Best lens to cover the range of...

Say, 50 to 200 - the long range might be a bit longer then I really need. I need a medium fast lens, IS would be nice.

Here's the deal...

Yesterday afternoon I was taping the surge tech graduation for the school I work for. Near the end of the cerimony, is the pinning and then the handing of the diploma. I decided I wanted to get some pics for the school of the pinning (and a few pics of the speakers). I had to stand in the back of the room which put me a good 75 - 100 feet away from the podeum area. I needed an fstop of about 4 ish to maintain good lighting with the shutter speed I wanted to use (some of the speakers are.. well... animated).

I was using my Tamron 28-75 f2.8, so fstop wasn't a problem, but even at 75mm, I couldn't get close enough.

I was thinking of that 24-105L, but its max fstop is what? 4.5-5.6?

I can crop the images, but I'd much rather get the people to be more of the image before croping so I don't loose as much when I resize to print.

Any suggestions on a lense - the widest I needed was 48 (I'm sure I could step back a little bit and have used a 50), the longest, I'm not 100% sure, but something I think at least 100, maybe as much as 250, but that might be too much.

-Tony

Well, there's a consumer level 55-200 that is supposed to be pretty good. However, I'd say go for one of the 70-200 L variants (f/4, f/2.8, or f/2.8IS) All 3 are outstanding optically, of course have the amazing L build, and will get you that good short telephoto range.

I think you'll need the 70-200 f/2.8 (is or not). It would compliment your tamron 28-75 wonderfully. Seeing how you are not opposed to 3rd party lenses... the sigma 70-200 might be a good choice for you.

What's wrong with your Tamron 28-300mm lens?

The 24-105mm f4 L IS has a constant f4. With the 2 to 3 stops gain from the IS it would be similar f1.0 or faster for a lens without IS (unless you shoot fast action). An f2.8 lens would only give you about half a stop faster speed at f2.8. Make sure you get a new model, as the first batches have a serious flare problem (and have been recalled by Canaon).

If you need it wider, you should consider one of the three 70-200mm L lenses. On a budget, go for the f4 version. If you can splash out, go for the f2.8 L IS one. However, I understand the judges are still out as to whether these lenses can deliver the optical resolving power the 5D's sensor would demand.

Then there's also the Canon 28-350mm L IS and the Sigma 50-500mm...

Since I've gotten the 5D, the 70-200 has become more useful. It's always been a good range, but it seems to be preferable on the larger format.

I completely agree. When I used a 70-200mm on my 20D it was always too long or too short. That's why I replaced it by the 24-105mm and 100-400mm. I'm sure that if, or should I say when, I get a FF DSLR, I would be seriously considering buying a 70-200mm again.

Hi,

I'll try to respond to everyone...

jamn13: the 70-200 is on my wish list, the only thing I'm concerned about is the wide end, at 70 it isn't wide enough to do some of the shots I'd need - unfortunately, with the timing of these graduations, I don't think I'd have time to do a switch to a second lens. I don't know - I'll have to see. I'm already having to deal with quite a bit of equipment during the cerimony (2 camcorders and the still camera)

tucked: I don't have a problem with 3rd party, but with some of the low light that I've had to deal with in the past, IS or OS would be a must, I wasn't sure if sigma's 70-200 is an OS lens...

mdr: the 28-300 is a nice lens, but at 300 it wide open is 5.6, closing down the aperature one notch from that would have required a serious decrease in shutter speed. at f4 I was already at 1/80, I didn't want to go down much more. The 28-350 L from canon is a bit of an expensive beast for a single lens that has the same aperature ratings as my existing 28-300, so it wouldn't be an improvement. The Sigma 50-500 AKA Bigma I used to own, but would not IMHO work well in this circumstance.

Tom W and mdr (post 2) - I'm seriously thinking of the 70-200, or the 24-105. granted at f4, the 24-105 isn't as fast as the 2.8 70-200, but it may work better for the range and size.

I'm not sure yet, but all interesting points that I will overall ponder in my decision.

-Tony

Tony - another idea for the 70-200. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a very good lens for not much more money than Canon's excellent 70-200 f/4. It loses a tiny bit wide open compared to my Canon 2.8, but it's still a cracker and it will give you f/2.8 when you need it.

BTW, your Tammy 28-75 is highly regarded.

how about the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS

He already answered that

TomW: Yes, the sigma is very nice, I would like to get some IS lenses as my hand isn't nearly as steady as I'd like

I love my tamron 28-75, it is a gorgeos lens - bought it from one of the other board members, and have been very happy with it.

The lenses I want to get in terms of range are:

50 prime, 85 prime, 70-200, 100-400 (or 300-800, but that lens I think is kind of expensive), 400 prime, 500 prime, one day 600 prime, 45 t/s, 60mm 1-5x macro (well, it's 60 or 65mm, can't remmeber off and all of a sudden).

-Tony

Tancor wrote:
TomW: Yes, the sigma is very nice, I would like to get some IS lenses as my hand isn't nearly as steady as I'd like

I love my tamron 28-75, it is a gorgeos lens - bought it from one of the other board members, and have been very happy with it.

The lenses I want to get in terms of range are:

50 prime, 85 prime, 70-200, 100-400 (or 300-800, but that lens I think is kind of expensive), 400 prime, 500 prime, one day 600 prime, 45 t/s, 60mm 1-5x macro (well, it's 60 or 65mm, can't remmeber off and all of a sudden).

-Tony

That's a lot of glass. I think you could pare that telephoto list a lot with a 1.4X teleconverter. Most long primes suffer little-to-no ill effects with the use of the 1.4X. A 300/2.8, 1.4X, & 2X telecons would be fairly versatile. Perhaps later on, adding the super-long tele's might be good.

Also, that 300-800 f/5.6 looks like it might be a very, very good lens. But it's also very big. The 100-400 is fairly light and easily hand-holdable.

Sigma 70-200 2.8 with a monopod to 'relax' it on Would work nicely with the Tamron you have ... maybe? IS is the lazy blokes monopd anyway

condyk wrote:
Sigma 70-200 2.8 with a monopod to 'relax' it on Would work nicely with the Tamron you have ... maybe? IS is the lazy blokes monopd anyway

I resemble that remark!

condyk wrote:
Sigma 70-200 2.8 with a monopod to 'relax' it on Would work nicely with the Tamron you have ... maybe? IS is the lazy blokes monopd anyway

Yeah, I'd say I'd have to fall into the lazy bloke group as well