PDA

View Full Version : Finally, a lens that does the 20D's size justice...

ScottMcLeod
May-09-2006, 11:41 PM
http://framebyframe.ca/storage/photos/20060509/20d_70-200.jpg

Sexy sexy sexy...

I can't wait to put it to good use!
Bob Bell
May-10-2006, 05:58 AM
How about a hint for us non sigma users?
StevenV
May-10-2006, 06:42 AM
How about a hint for us non sigma users?

it looks a lot like the 70-200 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052003sigma_70-200mm.asp) to me
DoctorIt
May-10-2006, 07:05 AM
It is a 70-200. Looks like Scotty beat up on the local camera shop and he got the deal he wanted.

This is a great lens, some say better than the newer DG version. I was happy with mine before I upgraded to the Nikkor.
SpeshulEd
May-10-2006, 10:21 AM
I was looking at one of these for concert photography, how does it fare in low light handheld conditions?

I was debating between this and the canon version with the IS, but the sigma is much cheaper.
HeldDown
May-10-2006, 11:39 AM
lol! There hasn't BEEN any "low light" since Scott bought the glass ;)
The Sigma performs 90% as well as the L, but the lack of IS might throw you off. I don't care for IS personally, and at 60% the cost, the Sigma's definetely a great deal. Buy it and don't regret it.
Jeffro
May-10-2006, 11:40 AM
http://framebyframe.ca/storage/photos/20060509/20d_70-200.jpg

Sexy sexy sexy...

I can't wait to put it to good use!

This one looks pretty sexy too!:wink

http://leiningerphotos.smugmug.com/photos/68872644-L.jpg
HeldDown
May-10-2006, 11:51 AM
Sorry Scott, but Jeffro wins ;)
StevenV
May-10-2006, 01:59 PM
lol! There hasn't BEEN any "low light" since Scott bought the glass ;)

just stop by your local park and shoot an 8pm rec league baseball game. http://steven.vorefamily.net/images/icon_pirate.gif
ScottMcLeod
May-10-2006, 04:10 PM
just stop by your local park and shoot an 8pm rec league baseball game. http://steven.vorefamily.net/images/icon_pirate.gif

When I get a night off, i'll go hunting for low light to test it in.

-Scott
SpeshulEd
May-11-2006, 10:55 AM
When I get a night off, i'll go hunting for low light to test it in.

-Scott

I'd very much appreciate that. I'm very interested in this lens.
Chase
May-13-2006, 11:00 PM
The IS is really worth every penny when it comes to stage and dance photography. I was wanting the sigma until i caved and bought a used IS for 1500 off of fm.com.
ScottMcLeod
May-13-2006, 11:12 PM
The IS is really worth every penny when it comes to stage and dance photography. I was wanting the sigma until i caved and bought a used IS for 1500 off of fm.com.

Oh, probably. When I have another 1000$CDN to spend on an IS version, I'll spend 1000$ and sell my sigma.

Until then, I need that 1000$ to pay for 2 month's rent next year.
Chase
May-13-2006, 11:20 PM
Oh, probably. When I have another 1000$CDN to spend on an IS version, I'll spend 1000$ and sell my sigma.

Until then, I need that 1000$ to pay for 2 month's rent next year.
Are you shooting professionally or just as a hobby?
sthig
May-14-2006, 04:14 AM
I've had this lens for a while. I use it coupled with the 2x extender.

It works very well in low-light and it is indeed sexy (and I prerfer it than a giant white lens hanging off my camera...)...

HOWEVER

It's a tad soft and the AF is slooooow compared to an L lens. I use it to do a lot of rollerderby pictures and it's never failed me.

Here are some shots I took at a circus with it. It did a wonderful job
http://www.scojobo.com/gallery/1442042
HeldDown
May-14-2006, 06:43 AM
Scott and I are both semi-professional Performing Arts photographers. The only thing keeing the "semi"there is the face we're still at school.
Trust me, I've shot a lot of theatre and dance, and I've never yearned for IS. Some of the best theater shots I ever took were with the kit lens. I'm quite sure a 70-200 f/2.8L IS isn't even close to required for a beautiful dance shots. If it is, somebody forgot to tell Rutt.
ScottMcLeod
May-14-2006, 09:27 AM
Scott and I are both semi-professional Performing Arts photographers. The only thing keeing the "semi"there is the face we're still at school.
Trust me, I've shot a lot of theatre and dance, and I've never yearned for IS. Some of the best theater shots I ever took were with the kit lens. I'm quite sure a 70-200 f/2.8L IS isn't even close to required for a beautiful dance shots. If it is, somebody forgot to tell Rutt.

Agreed. My best shots originally came from my 50mm f/1.8 and my Kitt.
Chase
May-14-2006, 10:35 AM
Scott and I are both semi-professional Performing Arts photographers. The only thing keeing the "semi"there is the face we're still at school.
Trust me, I've shot a lot of theatre and dance, and I've never yearned for IS. Some of the best theater shots I ever took were with the kit lens. I'm quite sure a 70-200 f/2.8L IS isn't even close to required for a beautiful dance shots. If it is, somebody forgot to tell Rutt.
Its definately not required. It just improves my keeper percentage dramatically......mostly cause where i shoot dance i typically get anything from iso 1600 f2.8 1/60th to maybe 1/250th if I am lucky.....its a dungeon, and IS and a fast zoom lens really help when you are trying to get good shots of all 20 dancers on stage. I am still in school as well ( just going to college this next year), and I somehow justified it to myself after renting one.
wxwax
May-14-2006, 10:54 AM
70-200 is such a great lens to have, you'll love it. It can do all sorts of fun things.
ScottMcLeod
May-14-2006, 07:53 PM
Its definately not required. It just improves my keeper percentage dramatically......mostly cause where i shoot dance i typically get anything from iso 1600 f2.8 1/60th to maybe 1/250th if I am lucky.....its a dungeon, and IS and a fast zoom lens really help when you are trying to get good shots of all 20 dancers on stage. I am still in school as well ( just going to college this next year), and I somehow justified it to myself after renting one.

You're carrying about... 7000$CDN of Camera equipment, and you're not even in college yet?
Catto
May-14-2006, 08:30 PM
The IS is really worth every penny when it comes to stage and dance photography...

I'm with Chase on this one, I have to say - okay, of course the IS doesn't help ALL that much if your subject is moving too fast for the shutter speed anyway, but it does mean you can get a solid sharp shot at 1/80th (if not less), handheld at 200mm. And if they ARE moving, it helps with smooth panning too!

I had the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L for a couple of years, before I went up to the IS version; and apart from the famous IS / body lockups, which do happen, there's no way I'd trade it for anything. In fact I really wish for IS in all my other lenses as well - just like I wish the 1DMkII had eye-control focus, like my EOS3 used to...

Anyway, that's my opinion - as Chase said, it increases my keepers dramatically, and instead of them being 'pretty sharp, considering the situation', I can count the eyelashes on my subject - even with a 1.4x teleconvertor, and handheld.

That's actually the only downside of it - your standard of what's a keeper goes up, too!
R

p.s. example - http://www.catto.co.nz/festival06/index.php?img=6 - 1/60th at 135mm, handheld, and a moving target. (He's on a rising scissorlift.)
Chase
May-14-2006, 10:52 PM
You're carrying about... 7000$CDN of Camera equipment, and you're not even in college yet?
Nope. I am going to Pepperdine in the fall. My parents bought me my first 300d and a tamron 28-300 2 years ago for christmas. I have paid for all my equipment through photo work since then.....with more on the way hopefully :D (17-55 IS, 580ex, and a telephoto flash bracket for night game field sports)