Should I go super-wide or zoom telephoto next?

I'm quite torn right now. I just got a new job yesterday that should pay me pretty well. I'll be selling two lenses and some other stuff within the next couple of weeks, which should bring in at least $300-350.

My dilemma is that I'm going to India in December to visit a children's home that my family sponsors. I'll be spending a week with 120 or so of the coolest kids i've ever seen, and would absolutely love to get some good portraits or shots of them playing throwball or soccer. For this, a super-wide would be a terrible choice because I don't want to be in their faces while they're playing. A 70-200 would be more than ideal, especially with a 1.4x. For this, I'm torn between the Sigma f/2.8 EX and the Canon f/4L.

On the flipside, India is a place that most Americans have never seen and never will, and I would love to photograph the landscape. The sunsets are beatiful and we will be spending a night in Bombay, so I could get neat cityscapes as well. For this, a Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24 would be ideal. I don't want to shell out for the Canon 10-22.


The only lenses that I will have for sure are the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG
and a nifty fifty. Would either of these be any good for landscapes? I do plan on getting a grad ND filter and cokin z-pro setup before I go. The Sigma is incredibly sharp at 24mm at any aperture, but I've never tried shooting landscapes with it.

Money isn't that much of an issue, as I likely won't be spending over $600 either way. So I guess in summary I have two questions:

1. Would a 24-70 take decent landscapes?
2. Would I be able to get good spontaneous portraits with a super-wide zoom?

The only thing with the 24-70 is that on your Rebel its not very wide, being almost 40mm you wont be able to get as much in your scene as you could with say a 10-20mm lens.

I find with landscapes (which is my main area of photography) that I can never get enough in the scene, I always want more!!

Nick

if you can only get one, get the ultrawide, the 24-70 should take good portraits shouldnt it?

Agreed. I have both the Sigma 10-20 and the 70-200 F4L. If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the Sigma, no question.

Besides, you have a decent portait lens with the nifty, and the 24-70 will also give you some reach beyond that. In an ideal situation of course, I'd pack everything in my gear list.

the 70-200 f/4 is a super portrait lens - and there is a LOT of light in India. So the f/4 thingy should not be a problem. and it is light enough to hand hold all day without camer a shake, just keep the shutter speed above 1/300 and you'll be fine with it.

For landscape stuff, if you are looking at sigma, I'd suggest the 17-70 as it has a better zoom range, is still pretty fast, and will give you greater versatility. the Sigma 24-70 is a big lens, heavy and intrusive.

I'd also suggest getting yourself a set of graduated filters to hold back sky details - Cokin's are reasonably priced, Lee are the best. A circular polariser is a great idea too.

unless im mistaken he already owns the 24-70? if thats the case then it would be redundant to buy that lens. if he doesnt already own 24-70 then i would be inclined to agree

The 24-70 does take very nice portraits, as does the nifty fifty, but I'm afraid it won't be able to capture the feel of the kids playing like a telephoto would. I don't want to have to get in their faces to take pictures.


edit: What about the 200mm f/2.8L? I love the shots I've seen from it, and it's likely that I'd be using the 200mm end of a zoom more than the wide end. This can be had a good bit cheaper than a zoom as well. Would it be a bad idea to put that much of a hole in my focal length?

I vote for an Ultra-wide zoom, and/or the Sigma 2.8EX

If you only get the zoom, I'd say Sigma 2.8EX, because of the bigger aperature, plus that lense still has great optics.

My vote would be for the 70-200 2.8 sigma. You allready have 24-70 covered and a nifty-fifty for low light. 24 is plenty wide for most scenics with exception of tight places. 70-200 expands your distance, you will get great local people without standing next to them. I find the lens capsures the action and flavor but you stay in back groung. it is also a good portrait lens. It is a little heavy.

Would I be able to tell a difference in contrast/color/bokeh on the Sigma at f/4 compared to the Canon at f/4? I'm really leaning toward the telephoto option..and may end up getting both if I play my cards right

Depending on where they are, a 70-200 may be too long - I reckon you'd be able to get quite close to the kids when it comes to them playing. Make sure you pack a standard zoom as well (28-35mm on the wide end to 70-100mm on the long end). The 24-70 that you are mentioning ought to do well.

If you are happy with the Sigma's sharpness, I can think of no reason why you wouldnt be satisfied with its performance shooting landscapes.

Technically, of course. Aesthetically - depends on your eye and the situation. I use everything from 10mm to 500mm for landscapes.

Not classic portraits. You'd get some interesting "participatory" behavior shots (a lot of street and similar human documentary work is done with wide angles in the 20-35mm range). But for portraits, you'll need a longer lens. The 70mm end of your Sigma should do a good job on a crop factor body.

Were I in your shoes, I'd pack a wideangle - but I am biased, as I tend to favor the UWA when it comes to "seeing" photo ops (my 70-200 is my least-used lens). And the UWA would be ideal for street shots in Mumbai as well as shots of the kids.

I'm so torn!


Thank all of you though for your input. I'll definetely (obviously) keep y'all updated when it comes time to purchase. Getting a new lens is like having your first girlfriend. ...It's just exciting and you're all giddy.