Upgrading and looking for suggestions/opinions

[Vinny454]

I just sold my Drebel and 75-300 zoom.

The 10D is getting ordered Thurs or Fri. Now I want to start buying some better glass.

I currently have the 50mm f1.8 mkII and 28-105mm f3.5-4.5.

One of the choices at the top of my list is the 17-40 f4 L.
I am still trying to decide between the 70-200 f4 L or the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX (I would love the 2.8 ver of the L, but my budget won't allow for it right now).
Right now I don't need anything longer than the 200mm so I am looking for suggestions/opinions for something to replace my 28-105mm with a little better quality. Keep in mind that my budget for now will be in the 17-40 L price range, maybe a bit more.

I am mostly shooting moving Siberian Huskies in a show ring. It needs to be a fast lens as I need to freeze the dog's movement. Ideally ISO 100, 1/1000 shutter speed and f5.6-7.1 in raw mode is my preference, but adjust acording to conditions (ie indoor show with poor lighting) and a flash is not always an option.

Vince

[DocFrankenstein]

I know that the 70-200 sigma is a superb lens, but you shoud take a look at this and decide. It's a test that was done with my rebel mounted on a tripod in store. Talk about harassing a salesman! (and she was cute too ;))

I know I didn't do a good job of putting it together and making a tiff file, but it's a comparison between the 2.8 L and 2.8 sigma. Both 70-200 of course...

Whichever one is softer is sigma. I can live with that quality... but you may be better off if you get the f/4 L. The autofocus is WAY faster on the L glass which will help you with the moving subjects... On the other hand - sigma isn't a sucker either and I made some nice shots with it.

You decide:

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qae1&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qae5&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images1.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qaef&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Note that it was shot JPEG with no sharpening whatsoever.

[Vinny454]

Thanks for the pic's Doc.

That is exactly my dilema. The Canon L is razor sharp, not to heavy as I have to hand hold most shots but I can only afford the F4 ver.
The sigma is a bit more versatile in low light with the F2.8, but it is a lot heavier and a little softer.
If I can find a fast lens that produces sharp pic's to replace my 28-105, then I would definitly go with the L.

Vince

[BearSummer]

Hi Vinny,

The 28-105 is a very nice lens so long as you have the 3.5-4.5 version, the 4.5-5.6 is not supposed to be anywhere near as good. I guess it depends on if you want to spend more or less money in the long run. I would suggest you buy canon because they usually hold their second hand value better than sigma. If you can wait then save up and get the canon 2.8, if no get the f4. At a later date see what they will give you for the f4 in a trade in for the 2.8, in fact ask the shop when you go to buy it what you are likely to get for it second hand. If you dont like the numbers then see if you can hang on for the 2.8. If you can then you are a better man than me. I want my glass and i want it now.

Best regards

BearSummer

[Olegis]

The 17-40 is wonderful lens, if you need that focal length.
If you want to replace your 28-105 with a lens that will provide similar (more or less) focal lengths, you should try the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (there is another thread going on here, in which the Tamron is highly recommended). The Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is better, but also MUCH more expensive.
For the conditions you've mentioned, I'm afraid that you'll need a longer lens (70-200 that is).

[CyberDyneSystems]

Vin,

Early on I asked myself the same question re: 70-200 f/4 Vs the Sigma f/2.8

The way I came at the answer was what was my most likely intended use.

In my case.. the need for the lens was for a fairly long but also very bright lens to use in a dark theatre during rehearsals.

For me there was really an easy decision.. I NEEDED f/2.8


So.. the question is.. do you?


Regarding the 17-40mm f/4.. just do it :)

[cmM]

Vinny454,

As for your Canon 70-200 vs. Sigma 70-200 dilemma, you might wanna considder the Canon 200 f/2.8L. It's about the price of the 17-40, it's a prime, it's f/2.8, and it's an L. No zoom though.