mike t.

The 200/2.8 handles much better than the 70-200/2.8, IMHO. This is the biggest difference between the two. I really think you have to shoot both to get a feel for each one. Then make a decision.

 

Re: sharpness: the prime is technically sharper than the zoom, although I doubt that the difference is practically significant for many subjects. I've used both, the L zoom while trialing against the Sigma 70-200/2.8, and now own the L prime for its handling and portability (I found a used one very nicely priced).

 

And I really wish the Sigma bashers would give it a rest. You might want to give serious consideration to the Sigma zooms in your decision-making. They offer a great alternative to L glass, if one is unbiased about brand name. Try one, don't just listen to opinions. Draw conclusions from your own use, not someone else's bias.

 

And I think that it should be suggested that a lot of the lack of sharpness criticism directed at fast glass used wide open is really a focus problem, not always a native sharpness problem. Handling narrow DOF is a skill and sometimes camera and lens will require adjustment to maximize focus ability and sharpness.

 

Good luck!

Ernie, if you really want to sell it, I'll make you an offer. E-mail me, if you're interested.

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a great value for the money, no doubt. You can't have mine ;-))

Frank, I'm delighted once again by the pic of your Golden. Unlike a magical lens like your Summar, we can never have our dogs long enough ...

 

Mike

Yakim, the desire for a fast lens is mostly driven by the need for autofocus capability in low light, not sharpness. Secondarily, he needs to be concerned with sufficient shutter speed to freeze motion. Frederick does mention he wants to shoot at dawn which I interpret to mean low light conditions. One stop does make a difference in autofocus speed in difficult lighting, IMHO, especially on his body.

I handhold the 120-300/2.8 frequently and also use a monopod. When I spend the day out photographing several matches (frequently the case), I use the monopod for transport and in-between matches but handhold while actually shooting (shortening up the monopod to keep it out of way) for 60-90 minutes.

 

The 120-300 is not a walkaround lens, Frederick (but the 70-200 is one, IMO). I have no problem shooting it handheld, but I would not want to spend eight hours lugging it around without my monopod. Keep in mind that it doesn't have built-in lens strap lugs if you're serious about spending extended time carrying it alone. You'll want to rig a lens strap using the collar foot if you do so.

 

Mike

The 1D obsolete? As far as sports shooting is concerned, there are a lot of photographers out there still using them and producing great work. If I had to track athletes in a fast-moving, unpredictable sport like soccer or hockey, I'd opt for the 1D. Is there better autofocus in a digital camera for the price of a used 1D? I don't think so. Can you fix white balance problems post-shoot? Sure. Can you fix OOF conditions post-shoot? Don't think so.

 

Jordi, you said you wanted better field handling, better AF, faster frame rates, faster exposures, rugged body. No question the 1D is all of those compared to the 20D.

 

It depends what you intend to shoot, really. The 20D is a great prosumer compromise camera that does lots of things well, but specializes in nothing. The 1D is a pro's sport, PJ, and even wedding camera. Different tools.

Frederick,

 

I shoot youth soccer with the Sigma 120-300/2.8. Have shot with a 1.4x TC, but not a 2x. I could detect only the very slightest loss in sharpness with the 1.4. No noticeable effect on AF, although the tournament weekend I used it we had drenching sunlight and all day games (the more light, the better the AF).

 

I would say that if you find the 70-200 + 2xTC combo acceptable, you will find the 120-300/2.8 + 2xTC acceptable also. Reason is that I have the Sigma 70-200/2.8 as well and believe my 120-300/2.8 to be the sharper of the two lenses.

 

Good luck with your decision.

Monte, I have an R2A and an M4, along with a small selection of user Leica and almost new CV lenses. The Bessa and the Leica are completely different in use. I like them both, but for different reasons. Preferences are so personal that generalizing serves no useful purpose. If money is limited I'd go with user Leica glass and the Bessa body, because that is the best shooting combination for the least money.

 

Don't fret. Just buy it and shoot. You can always sell what doesn't work well for you. That's the only way to learn.

 

Good luck!

My beater DR, with an R2A and XP2

Brian Pott's samples seem to me to demonstrate the effect of razor thin DOF, a quality that is probably unsurpassed in the 85/1.2, more than purely bokeh differences. If you want that "eyes only" focus with even the subject's upper forehead blurred, get the 85/1.2. Otherwise, working distance is your most important consideration, as Bob suggests.

 

Of course, you might be best served with the 70-200/2.8 L ...

There is nothing redundant about the two 85s, IMHO. The 85/1.2 is probably nothing less than one of the truly classic portrait lenses ever produced. If you can afford it, buy it. Your portraits will never be the same. The 85/1.8 is a nice, fast, sharp example of a mild tele lens. I have the 1.8. I covet the 1.2.

I have the 135/2, 200/2.8, and a 70-200/2.8. If I had to choose one lens for portrait work, it would be the zoom. Heresy to some. But the flexibility to frame different people and children at different distances very quickly shouldn't be underestimated, especially if getting tighter shots is important and you are oriented to a more candid style.

 

All will produce pleasing bokeh, all will be more than sharp enough for portraiture, all are very fine lenses. My suggestion is deal with a shop that will let you try and return. Best to shoot them and see for yourself.

 

Good luck with your decision.

My thoughts about the 35mm summilux? I want one.

I consider the last pic underexposed. My take would have been at f2.8 focussing on the lead runner at around 1/500-1/1000 (my guess, but I'd be in aperture priority with some compensation or spot metering), and I would have tried to find a position where my subject wasn't quite so backlit. I like more detail in the subject - dark skin requires more exposure to get it.

Sportshooter.com has a review of this lens under its equipment heading. It is revered by those who shoot sports. Andy Mead's photos at this site are mostly taken with the 400/2.8 on a 1D. Without hyperbole, his futbol images sizzle, even on my funky monitor.

I second or third or fourth the advice to avoid the 4x+ zooms. Any of those 70-300 choices will end up being secondary or novelty glass, assuming you're accustomed to the quality of the 50/1.8 and using a tripod.

Sabrina, IMHO cameras are tools. It's true you may prefer to use one versus another, but that doesn't mean the other should be cast aside. I use RFs and SLRs and can't imagine not using both. It's plain fun to have the variety, anyway. I say keep the SLR equipment.

The security guard was overzealous. Mall restrictions on photography are meant to discourage commercial photgraphy because of its potential effect on foot traffic in crowded areas, more than anything else. The restrictions are not meant to preclude actions like snapping shots of family or friends. Communicate your displeasure by letter and then follow the letter up with a phone call, asking for a clarification of the policy and clearer direction to the security people.

 

Anger or indignation is a waste of time. Express your dissatisfaction so that there is potential to change the behavior of that guard.

I second Erin's comments. With my two f2.8 telephoto zooms I attribute OOF problems to my error, not the camera or the lens. I shoot youth sports and candids wide open often in poor light. First, the DOF is quite narrow at f2.8. AI Servo AF is often a gamble depending on your subject's distance and movement, if any. Second, camera/lens shake is always a risk when shutter speeds begin to drop with difficult light.

 

Though I don't own it, I've shot with the Canon 2.8 70-200 and it is a very, very good lens. Don't give up on it. I'd have it checked out by Canon service to ease your mind, then I'd give it a proper homecoming.

Tamron 28-75/2.8, Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 II, Canon 28-135 IS USM. All good, all sharp enuff, all flexible, all well under $500, new. Alternative for better quality, but less flexible: two "carrying" primes - Canon 35/2 and the 85/1.8. Let your own tendency to like to zoom with lens vs with feet decide for you. If I had to pick one, it'd be the Tamron. Killer deal for the money, no question.

No fall off, no vignetting, plenty sharp wide open, stopped down, and in-between. Great color, price, and you can't have mine. Go buy your own.

I like the quality of the 135mm and the 85mm (have both), but I'd get a zoom if I were limited to one body. With a 1.6 crop the 24-70/2.8 or the 28-75/2.8 from Tamron would work well except for subjects further out. And either zoom would work well for all kinds of other shooting, too. The Tamron is a bona fide deal for its price, as many have noted, although its AF speed may not be as quick as the Canon.

 

That said, the advantage of the faster primes for indoor sports is a consideration. You'll have to rely on higher ISOs with the zoom, and the AF will respond better in poor light with the faster lenses as well.

Carlos, IMHO this question is not the right one to ask. I've used the 70-200/2.8 and own the 200/2.8. The prime is sharper and and of course faster than the 70-200/4. But it is not as flexible as the zoom. So if the zoom's versatility is what you need, buy the zoom. The 70-200 is plenty sharp for most work, esp if you're not shooting architecture. Your dilemma it seems to me: versatility versus speed and weight/handling.

Due respect to Ken, but I've used the Sigma EX 70-200/2.8 alongside the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS. Very little difference in AF speed IMHO, in use for youth soccer where subject tracking is tough. The Sigma EX line employs HSM, which is comparable to USM.

 

Predictive AF in AI Servo is more reliable when the subject is moving across the lens/film plane rather than directly toward or away. It is best sometimes to select the center AF point manually and strive to keep it on the subject with the shutter half-way down when the subject's coming at you or going away. Some CF the AF actuation to the * button and "toggle" to get the shot. Experiment. And keep in mind that shooting sports is low percentage work. I get plenty of players blurred-parking lot sharp as tack shots. I don't get jazzed about it. I just shoot more.