ThomasOwenM
30th of August 2009 (Sun), 17:51
You can look at my sig and see that all my lenses save one are primes. That's because I've only had good luck with primes in the low-light venues where I photograph musical acts -- bars, small clubs, etc. Most shots that I take are at around f/1.8 to 2.2. Occasionally I use f/1.4 to 1.6, but not much. I'll also occasionally got as narrow as f/4.0, if I need more depth of field to get the whole band in, and I usually have to resort to flash; otherwise the light just isn't there even at ISO 3200.
As you might guess, my Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 is my least-used lens because it won't go wider than 2.8. There have been a few times when I actually have sufficient light to shoot at 2.8 and I've used the Tammy. However, I find I'm having a tough time getting shots as sharp as any of my primes. If I've needed to zoom in for a drummer shot, I've had better luck putting on my 85 f/1.8 than using the Tammy and zooming in.
I have gotten good shots with the Tammy in non-performance shots where I have ambient light. However, in low light, it just has not been that useful of a lens.
I'm wondering if maybe I have to get an L lens if I want an effective low-light zoom lens. I've heard they're so close to primes in sharpness that you can't tell the difference. On the other hand, even the L zooms won't go wider than 2.8. Perhaps my type of photography is prime-only.
However, one gear change is in my future. I'm upgrading to a 1D Mark III as soon as I can scrape the bucks together and will therefore have ISO 6400 available. Maybe a 2.8 L zoom lens could get me some good results when I get my 1D m3.
Will an L zoom 2.8 be a significant upgrade over my Tammy 28-70 f/2.8? Or am I better off sticking with primes? Btw, I do have poor-man's image stabilization available -- a monopod.
I do wonder why they don't make short-range zooms that go wider than 2.8. My dream lens would be something like an EF 30-90L f/1.8 IS.
As you might guess, my Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 is my least-used lens because it won't go wider than 2.8. There have been a few times when I actually have sufficient light to shoot at 2.8 and I've used the Tammy. However, I find I'm having a tough time getting shots as sharp as any of my primes. If I've needed to zoom in for a drummer shot, I've had better luck putting on my 85 f/1.8 than using the Tammy and zooming in.
I have gotten good shots with the Tammy in non-performance shots where I have ambient light. However, in low light, it just has not been that useful of a lens.
I'm wondering if maybe I have to get an L lens if I want an effective low-light zoom lens. I've heard they're so close to primes in sharpness that you can't tell the difference. On the other hand, even the L zooms won't go wider than 2.8. Perhaps my type of photography is prime-only.
However, one gear change is in my future. I'm upgrading to a 1D Mark III as soon as I can scrape the bucks together and will therefore have ISO 6400 available. Maybe a 2.8 L zoom lens could get me some good results when I get my 1D m3.
Will an L zoom 2.8 be a significant upgrade over my Tammy 28-70 f/2.8? Or am I better off sticking with primes? Btw, I do have poor-man's image stabilization available -- a monopod.
I do wonder why they don't make short-range zooms that go wider than 2.8. My dream lens would be something like an EF 30-90L f/1.8 IS.