I Have a Gap That Needs Filling

(Archer: Phrasing!)

So I decided I'm definitely buying the 7D Mark II to replace my aging 7 year old 7D

After the untimely demise of my 70-200 f/4L IS I prioritized a nice new uber telephoto wildlife lens, my super Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C which is awesome and I wouldnt want to replace it

I also have the 11-16mm f/2.8, 15-85 f/3.5-5.6, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS

My uses of the 7D tend toward the telephoto end of things, and what I NEED is a nice big wide aperture ZOOM lens for when the 15-85 is too short and the 150-600 is too long, Something fast as well would be nice. I want it to shoot say, larger flower specimens (So a fairly decent MFD would be nice) or for if i go inside at a zoo or an aquarium where i need something super fast to stop action and etc.. And maybe, just maybe, for when i need to shoot a portrait or two of a friend of mine if they visit

I love color, Contrast and im a sucker for good bokeh... Good speedy accurate AF will also be most appreciated

Really I see a handful of options here..

First on my list is the brand new Sigma 50-100 f/1.8... Why? Because seriously its a 50-100 f/1.8 zoom, Part of me likes it because i think i may even replace my beloved Sigmalux with it, Its also affordable ($1100) and really.. and from what ive seen the bokeh, color rendition and contrast look fan bloody amazing! And I've always loved Sigma.. 1:6.7 is a good enough repro ratio

But its ONLY a 50-100.. is that really "Covering" a gap? is that really sliding in between my 15-85 and 150-600 enough? I love the lens to pieces and theres this huge part of my gut SCREAMING BUY ME when i look at it

Second on the list is the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC... Obvious why, its a 70-200, and a darn good one, bit more pricey, but i could get one from Amazon Warehouse right now for about the same as the 50-100... Whats wrong with it? Several things to me.. One its a Tamron, and my last Tamron experiences were unpleasant, but its been a while, Never had their USD drive however.. the 1:8 repro ratio hurts however and makes me cringe quite a lot...

Third is an odd choice here.. but I figured it should be added.. and thats to get the 35-100 f/2.8 for my GX8, Cheapest option, smallest, and i could easily keep it on the GX8 and have the 7D with 150-600 on the other camera making switching between them SUPER easy..But the AF is far inferior to a 7DII, the isolation would be equal to the 70-200 f/4L on my 7D which is fine sure, i shot a lot of great stuff on that lens...but i cant help but want more DoF control at times

But maybe im not thinking of something here.. So i leave this to you all! Have at it!

The 70-300L is a very fine lens and they are available in pristine condition used at the moment... for around $800 give or take a few dollars. Easy to carry in a bag because it's so compact... relatively light. It isn't fast, however... so there is that. With the 7D2 doing so well at higher ISOs, perhaps that isn't as much of a factor as it once was.

There's one right for sale right now (no, it isn't mine) here on POTN.

I only clicked because I thought I was going to get a few good laughs before calling it a night. I am now leaving highly disappointed with the maturity demonstrated by all who read that thread title.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18005235
The 70-300L is a very fine lens and they are available in pristine condition used at the moment... for around $800 give or take a few dollars. Easy to carry in a bag because it's so compact... relatively light. It isn't fast, however... so there is that. With the 7D2 doing so well at higher ISOs, perhaps that isn't as much of a factor as it once was.

There's one right for sale right now (no, it isn't mine) here on POTN.

I'm just not sure i see the point in the 70-300...

Its not really "fast" which i kind of want in this lens above all else.

It fills the gap, but if i need reach, im grabbing that 150-600 weight be darned..

Light weight is my GX8's deal thats all...

KenjiS wrote in post #18005255
I'm just not sure i see the point in the 70-300...

Its not really "fast" which i kind of want in this lens above all else.

It fills the gap, but if i need reach, im grabbing that 150-600 weight be darned..

Light weight is my GX8's deal thats all...

I haven't seen many posts about the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I've seen many comments on the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

And if you want f/1.8, the options are pretty limited, as you suggested.

I used the 70-300L for a few years... before I got my 100-400L ii. It has the color rendition, contrast and the fast AF for which you are looking.. hence the suggestion, but it does lack your main requirement, i.e., speed.

So... my bad.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18005261
I haven't seen many posts about the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I've seen many comments on the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

And if you want f/1.8, the options are pretty limited, as you suggested.

I used the 70-300L for a few years... before I got my 100-400L ii. It has the color rendition, contrast and the fast AF for which you are looking.. hence the suggestion, but it does lack your main requirement, i.e., speed.

So... my bad.

Nah, i can see what you're thinking man, This is one spot where the 100-400 is actually a nicer lens, i can see why it might be better for sports for that reason (not having to switch lenses when a sports person gets close)

i dont necessarily want f/1.8, Just faster than f/4.. thinking is if i buy another 70-200 f/4 to slap on my 7D i might as well get the 35-100 on the GX8 which is smaller, lighter and offers similar DoF...

So on the 7D I'd rather an f/2.8 or faster.

I would not get Sigma 50-100 1.8 because for the size and weight I think 70-200 2.8 II is a better option. I have 1D4 and 1DS2 and 7D2. If I only had 1.6 crop body I think I would get the Sigma.
100 1.8 with ability to zoom out. Nice.

Cept im not doing FF...at least not now..and even if i did as it is id have to completely redo my ENTIRE lineup... Save the 150-600 and 50mm f/1.4

Darnit sigma! We need a 70-150 f/2!

I also have to admit to wanting a converter for my GX8 to run my EF lenses on it, Then the 50-100 on there would easily become a 100-200 f/3.6 equivalent...with IS

That Tamron 70-200mm is a damn fine lens. I was a "SIGMA guy for years, (well and Canon of course) because Tammy and Tokina had pants AF, and nothing else came close to the SIGMA EX line.
Now it's not so simple. The ART and Sport lines are really tops, but Tamron is making lenses that are far better than most of the EX line up of a decade ago.

I've got he Tamron your looking at, it replaced my old Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and has been an improvement. Not very wide on an APS-C, but great when you need length and aperture.

I've no experience with the SIGMA f/1.8, but all of those lenses really intrigue me!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18005328
That Tamron 70-200mm is a damn fine lens. I was a "SIGMA guy for years, (well and Canon of course) because Tammy and Tokina had pants AF, and nothing else came close to the SIGMA EX line.
Now it's not so simple. The ART and Sport lines are really tops, but Tamron is making lenses that are far better than most of the EX line up of a decade ago.

I've got he Tamron your looking at, it replaced my old Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and has been an improvement. Not very wide on an APS-C, but great when you need length and aperture.

I've no experience with the SIGMA f/1.8, but all of those lenses really intrigue me!

Jake,

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I haven't heard much about the Tamron that you own. It is nice to hear how their quality has improved over the past few years. Both Tamron and Sigma are good competition for Canon (and I'm sure Nikon as well). This tends to have a positive effect on the big boys... keeps them on their toes.

In addition to reading a good deal about it here on the forum,
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1250686


...this review in articular had an influence on my deceion to get the Tamron;
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …i-VC-USD-Lens-Review.aspx

KenjiS wrote in post #18005312
Cept im not doing FF...at least not now..and even if i did as it is id have to completely redo my ENTIRE lineup... Save the 150-600 and 50mm f/1.4

If you read my post again you will see I mentioned two scenarios:
1) What I would do as owner of FF, ie me. (not buy Sigma 50-100 1.8)
2) What I would do as owner of 1.6 crop only, ie you. (buy Sigma 50-100 1.8)

Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 OS?

Well that lens is only an option at this point if you're willing to buy used. You'd lose 1 1/3 stop over the 50-100 but gain 50mm on the long end and OS.

I like sigma (infact the only two dslr lens I'll own once I'm done switching over to Fuji will be from sigma) but I'm having a hard time getting behind the 50-100.

Heya,

So the focal range is covered. What you're wanting is a range of it, to simply be faster.

50-150 F2.8 makes sense if you are dedicated to crop. If you're not dedicated this may not be easy to re-sell.

28-75 F2.8 (or 24-70 F2.8) flavors. Maybe not as long as you'd like, but, it's a general focal range that is fast and a tighter angle on APS-C. The 28-75 is cheap and good on APS-C.

70-200 F2.8 (Tamron's with VC, Canon's without IS, or the MKII) is an obvious one and will perform.

Don't get hung up on F1.8 so much. Focus on features and overall quality. Focus on what you need and not the excitement of a novelty lens.

Very best,

What about the 135L? While it's not a zoom like the other lenses you are considering, it's fast (f/2), has great image quality, takes a 1.4 TC very well (getting you a 189mm f/2.8 lens), is pretty light weight, and is reasonably priced.