A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Sigma 50-150 telephoto



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 18th 12, 07:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

On 9/18/2012 1:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Savageduck writes:

On 2012-09-17 15:38:02 -0700, PeterN said:

On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Robert Coe writes:
snip


One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
preference.

My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.


You can say that again!
...and low light performance is abysmal.

If you have good light and little need for fast focus it is great.


I use the Sigma 120-400 to shoot roller derby in indoor arenas. Luckily
the main one I shoot in is pretty well lit -- I was shooting 1/350 f/5.6
ISO 6400. Shooting from track level (the whole arena is flat, no way to
get higher than standing), players get in front of each other a lot, so
the AF gets a real workout, losing and reacquiring the target
constantly. This Sigma is an unltrasonic, though, so it focuses quite
fast. (Was about half the price of the Nikon, and generally got better
reviews at the time I bought it. It's done very well for me at the
price point. Obviously it has a smaller zoom range.)


I've been invited to do a roller derby shoot. I had planned to use my
70-200 with a 1.7 extender. Any tips?


--
Peter
  #12  
Old September 18th 12, 09:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

PeterN writes:

On 9/18/2012 1:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Savageduck writes:

On 2012-09-17 15:38:02 -0700, PeterN said:

On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Robert Coe writes:
snip


One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
preference.

My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.

You can say that again!
...and low light performance is abysmal.

If you have good light and little need for fast focus it is great.


I use the Sigma 120-400 to shoot roller derby in indoor arenas. Luckily
the main one I shoot in is pretty well lit -- I was shooting 1/350 f/5.6
ISO 6400. Shooting from track level (the whole arena is flat, no way to
get higher than standing), players get in front of each other a lot, so
the AF gets a real workout, losing and reacquiring the target
constantly. This Sigma is an unltrasonic, though, so it focuses quite
fast. (Was about half the price of the Nikon, and generally got better
reviews at the time I bought it. It's done very well for me at the
price point. Obviously it has a smaller zoom range.)


I've been invited to do a roller derby shoot. I had planned to use my
70-200 with a 1.7 extender. Any tips?


It's a fun sport to shoot. I think it's easier to get adequate derby
shots than baseball, football, or basketball. For one thing, there's no
"ball" or other magic token that moves around much faster than the
people and which you have to keep track of. (The very best shots for
any sport are all equally hard of course -- how good it can be just goes
up with what's possible to the very best photographers.)

I use my 70-200 bare a lot, and with a 1.4x some, more than I use the
120-400, so if you can get trackside you'll be fine on reach I think.
Although lighting varies with the venue of course, and the one I know
best is probably brighter than average.

Lots of people shoot off-camera flash for derby. That has benefits (if
it's permitted) if you can rig it well and have enough flashes and radio
triggers, but I haven't gone to that yet; partly because the available
light where I shoot is good enough to handle it well. If you *are*
using off-camera flash, you can adjust the exposure to put the
background a stop or two below the players, which helps remove
distractions; I like the look.

Even direct flash can produce tolerable results (if permitted). I shot
a dozen that way as a test, and was able to edit them up to look quite
nice. It was constraining to have to think about repeat rate, though.
I couldn't do more than three or four shots at full repeat, and even two
a second (manually triggered) ran the flash down fairly soon. Also,
pushing shoe-mount flashes to their limit really can melt them:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carak/1439774570/.

At least at the bouts I go to (fairly small league), there are often
lots of children around, sometimes the children of players and sometimes
just spectators. Children are of course photographic gold :-), if
you've got a use for feature pictures as well as the action shots. Also
*parents* of players fairly often.

Look into the really basic intros to the sport (Wikipedia will do) --
that's enough to get started in photography (if you don't already know
about it). Basically, the two "jammers" (the ones with stars on their
helmet covers) are the ones the "pack" (everybody else) needs to block
or assist, so essentially everything of interest happens right around
one or the other of them. So keep your eye and lens on them during play
and push the button when appropriate :-).

There really is some use for high-speed sequence shooting. Often when
you see something *start* to happen you'll shoot (you don't know where
it's going or who is about to skate into the frame and block the view),
but then it develops rapidly into something even more interesting -- say
the skater behind the one just knocked off her feet now trips over the
downed skater and also goes flying, or something. Be a shame to miss
it! I configure my camera for max frame rate (that's camera-specific,
but for me it includes things like 12 bits per channel rather than 14; I
need the smaller files for speed more than I need the dreamily smooth
tonality!), but have trained myself to shoot single or even fairly quick
multiple single shots more than just mashing the release. But being
*able* to mash the release when I need to is also very important.

Here are my shots from four bouts last Saturday
http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2012/09150-bruise/. That's
from 1440 that made it onto my computer (I mostly don't take the time to
erase in-camera, but if I happen to notice a technical dud when I have
time to push the button, I will).

(Apologies if anything I've said is insultingly basic. I'm guessing
what level of advice might be useful, and it's easier for you to skip
stuff you already know than to do another go-round to get more info in
some area so when in doubt I've included more info.)
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #13  
Old September 18th 12, 09:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

On 9/18/2012 4:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
PeterN writes:

On 9/18/2012 1:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Savageduck writes:

On 2012-09-17 15:38:02 -0700, PeterN said:

On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Robert Coe writes:
snip


One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
preference.

My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.

You can say that again!
...and low light performance is abysmal.

If you have good light and little need for fast focus it is great.

I use the Sigma 120-400 to shoot roller derby in indoor arenas. Luckily
the main one I shoot in is pretty well lit -- I was shooting 1/350 f/5.6
ISO 6400. Shooting from track level (the whole arena is flat, no way to
get higher than standing), players get in front of each other a lot, so
the AF gets a real workout, losing and reacquiring the target
constantly. This Sigma is an unltrasonic, though, so it focuses quite
fast. (Was about half the price of the Nikon, and generally got better
reviews at the time I bought it. It's done very well for me at the
price point. Obviously it has a smaller zoom range.)


I've been invited to do a roller derby shoot. I had planned to use my
70-200 with a 1.7 extender. Any tips?


It's a fun sport to shoot. I think it's easier to get adequate derby
shots than baseball, football, or basketball. For one thing, there's no
"ball" or other magic token that moves around much faster than the
people and which you have to keep track of. (The very best shots for
any sport are all equally hard of course -- how good it can be just goes
up with what's possible to the very best photographers.)

I use my 70-200 bare a lot, and with a 1.4x some, more than I use the
120-400, so if you can get trackside you'll be fine on reach I think.
Although lighting varies with the venue of course, and the one I know
best is probably brighter than average.

Lots of people shoot off-camera flash for derby. That has benefits (if
it's permitted) if you can rig it well and have enough flashes and radio
triggers, but I haven't gone to that yet; partly because the available
light where I shoot is good enough to handle it well. If you *are*
using off-camera flash, you can adjust the exposure to put the
background a stop or two below the players, which helps remove
distractions; I like the look.

Even direct flash can produce tolerable results (if permitted). I shot
a dozen that way as a test, and was able to edit them up to look quite
nice. It was constraining to have to think about repeat rate, though.
I couldn't do more than three or four shots at full repeat, and even two
a second (manually triggered) ran the flash down fairly soon. Also,
pushing shoe-mount flashes to their limit really can melt them:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carak/1439774570/.

At least at the bouts I go to (fairly small league), there are often
lots of children around, sometimes the children of players and sometimes
just spectators. Children are of course photographic gold :-), if
you've got a use for feature pictures as well as the action shots. Also
*parents* of players fairly often.

Look into the really basic intros to the sport (Wikipedia will do) --
that's enough to get started in photography (if you don't already know
about it). Basically, the two "jammers" (the ones with stars on their
helmet covers) are the ones the "pack" (everybody else) needs to block
or assist, so essentially everything of interest happens right around
one or the other of them. So keep your eye and lens on them during play
and push the button when appropriate :-).

There really is some use for high-speed sequence shooting. Often when
you see something *start* to happen you'll shoot (you don't know where
it's going or who is about to skate into the frame and block the view),
but then it develops rapidly into something even more interesting -- say
the skater behind the one just knocked off her feet now trips over the
downed skater and also goes flying, or something. Be a shame to miss
it! I configure my camera for max frame rate (that's camera-specific,
but for me it includes things like 12 bits per channel rather than 14; I
need the smaller files for speed more than I need the dreamily smooth
tonality!), but have trained myself to shoot single or even fairly quick
multiple single shots more than just mashing the release. But being
*able* to mash the release when I need to is also very important.

Here are my shots from four bouts last Saturday
http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2012/09150-bruise/. That's
from 1440 that made it onto my computer (I mostly don't take the time to
erase in-camera, but if I happen to notice a technical dud when I have
time to push the button, I will).

(Apologies if anything I've said is insultingly basic. I'm guessing
what level of advice might be useful, and it's easier for you to skip
stuff you already know than to do another go-round to get more info in
some area so when in doubt I've included more info.)


Thanks,

I will have first choice of location, Flash is not permitted. I assumed
ringside, but is one spot better than others.

--
Peter
  #14  
Old September 18th 12, 10:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

Robert Coe wrote:

[50-150mm]

: It weighs 95% as much as 70-200 f2.8 Fx zooms.


Yeah, but a bottom of 70 leaves a 15mm gap between it and, say, the Canon
17-55 (which I have).


A non-problem.
People used to have lens choices like 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 55 or 55mm,
85mm, 100mm, 135mm ... and not a zoom in sight. It worked.

I have -40mm, 50mm and 70-mm. I don't have problems with the
"missing" 10mm and 20mm.

However, the 50-150mm has a 50mm gap between it's end and the
70-200mm's end This is about the difference between a 150mm
without and with a 1.4x teleconverter.


: There are good APS-c wide zooms which top out in the 70-85mm focal
: length range if you really don't want to "lose" the 50-70mm range.
: The 50-70mm range is usually able to be compensated for by "zooming with
: your feet" if you need to frame everything perfectly ex-camera.


Depending on where you are and what you're doing. It can be hard (or at least
embarrassing) to "zoom with your feet" at an awards ceremony, with all the
wives and mothers cursing you for getting in their way. ;^)


It can be even more hard and embarassing to zoom the missing 50mm
in with your feet shooting the big cats at the zoo. :-)

Anyway, if you have to switch between your -55 and your 50-
lens --- which is gonna happen, if you don't plan ahead and
be at the right spot at an awards ceremony --- you're going
to lose the shot anyway. If you can plan, you can plan for
the gap.

-Wolfgang
  #15  
Old September 19th 12, 01:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me wrote:
: On 18/09/2012 2:40 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:04:50 +1200, Me wrote:
: : On 17/09/2012 12:46 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
: : Has anyone here tried the new Sigma APS-C 50-150mm f/2.8 lens with image
: : stabilization? I have the old, unstabilized version; and until I got use of a
: : high-end 70-200 last year, it was one of my favorite lenses for event
: : photography. It's pretty sharp, and both the focus and the zoon are internal,
: : so it doesn't collect dust. The only serious knock on it was that its AF
: : wasn't particularly fast.
: :
: : The new lens claims to be even sharper and to focus faster than the old one,
: : and it preserves the internal focus and zoom. Initial reviews have been
: : favorable, but that doesn't tell you much; early reviews often come from
: : fanboys. If it's as good as they claim, it could be a winner (assuming, of
: : course, that one can overlook Sigma's reputation for poor quality control). A
: : 50-150 arguably fits into the typical APS-C lens lineup better than the 70-200
: : does, since so many walkaround zooms top out around 50mm.
: :
: : The 50-150 f2.8 OS doesn't make sense:
:
: Have you tried one? I thought my old 50-150 was just about right.
:
: : It weighs 95% as much as 70-200 f2.8 Fx zooms.
:
: Yeah, but a bottom of 70 leaves a 15mm gap between it and, say, the Canon
: 17-55 (which I have).
:
: : It costs about 75% as much as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS.
:
: Huh? Isn't that the same lens? Or are you talking about a FF version? I'm not
: aware that such exists.
:
: : Resale value will be poor, as it's a Sigma, and also it's an Aps-c
: : format lens in the quality/price range where people think about the
: : possibility of changing to 35mm format in the future.
:
: Been there, didn't do that. When the 5D3 came out at $3500 and its new walker
: came out at $2300, I punted and bought a second 7D. That said, I did
: tentatively resolve to buy only FF lenses from now on. You never know.
:
: : At $1,000 (street price) it's way over-priced for what it is.
:
: I paid about $750 for the old, unstabilized version four or five years ago,
: and I thought I got my money's worth. $1K is arguably not exhorbitant for the
: same lens with IS and faster AF.
:
: : There are good APS-c wide zooms which top out in the 70-85mm focal
: : length range if you really don't want to "lose" the 50-70mm range.
: : The 50-70mm range is usually able to be compensated for by "zooming with
: : your feet" if you need to frame everything perfectly ex-camera.
:
: Depending on where you are and what you're doing. It can be hard (or at least
: embarrassing) to "zoom with your feet" at an awards ceremony, with all the
: wives and mothers cursing you for getting in their way. ;^)
:
: : If you also need "fast" at about 50mm, then you can get a very
: : inexpensive 50mm f1.8.
: : The weight of this lens (and the 70-200 f2.8s) is substantial, as you'll
: : know if you used the 70-200 you tried for long enough.
:
: The 70-200 wasn't a loaner; I still have it. I'll have to give it back if I
: quit my job; in the meantime, they'd have to pry my cold, dead fingers from
: around it. But yes, it is heavy. Which is why the old 50-150 still makes it
: into my bag sometimes.
:
: : I hope I've put you off - you don't need a review of the lens optical
: : performance - there's enough information to be gleaned from specs and
: : pricing to show that even if it performs well, it's at best a poor
: : solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
:
: No need to put me off, I wasn't going to buy it (except possibly for my wife,
: who probably wouldn't like the weight). It just sounds like an interesting
: lens. Like my old 50-150, but bigger, heavier, and more expensive. But with
: stabilization and (allegedly) faster AF.
:
: Bob
:
: I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
: version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
: Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
: 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
: I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
: envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
: is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
: and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
: as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
: first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
: best.
  #16  
Old September 19th 12, 02:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me wrote:
: I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
: version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
: Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
: 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
: I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
: envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
: is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
: and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
: as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
: first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
: best.

Why do you prefer the f/4 to the f/2.8? Because it's lighter? The 70-200 I
have is the f/2.8L IS II, and it's plenty sharp for my eyes. But it is heavy,
and I seldom carry it outdoors for that reason. I consider it mainly an indoor
event lens, and it's hard to beat in that role (although maybe a bit long for
my 7D's).

Bob
  #17  
Old September 19th 12, 03:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

PeterN writes:

I will have first choice of location, Flash is not permitted. I
assumed ringside, but is one spot better than others.


DOH! Um, gosh, that's a good question, and I really should have thought
of saying something about that already.

I've mostly been shooting from kind of the edge of turn 3 (third turn
after the jammer start line; end of the other straightaway). That gives
me the best shot at the FIRST action in each jam (they always start the
same place). Usually the jam goes on for several revolutions of the
track, so corner 1 is equivalent after the first revolution, if the
lighting is the same. (Where I shoot, the lighting is NOT the same, as
a consequence of which I basically skip the back straightaway that the
team benches are along; the lights back there are off to let the
projector that provides the scoreboard be seen by the audience.)

Playing around Saturday, I'm starting to like shooting from the apex or
even the outside of the ends of the oval. The tradeoff is that it lets
me see the front of the pack for less time, but it lets me see people's
faces when they look in and behind them more (and they look in and
behind them a LOT).

(I believe my "turn 3" terminology is correct and standard; if it seems
not to be, assume that my description is right and the turn # I'm using
is somehow wrong.)

Also, mostly I try to get down at least to sitting on the floor. I'm
taller than most derby girls (even on their skates), plus a lot of the
action happens when people are crouching and leaning forward. Also, it
helps block out background clutter, too.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #18  
Old September 19th 12, 04:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 241
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

On 19/09/2012 1:12 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me wrote:
: I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
: version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
: Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
: 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
: I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
: envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
: is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
: and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
: as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
: first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
: best.

Why do you prefer the f/4 to the f/2.8? Because it's lighter? The 70-200 I
have is the f/2.8L IS II, and it's plenty sharp for my eyes. But it is heavy,
and I seldom carry it outdoors for that reason. I consider it mainly an indoor
event lens, and it's hard to beat in that role (although maybe a bit long for
my 7D's).

Yes - because it's lighter, much less expensive, and darned good.
Perhaps check exif on files you've taken using the f2.8, even indoors,
and see how often you actually use it fully wide.
The f4 version is possibly better suited to FX than DX, as you've got
the extra stop of high ISO flexibility, as well as the extra stop of
shallow DOF if you need it, and you don't really "lose" the potential
300mm "dx advantage" with a Canon 5DII, as it's plenty sharp enough to
get a 10mp or so "dx crop" from the 35mm frame.
The time I used the 700-200 f4L on a 5DII, the images taken at f4 were
great throughout the focal length range. Contrast was good. I bet that
flare is less of a problem than it may be with the f2.8. The AF seemed
to be blisteringly fast. The IS seemed to be very effective. It's
weather sealed, it felt good (well made) but light weight. It's a pro
lens - nothing feels "budget" about it at all. Current list price is
less than the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS, and not much more than the 50-150
OS. I think that's a great price for what it is.
Nikon users have been talking for years about how an equivalent is
needed, there are always rumours that one is "coming soon". When (or
if) it does, I bet they shaft us for price, but it will still sell like
hot cakes if it's any good.
I am fed up with the weight of my kit, I'm getting older, and the kit
has been getting heavier.
  #19  
Old September 19th 12, 11:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

tony cooper writes:

I've never seen - let alone photographed - a roller derby, but I've
photographed greyhound races. I always shoot from a beginning of the
straight-away as the dogs come around the fourth curve. There's
action as the dogs come out of the curve, and I can pan on the action
at the beginning of the homestretch.


That sounds like about the same idea, yes.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #20  
Old September 19th 12, 11:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

Me writes:

On 19/09/2012 1:12 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me wrote:
: I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
: version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
: Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
: 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
: I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
: envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
: is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
: and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
: as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
: first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
: best.

Why do you prefer the f/4 to the f/2.8? Because it's lighter? The 70-200 I
have is the f/2.8L IS II, and it's plenty sharp for my eyes. But it is heavy,
and I seldom carry it outdoors for that reason. I consider it mainly an indoor
event lens, and it's hard to beat in that role (although maybe a bit long for
my 7D's).

Yes - because it's lighter, much less expensive, and darned
good. Perhaps check exif on files you've taken using the f2.8, even
indoors, and see how often you actually use it fully wide.


I'm guess quite possibly less than 50% of the time. On the other hand,
I resort to fast lenses when it's dark.

The concept of deliberately getting a zoom I plan to use a lot slower
than f/2.8 is kind of appalling to me, I admit. That's *already*
sacrificing a lot of speed by my standards.

Depends what you shoot, of course.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
anyone knows if this is anygood? Nikon fit Sigma 1000mm f13.5 Mirror-telephoto banjo Digital Photography 7 February 26th 07 03:06 PM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 Telephoto lens & Nikon D70 Hew Moore Digital SLR Cameras 11 December 22nd 05 11:28 AM
FA: Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS CFB Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 August 4th 05 01:13 AM
a recommendation on a telephoto or zoom telephoto nikon lens. [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 1 December 8th 04 10:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.