them speak highly of them. With a 17-50mm or 55mm these don't leave the gap that the 70-200mm lenses do. If I did more event work one of these is what I would have. I prefer the Canon 70-200mm 4.0 IS lens currently. If you are a professional photographer who earns money with your camera you have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens period. Good luck.</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>I have a 70-200/4. I have a 85/1.8.</p>

<p>Both are excellent lenses. For a "200", I would be a bit leery of buying a version without stabilization. The 85 is generally never a problem hand held without stabilization.</p>

<p>And for portraits. . .1.8 beats 2.8 any day of the week. I really like shooting the 85 at about 2.2.</p>