I Have a Gap That Needs Filling

From your desciption, you need one of the 70-200 f/2.8 options. Tops, of course, is the Canon MkII; the newer Tamron is quite well received as CDS pointed out, or the Sigma OS one. They should all be able to fit your need.

You're one of the folks here whose shooting style tends to mirror mine; I would expect the 50-100 to be a very nice lens (I have the 18-35 and it's wonderful), but, I suspect you'll find it a bit short in the instances that you feel like you'd want it mounted.

I would go with a 70-200/2.8. If you can find a Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS that would be good too.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18005731
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,

Er.. not really covered, there is a gap from my 15-85 and my 150-500 basically between 85 and 150 which is a decent gap, Not to mention i enjoy a little overlap here to there (to minimize lens switching) But yeah, the 50-100 is honestly NOT fixing that problem, its neat and i absolutely adore what i see out of it, but its not fixing that...

I know, thread is 5 months old, a lot of things happened, ive been away, but thinking, I kinda knocked the 50-100 out of the running because as much as i adore it its really a dedicated portrait zoom, which isnt a lot of what i do

Scott M wrote in post #18005789
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.

Actually really considered it, its a great lens and when i shot film i was addicted to my 200mm f/2.8L II, its more like.. for some of what i see using this specific lens on (larger wildlife, larger flowers, and im probubly getting a new puppy sometime soon) a zoom might be more handy to adjust things on the fly because i cant always move or relocate that quickly

Essentially ive brought myself back to reality and said "Right, I want a 70-200" as its pretty much perfect to achieve what i want (gap filling the 15-85 and 150-600 with a little overlap)

My one question is is the Tamron's AF that good? I've had Tamrons in the past and universally they've been absolute turds in terms of focusing (Irony I know, the "abysmal" Sigmas I've owned have been great) but i havnt touched a USD lens yet. I do want something that can focus snappy and track subjects

What about the 50-150 mm f/2.8 os hsm AWESOME lens it will never leave my sight special build for a APC camera.

Im looking to likely go new and i think id rather stick with one of the 70-200s (Gives nice overlap on both ends)

I'm really uncertain on the Tamron vs the Canon Mk II, the Tamron looks ok but the MM is a bit high for me (I prefer 1:5 or greater, 1:8 will limit one of my intended uses, larger flower specimens) plus TDP expressed concern with the AF Servo performance. The Canon is.. no question probubly one of the best lenses period, but of course it comes at a cost, im pretty sure it will be the most expensive lens ive bought

Puppy is coming in a few weeks so im sort of trying to decide on what im doing at the moment to have the lens ready for the puppy. My 70-200 f/4L was the best lens from a focal length perspective for my old dog before she passed, so im thinking of sticking with that (Also my 50mm f/1.4, Albeit boy the 50mm f/1.2L is really nice)