I'M A MESS - LENS INDECISION...

[Steve Parr]

First, I'd just like to say that everyone here has been magnificently helpful with respect to all of my lens questions.

Now, I had decided that my next lens was going to be from a narrowed down group of two: The 14-70mm L or the 70-200mm L.

I've just spent the better part of the last three hours looking at Sigma lenses, reading reviews, looking at shots taken with various models, etc., and I'm beginning to feel torn. The Sigmas seem pretty nice, and they're somewhat less expensive than the average L glass.

I'm not making any "real" money with my photography yet. As such, I wonder if the step up to L glass is something that can wait until such a time as my photography can pay for it as opposed to my guitar playing, or should I just say "to Hell with it" and take the plunge right now?

While the 14-70mm L is certainly a nice lens, it's f/4 is something that concerns me, as I'm going to be shooting, primarily, in clubs. Getting down to an f/2.8 could make a big difference in a low light situation. Of course, another option is to go with something with image stabalization. After the 28-135mm, though, the prices start to get pretty steep.

I'm not really looking for a comparison between Sigma and Canon, as I'm relatively certain what the sentiment on this particular forum would be. I guess my question is this: Will Sigma provide me a well-built lens, capable of nice, sharp shots, at fair prices?

That's what I'm looking for more than anything else.

Thanks...

Steve

[kawter2]

14-70.... you mean 17-40?

also, which flavor 70-200? | f4 | f2.8 | f2.5 IS |

It is late, but I will ad my $.000002 tomorrow on the 17-40 / 70-200

[raylks]

As you are shooting oftenly in low light condition as in club, I would recommend that large aperture lens is essential.

Try lens with f2.8. EF17-40mm f4.0L ( I guess you are referring to this lens) is nice but in low light situation, it is no better than its brother lens 16-35mm f2.8L. And if you are shooting indoors and wide angle is not your concern, then 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 is also a pretty good option.

There are other choices such as 24-70mm f2.8L, definitely meeting your expectation on quality and capability to shoot in low light.

[Andy_T]

For clubs, you will find it hard to get the performance of your 50 and 85/1.8 with any zoom lens.

Let'S make your indecision even worse by introducing the 28/1.8, 35/2.0 and Tamron 28-75/2.8 to your mess :wink:

Hehe ... out of all the lenses described in this thread, I would also hava a hard time to make up my mind between a 14-70/4.0 L and a 70-200/2.5 IS L :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[Skip Souza]

If you can do with a not-so-wide angle check out the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 LD XR Di (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG). My wife has this lens and I believe it to be a fantastic lens. It is well built, quick focusing and sharp. I like it a lot.

If you need the wide angle I believe both Sigma and Tamron make lenses in that range that are excellent values.

When it comes to the 70-200mm I would bite the bullet and go for the L.
Steve, just don't drive yourself crazy agonizing over this. Good luck.

[D Boone]

Dude... its so hard. Especially for us with families, other hobbies, obligations, and who aren't really making any money with their photography. I would be happy if it just paid for itself, but looks like I am a ways from that too sadly. Lens choice is so hard. I am just about to go craZy myself. I too want a replacement for my kit lens, and at a minimum I want the 70-200 f4 L... and a 400 f5.6 L, and a 100mm macro, and a new backpack, and a new tripod, and some close up tubes and teleextenders, and some close up filters.... I know I left some out.... Sorry no help here. :-(

[Steve Parr]

14-70.... you mean 17-40?

also, which flavor 70-200? | f4 | f2.8 | f2.5 IS |

It is late, but I will ad my $.000002 tomorrow on the 17-40 / 70-200

Well, like you said, it was late! Yes, the 17-40mm...

Steve

[Steve Parr]

Dude... its so hard. Especially for us with families, other hobbies, obligations, and who aren't really making any money with their photography. I would be happy if it just paid for itself, but looks like I am a ways from that too sadly. Lens choice is so hard. I am just about to go craZy myself. I too want a replacement for my kit lens, and at a minimum I want the 70-200 f4 L... and a 400 f5.6 L, and a 100mm macro, and a new backpack, and a new tripod, and some close up tubes and teleextenders, and some close up filters.... I know I left some out.... Sorry no help here. :-(

Some good points.

Certainly, there are those here who are talented enough to pay the mortgage with their photography. I don't happen to be one of those people.

The photo gear I have has been bought and paid for through the liquidation of some musical gear. I've reached that proverbial "fork in the road" in my life. Like Yogi Berra once said: "When you get to a fork in the road, take it", so that's what I'm doing.

Still, I need to consider the fact that I'm not making any real money through my photography. When I was playing guitar regularly, that would pay for my purchase of more guitar gear. I would, at some point, like my photography to pay for my photo gear. Just like I didn't start out playing guitar on a Gibson Les Paul, I don't know that I should start out in photography dropping four figures on lenses. Just as I ended up with the Les Paul, I'd like to think I can end up with the high dollar photo gear, as well.

So, yeah, I could go ahead and buy the L glass I've been looking at, but I guess I'm ruminating over whether or not it's the best choice for me right now.

Of all the non-Canon lenses I've looked at, I've been the most impressed with Sigma, and they seem to offer a fine array of lenses at the sub $500 price point...

Steve

[khiromu]

For the club shots, I think 17-40 is too slow, and even 16-35 may not be fast enough. How about some fast prime such as (expensive option) Ef24/1.4 or EF35/1.4, (reasonable option) Sigma 20/1.8, 24/1.8, or 28/1.8, or upcoming Sigma 30/1.4 if you are shooting 1.6x body.

For the tele lens, 70-200/4L is as good as zoom lens can get. If you need faster lens, Sigma is a good option, but be sure that it also weighs a lot more.

[Steve Parr]

For the club shots, I think 17-40 is too slow, and even 16-35 may not be fast enough. How about some fast prime such as (expensive option) Ef24/1.4 or EF35/1.4, (reasonable option) Sigma 20/1.8, 24/1.8, or 28/1.8, or upcoming Sigma 30/1.4 if you are shooting 1.6x body.

For the tele lens, 70-200/4L is as good as zoom lens can get. If you need faster lens, Sigma is a good option, but be sure that it also weighs a lot more.

I don't mind the extra weight at all. Reminds me of the line from "Jurassic Park", when the bean-counter looks at the kid messin' with the night vision goggles:

"Are those heavy?"

"Yes."

"Then they're expensive. Put 'em down."

Seriously, if I had to choose between a bit too much weight or not quite enough, I'll take a bit too much every time.

I also thought about the inability to use the 17-40mm in the clubs. It would just be a damn shame to have such a fine lens and have the shots compromised by using a flash.

I'm beginning to lean towards Sigma; probably a short zoom (a 2.8 would be nice), or the 20mm 1.8 prime. I've seen that one, used, for around $285.00.

If anyone has any other suggestions, man, I'm all ears. My list of bookmarked pages has grown while researching this, and it wouldn't break my heart to add to that list.

Thanks!

Steve

[Tom W]

There's also the decent 28/1.8 USM. Quite a few choices, really. You might do well to get hold of the inexpensive "kit" lens and use it for a while. It will help you decide what focal length or lengths you might want to concentrate on for your more important lenses. Could be that a fast prime and the kit zoom will be enough, or you might want a fairly fast zoom such as the 16-35 instead. Just buy the cheapie (it is pretty good actually) and use it as a measuring tool. Then decide your next course of action.

Keep in mind that "L" glass is addictive - it feels good in the hand, works well, and generally makes you want more of the same.

[Tom W]

Got to add - the Sigma 20/1.8 is a very good lens on the 1.6 sensor. It varies a bit on larger sensors and full-frame, but for that sensor, its a gem. Worth considering, maybe even along with the kit lens.

[Steve Parr]

There's also the decent 28/1.8 USM. Quite a few choices, really. You might do well to get hold of the inexpensive "kit" lens and use it for a while. It will help you decide what focal length or lengths you might want to concentrate on for your more important lenses. Could be that a fast prime and the kit zoom will be enough, or you might want a fairly fast zoom such as the 16-35 instead. Just buy the cheapie (it is pretty good actually) and use it as a measuring tool. Then decide your next course of action.

Well, I still have the kit lens. It would appear that my attempt to sell it in the market place was unsuccessful.

But, that said, I've already got the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. Nice, fast lenses for indoor work without a flash. I'd like to stay at that f-stop if at all possible.

What I've read about the Sigma 1.8's, though, is that they lose sharpness when they're wide open, which is, more than likely, where I'd be spending most of my time. For this reason, I'm also looking at the 2.8's, as well.

Still, this is one I'm considering strongly:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/images/LensesImage/79_small.jpg

It's the 24mm F1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL MACRO. I don't know that I need the macro so much, but that f/1.8 is damn tempting. Even though I've read that, opened up, it's not "tack sharp", I've gotta' think it would be as sharp as the Nifty 50...

Keep in mind that "L" glass is addictive - it feels good in the hand, works well, and generally makes you want more of the same.

And that's one thing that I'm worried about!

Steve

[Maureen Souza]

Remember Steve....just pick one and buy it. The others will be there for future purchasing!!!

[Steve Parr]

Remember Steve....just pick one and buy it. The others will be there for future purchasing!!!

BUT IT JUST CAN'T BE THAT EASY!!!!!

Steve

[Skip Souza]

Yeah Steve. It is that easy.

[CRE@TE]

Yeah Steve. It is that easy.

It's only easy for people that have too much money.

[Skip Souza]

There is no such thing as too much money, too thin, or too much chocolate.
Sometimes you just have to make a choice and not drive yourself crazy over the decision. You do reasonable research then make the best decision you can.
You will be okay.
Of course it helps if your significant other supports that decision.

[Steve Parr]

It's only easy for people that have too much money.

Dude, I just spit coffee all over my monitor; thanks...

I wouldn't say they "have too much money", but more likely that they "have earned enough money".

Seriously, though, if I were in a position to drop five or six-large on a lens, I'd like to think that whatever I was shooting with that lens was paying for a good portion of that lens.

I'm thinking I'm going with the one pictured above. I like the fact that it's a wide prime, and I like the f/1.8.

A lot...

Steve

[Maureen Souza]

Steve, I have bought lenses that I now wish I hadn't (actually, only one). So what...I'll sell it eventually and buy something I do want. It's only money....you'll earn more.

[Steve Parr]

Of course it helps if your significant other supports that decision.

That's where I'm real fortunate. My wife doesn't really care, as the money I'm spending is coming from the sale of musical gear which was purchased with the money I earned playing gigs. Rarely, if ever, have I dipped into the savings account to sate my appetite.

Besides, now she has all these cool pictures of flowers and sunsets and stuff to hang up around the house!

Steve

[Skip Souza]

You are doing it right Steve.

[Steve Parr]

You are doing it right Steve.

Well, I hope so.

If all goes as planned, I'll have the lens tomorrow night. Ritz has it at roughly the same price as B&H. Normally, there's another shop in town I like to frequent, but they don't have the lens I'm looking for. The cost of shipping from B&H (2-day; gotta' have it for the weekend!) and the amount of local sales tax is just about a wash; about a $7.00 difference.

As long as Ritz has the lens, I will have the lens...

Steve

[Skip Souza]

Regardless what you may think we do not have an endless supply of money. In fact I agonize over every purchase. I use this site (http://martyfoto.kbx.cz/LensTestGuide.htm)to give me a hint as to how a certain lens stacks up anainst another then consider whether the $$$ are worth the higher number.
At the final analysis I hold my nose and JUMP, hoping for the best.
Man, we all make mistakes, just learn from them and try not to make them again.

[Skip Souza]

Okay, maybe I missed it. WHICH ONE DID YOU GET?
Sorry for yelling. This thread has been fun. I also really liked your sales pitch for the kit lens.
Hope to see some pix from the new lens.

[Steve Parr]

Okay, maybe I missed it. WHICH ONE DID YOU GET?
Sorry for yelling. This thread has been fun. I also really liked your sales pitch for the kit lens.
Hope to see some pix from the new lens.

I haven't gotten it yet. Hopefully tomorrow...

Steve

[Skip Souza]

You're killing me :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Steve Parr]

You're killing me :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wanna' buy a kit lens?

Steve

[eosster]

EF 50mm F/1.8 w/$70.00 it's great place to start or EF 35mm F/2 ($250.00) which is very reasonable price also with excellent results.

[Steve Parr]

EF 50mm F/1.8 w/$70.00 it's great place to start or EF 35mm F/2 ($250.00) which is very reasonable price also with excellent results.

I've already got the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. I'm just looking for something a little wider. The Sigma seems like it'll fit the bill...

Steve

[thomasrhee]

Since you're a guitar player (I'm a guitar player as well), I'll make this analogy. Will buying a vintage '57 Strat with a Bogner Ecstacy make you any better at playing guitar than buying a '57 Reissue with a Fender Blues Jr? You'll still sound like yourself. If you have bad technique, you've just spent over $10,000 to make your bad technique stand out that much worse. 'The differences will be in playability and tonal difference. Jimi Hendrix was known for playing late 60's Strats, yet he recorded many songs with a Gibson Flying V with humbuckers. Still sounds like Jimi. Eric Johnson sounds like Eric Johnson whether he's playing one of his vintage Fender Strats or a Gibson ES-335. I've heard Jean Marc Belkadi play out of a cheap Peavey Bandit amp and he still sounded every bit as amazing as he is.

Same holds true for lenses and camera gear in general. If you can afford to spend the extra cash on the better gear without putting yourself in financial jeopardy and sleep well at night having done so, then by all means do so.

As for your second question about shooting in clubs, the 17-40/4L may not be fast enough depending on how dim the club is. You're probably better off shooting with a lens that stops down to about f1.8. The Canon 85/1.8 is a nice lens for these situations.

[Steve Parr]

Since you're a guitar player (I'm a guitar player as well), I'll make this analogy. Will buying a vintage '57 Strat with a Bogner Ecstacy make you any better at playing guitar than buying a '57 Reissue with a Fender Blues Jr? You'll still sound like yourself.

I mentioned the guitar analogy. I'm a pretty good guitar player but, whence upon a time, I sucked. Of course, back then, I was playing a cheap guitar, whereas now I'm hackin' on a Les Paul.

I definitely see where you're going. I think, in time, my abilities will make a high-dollar lens purchase justified. Right now, though, I think I need to keep it sane...

Steve