I'm scared to buy a lens

[steve_gray3]

Hello,

 

I'm the proud owner of a new EOS 10D. So far it's proving to be a

great camera. I'm an amateur and I need a new lens for it. I currently

have the Canon 24-85 which is too slow for some of the events I need

to shoot indoors w/o flash. Mostly sporting events of the kids where

flash is prohibited. So I'm, looking at a number of the pro-class

lenses (f2.8 standard zoom variety) from all the usual suspects:

Tokina, Canon, Sigma, Tamnron etc. and have been reading everything I

can about these. I think I've narrowed the choice to the Tokina 28-80

and the Canon 24-70. But I'm still fairly ignorant as to which. I'd

love to save some money but would also love to have the USM. Is the

Tokina focus speed noticably slower (and noisier) than the Canon? Is

the optics difference worth the price difference?

Another huge factor (and the reason for my subject title) is that in

all the user opinions I have read about all the supposedly good

lenses, many folks seem to get bad copies of what should otherwise be

outstanding lenses. So before I plunk down 6 to 12 hundred dollars on

a lens, how can I know if I'm getting a good copy? Is there a standard

test that I can perform when I get the lens to check its performance?

Does one company have a deserveddly bad or good reputation for quality

control? And just as important, are there any benchmarks available for

the various lenses so I can tell if what I get is up to snuff??

 

Thanks,

Steve

[bobatkins]

Mt advice - If you can afford it, buy Canon. You generally won't regret buying Canon lenses.

 

You can't know if you get a bad one (though often it's the user not the lens that's at fault when complaints are made). All you can do is take pictures and send it back if you aren't happy.

[hisham_atallah]

The 2.8 zooms will give you +1/2 to +1 stops more than the 24-85. I don't think

it's gonna make a lot of difference for indoors without flash. Go with primes!

You'll save lots of money too.

[jim_larson1]

If you are otherwise satisfied with the 24-85, I would not buy a 2.8 L zoom.

 

For the price of the 24-70/2.8L, you could buy the 50/1.8, 24/2.8 AND the 85/1.??. Buying just ONE of these lenses would probaly provide what you need AND save a pile of cash. Don't forget you can always crop images after you take them if the framing isn't perfect.

[jon_austin]

Buying from a reputable merchant should allay some of your fears about your inevitable, forthcoming lens purchase(s). After buying a 10D along with the 24-85mm zoom, my first lens purchase was the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. I bought it from B&H Photo Video (linking through Photo.Net), used it for a week, and found it was too "long" for my purposes.

 

I treated the lens with kid gloves, and kept all the packaging and collateral in pristine condition. When I realized it wasn't the lens for me, I phoned B&H, got an RMA number, shipped it back and got a full refund of the purchase price. Subsequently, I bought the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro (also from B&H, also through Photo.Net's link).

 

Sure I lost about $30 in shipping charges (round trip), but none of the stores in my area had the lens in stock. I live in the 'burbs, so while I could have driven to one of the dealers downtown, avoiding two hours of metro traffic is worth more than 30 bucks to me. I think of it as spending $30 to "rent" the lens to try it out and determine its usefulness to me.

[steve_gray3]

FOLLOW UP FROM ORIGINAL POSTER:

 

I've only gotten a few responses but they have really caused me to start thinking a little more outside the box I had put myself in.

Thanks very much for the input!

 

Yes, the 24-85 generally gives me good results when not wide open or at the focal length extremes. When needing the low light capability when shooting the kids at their gymnastics meets I find I'm always wide open and at 85mm with the 24-85. This gives me a very good field of view in most cases but is not the best way to use this lens. So probably the thing to do to solve me specific problem is to get the Canon 85 1.8 prime. And then I could get the 70-210/4L for some quality outdoor reach. All for less than the Canon 24-70/2.8L and not much more than the third party zooms that aspire to be comparable to the 24-70/2.8L.

And I'd always have a very low light lens available when needed.

Per one of the suggetions I should also buy from a reputable dealer like B&H so I could return anything that didn't seem to be performing as it should.

 

Any thoughts on this new line of thought??

Keep the 24-85 and get an 85/1.8 and a 70-210/4L instead of the 24-70/2.8L? When buget permits I should probably also get a 20 or 24 prime to round things out. I think this will work.

[jon_austin]

Steve:

 

I think you're on the right track.

 

If you find that the long end of your 24-85mm doesn't give you QUITE the reach you want (or does just barely), you might also consider the 100mm f/2.0 USM. It's identically featured to the 85mm f/1.8, only about $50 more, and rated ever so slightly better (grade of 4.2 vs. 4.1 at photodo.com).

 

It is SO much fun to spend other people's money...

[hisham_atallah]

Add the 50/1.8 to the list for an additional $65 and 0.3 lb.

[whayne_padden]

Steve you should also look into the following lenses:

 

Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 Di XR

Tamron SP 28-105 f/2.8

Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS

 

Yes the third lens is slower, but it has IS and you have a 10D and can adjust the ISO on the fly to help compensate.

 

Personally, my choice would be in the following order

 

1> Canon 24-70 f/2.8L

 

2> Tamron 28-105 f/2.8

 

3> Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Tokina 28-80

 

4> Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX

 

 

Option 2 may appeal as this has an extra 35mm reach over canon, yet is no heavier than Canon and is still $500 cheaper. I want to find more about this lens. Don't forget on the 10D you have the 1.6x crop factor so you 70mm lens behaves like a 112mm lens, so the 70-75mm lenses may be all you need. If you want more get a Canon 70-200 f/4L; awesome lens.

[yakim_peled1]

>> "need to shoot indoors w/o flash. Mostly sporting events of the kids where flash is prohibited....... I think I've narrowed the choice to the Tokina 28-80 and the Canon 24-70".

 

For the price of the 24-70 I'd get 24/1.4 + 50/1.8. MUCH better low light availability.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[melissa_eiselein]

Another thought is to buy used. If you're lucky, you can find some good used lenses on B&H, which can also be returned if it doesn't meet your expectations. But you've got to be quick...the really nice lenses tend to go as fast as they are listed.

<p>I bought a used 28-70 f/2.8L for $800 from a private party here on Photo.net. That purchase saved me more than $400 over going with a new 24-70 f/2.8L. Someone else mentioned Canon's 50 f/1.8. I second that opinion--especially since it will make a very nice, ultra fast, portrait lens on your 10D.

<p>I also have the 28-135 IS and have found it to be a fantastic lens for the price. Best of all, it makes for a great all-around lens for those times when you are out taking snapshots or not-so-wide scenics. In my portfolio, you'll see a hand-held snapshot of a guy at a railway museum that I took at 1/6 of a second using the IS lens. You can see a little blur in the guy's hand where he's moving it, but the rest isn't too bad for an ultra-slow shot without flash. Of course, the 28-135 won't work for shots where you need a wide aperture to make your subject pop out.

<p>How much reach do you need? If you need quite a bit, have a ton of cash and can use a tripod, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS might make a good choice. Unfortunately, it's as heavy as it is costly.

[primoz]

I was considering Canon 28-135 IS and Sigma 24-70/2.8. I decided for Sigma (plus Sigma 70-200/2.8 because 70mm is a bit to short) and I don't regret. Yes I agree Canon 24-70/2.8 L would be better choice but I can't afford paying $1500 for lens right now. For shooting sport IS doesn't help at all if lens is f:3.5-5.6, since IS is meant to prevent shaking and letting you shot with slow time in low light, but not to give you faster time in low light, which is exactly what f:2.8 lens does.<br>

And I agree with Yakim, 24/1.4 plus 50/1.8 give you better chances for shoting in low light, but for sport photography I wouldn't really want non-zoom lens, at least if there's some other chance (500+ mm lenses are different thing). It's just that in sport event (cycling, moto sport, football, basketball etc. etc.) you are pretty much limited where you can be. You can't step infront of goalie in ice hockey and wait for shot (unless you are suicidal :) With landscape photography you have usually chance to walk around move closer and so on, but as I said with sport you usually don't have such chances, so in most cases zoom will do better, even though your focal leghts might be a bit short for most of shooting.

[steve_barnett2]

The Tokina 28-80 f2.8 is a very good lens. As well built as the nearest Canon L equivalent, and much cheaper. The focusing is neither slow nor noisy, and it can be switched from AF to manual focusing very quickly. I think primes are a daft idea for sporting work unless as a photographer you are allowed to move backwards and forwards with the action. You will end up looking to crop your pictures to try and find the shot, rather than fill the frame in the first instance.

[steve_gray3]

ANOTHER FOLLOW UP:

 

After reading more responses it is becoming apparent to this amateur (and I am finding out what an amateur I truly am) that there is much to consider. As good a value as the 85/1.8 is, it probably isn't such a good idea. For shooting in the gym where the kids can be from 20 to 120 feet way, I do need a zoom. And it has to be fast. On further reflection, the 70 to 80mm top end of some of the lenses I have been considering still may not give me enough reach. And going with the 24-80-ish type lens won't buy me much beyond the 24-85 I already have.

If I cpuild get to around 120 or so mm I think I would be fine. Is there any such thing as a fast mid range zoom? Something like a 50-125/2.8 That's probably what I need. A 70-200/2.8L would probably work but I shudder at the thought of carrying such a beast. And I'd rather not spend the money if I can avoid it.

 

In any case, thanks again for all your input. Keep them coming and keep me thinking.

[ilkka_nissila]

It's true that digital gives you an advantage in low-light shots but still, I think pretty much all indoor available light photography is done with primes. Stuff like 50/1.4, 100/2, 135/2 & the like. Yeah, you need a collection of them, but in many cases you can prepare for the shot in advance. You can spend a lot of money on a pro zoom and still not necessarily get what you need for top quality results.

[vincent_j_m]

I used to own a Tokina 28-80/2.8 ATX Pro. I had to sell it because it was soft wide open at all focal lengths. The flare was much worse than my trusty Canon 28-105 USM. There were consistent focusing problems with my Elan-7 (it would focus too close) so I couldn't use it.

[steve_barnett2]

Vincent, I know what you mean about the Tokina being a little soft wide open, but I have never found it to be so at all focal lengths, but only the ends of the range, 28 and 80. I think the thing to consider is that the Canon 28-105 is also soft wide open at the extremes, and that means it is soft at f3.5 or smaller. The Tokina is getting into its stride at f3.5, and the aperture stays the same when you zoom. All in all I don't think in sports photography you would want the aperture to start getting smaller at the same time you are struggling to maintain the all important shutter speed.

 

Steve, you shudder at the thought of carrying a 70-200? Think about using a monopod for support. Also, counter-intuitive as it may seem, the heavier the body the better balanced for hand holding the bigger lenses become. Battery packs help enormously to add weight and regain the camera's balance and you may find one for your 10d would also help ensure there are no issues about heavy battery consumption.

[jim_larson1]

Shooting from the *stands* in a *gym* is a very challenging situation.

 

Fortunately, the 10D has very clean ISO 400 and ISO 800 settings, so this helps. There is also a program called "neat image", made for cleaning up noisy high ISO shots.

 

On the lens side, you need LIGHT. The only way to get more ambient light is to have a larger aperture. The 50/1.8 or 100/2 would be a way to go. Keep in mind that "depth of field" drops when you open the lens up wide ==> This is a boon and a curse.

 

Getting good composition sitting in the stands is hard with a prime, but fortunately, you are shooting digital. At least you can crop to suit afterwards.

 

I swear by the 70-200/4L, but that lens is a mere "F4". I suspect, however, that it may be faster than your 24-85 at 85, but not by much.

 

I used to think IS would be a cureall for this situation, but that only resolves YOUR body shake. IS does not stop the SUBJECT's movement from blurring your shot.

[david enzel]

I am new to Canon after switching from Nikon. I now have a 10D and a 16-35 f2.8 and am happy with both. I can't say what you should buy but I can make some observations based on my personal experience.

 

1. Buy the best glass you can afford. It will show up in your pictures and you will never regret it.

 

2. Speed costs extra but can really be worth it especially if shoot in low light without flash.

 

3. Don't buy a lens that is too big or heavy. It will stay at home too much no matter how optically fine it is.

 

4. If you can't afford your dream lens buy something that will do the job. Use it. If you later have more money sell it and buy the dream lens.

 

5. If lens changes bother you, stick with zooms. Otherwise buy primes. I prefer zooms.

 

6. L glass is worth the extra money if you can afford it.

[catchlight]

Steve, I've shot amateur and school sports for years, and have a short list of essentials: <p>

 

1. Get out of the stands--you'll never get killer shots from there. Negotiate access to better shooting locations, perhaps by offering your best shots to the meet organizers or your daughter's club, etc., for their publicity.<p>

 

2. Go to a typical gymnastics venue with your current zoom, and maybe a borrowed longer one, and find out what focal lengths would be most useful for your daughter's events. That will take the guesswork out of buying the right focal length(s).<p>

 

3. Any zoom slower than f/2.8 won't enable you to freeze action, even at high ISO. Fast primes would be even better in this regard, including the Canon 50mm f/1.4 (if it's long enough), the Canon 85mm f/1.8, and the pricey but sharp Canon 135mm f/2L.<p>

 

4. Consider multiple fast primes if you are able to switch lenses between your daughter's events. If she's in floor routines which cover a large area, a fast zoom may be better.<p>

 

5. Avoid 3rd party lenses. Only Canon's USM lenses will focus fast enough for what you want to do.<p>

 

6. My hunch is that you need a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L zoom. You can buy a mint used one on this site for about $850. (Check the seller's feedback on this site and on E*** first). This lens will give you the following advantages:<p>

 

<li>speed

<li>flexibility of focal length

<li>sharpness

<li>beautifully blurred backgrounds.<p>

 

Since you're covering action sports, don't spend extra money on the Image Stabilization version of the 70-200mm. Use any other cash to get a fast shorter zoom like a mint, used Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L or a Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime.<p>

 

The best news is that you're using a camera with quick shutter and AF response times which are up to the challenges of covering action sports. And don't be afraid to crank up the ISO on the 10D. I've been shooting live theatre and dance under "coalmine at midnight" lighting conditions lately with amazingly noise-free results. Even with shots taken at 1600 and 3200 ISO, a program like NeatImage brings the noise down to acceptable levels.<p>

 

I hope this info helps, and that you have a great time with it all.

[ted_reyes]

Steve,

I shoot soccer on a 10D exclusily using the 70-200 f2.8L except for team pictures when I switch to a 28 f2.8. 70-200 f2.8L works great on a monopod!!! When I save enough, I'll buy a longer prime. Very happy with many of the pictures from both lenses. These are outdoor in SoCal which gives me the opportunity to stop down to f8 when desired.

 

Before purchasing the 10D, I rented a 100-400L to use with my Elan II. Try renting from a camera store to test which lens will work best in your situation prior to buying.

 

Additionally, I own a Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8ATX Pro which works well for family pictures, zoo trips etc. I like the images but the AF is too slow for sports. Borrowed the 85 f1.8 USM which produced very sharp and colorful images.

 

Regards, Ted

[brambor]

Well I don't know if it is the same but I shoot youth Hockey from the stands with the D30. I own these primes: 20mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0, 50 1.8 and 135mm 2.0

 

The 135mm 2.0 is awesome in low light. It isn't cheap but with the 1.6 factor on D30 it becomes a very powerful telephoto for sports.

 

rb

[david_carson]

<p>For what it's worth, this guy reviewed the two Canon 85's and

a Nikon 85 f/1.4 <a

href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/">here

(http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/)</a>.

 

<p>And he shoots gymnastics.

[primoz]

<i>5. Avoid 3rd party lenses. Only Canon's USM lenses will focus fast enough for what you want to do.</i><br>

Brent this might not be exactly true. Most of time AF speed depends on body and not on lens. When I got my EOS 3 (I had EOS 300 before) I tried to shoot some MTB guys at downhill (speed around 80+ km/h). Since I still didn't have new lenses I have been using Canon 75-300 lens, which doesn't have USM and it was completely useless combined with EOS 300 for shoting stuff like that with AF. On EOS 3 it was working just fine.<br>

After that I got chance to test both Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM lens and Canon 70-200/2.8 L lens. When it comes to AF speed you can't see any difference, and optical quality is same with both lenses for me. Actually some people even say that Sigma has faster AF then Canon (meant for Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM vs. Canon 70-200/2.8 L and not Sigma vs. Canon generaly). And price difference was reason why I went with Sigma, since I try to avoid used lenses, because I never had good experiences with stuff like that. As I said, AF speed mostly depends on camera and not on lens.

[steve_barnett2]

"5. Avoid 3rd party lenses. Only Canon's USM lenses will focus fast enough for what you want to do."

 

It is a pretty sweeping statement and certainly does not apply to all 3rd party lenses, so one can only suppose it comes from an individual bad experience. What Primoz highlights is that there are so many variables with a modern SLR, from individual settings, expectations, competance of the operator, model of camera, model of lens, etc etc, that it is meaningless to make such generalizations. The danger is that from one or two disgruntled customers, usually the vocal ones, whole swathes of equipment become no go areas through mindless prejudice. A considerable number of people post on this forum about 'only use Canon lenses'. They conveniently forget in doing so some of the utter dogs of lenses that Canon currently market.