Ugh! Lenses lenses oh lenses!

Alright. I really don't know what to buy.

I'm going to be doing a lot of photography. I am becoming fascinated with wild life such as ducks at ponds and would LOVE to do bird shots. I've been doing some flowers and bees too (see my gallery at www.jagwire.smugmug.co​m.) I'll be doing a lot of stuff for my school from taking shots of people just having a good time or whatever or posing for a photo (I figured a Tamron 28-75 perhaps would do a good job at this) to sports in the gym (I figured a canon 85 1.8 would do for this?) Right now I have a sigma 70-300 apo macro which I did my duck shooting with today and I am not all that happy, I do want to upgrade. I have a nifty fifty I bought from henry's but plan to return because if I am getting a 85 1.8 and tamron 28-75 I don't see it becoming too useful, and the focusing is bugging me.

What do you guys think about my selection of the 28-75 and 85 1.8? I think these should do me well?

Now the hard part:
The telephoto end of things.

Originally I thought I was going to be getting either the Canon 70-200 F4L because it is light (I need to buy a monopod I guess as I just have a tripod now) and I am a weak and small guy (5'0), or getting a sigma 70-200 f2.8 and hoping I can deal with it. Now I am thinking though if I'm doing so much wild life maybe a sigma 100-300 or something would be better. I don't have that large of a budget, so I am kind of tight here, everything will definitley be bought over the span of the next while used. If I was getting the 70-200 f2.8 sigma or f4 canon I'de also be getting a 1.4x converter with it. I really want something with a good auto focus as my sigma 70-300 APO macro is already pissing me off. I also want to shoot other stuff outdoors, such as things like outdoor sports, but I figure that'll be a lot less then wild life.

For wildlife, the lens of choice seems to be the Canon 100-400, although others choose the Sigma 50-500. You need at least 400mm for birding. Keep in mind that the Sigma lens is pretty heavy, so you'd need a monopod as well.

like Liza said, when it comes to wildlife and birding, the longer the better and i find that even 560mm is too short alot of the times. i would look at a 400mm as a minimum and if you get the Bigma, a monopod is also a great investment.

Just to add, this seems like it's becoming my personal crusade on the internet, but you really don't need a monopod for your average 70-200 zoom. Sure, they're a little heavy, but it's not really that bad, and would only become an issue if you have to hold the lens 'on target' for long periods of time (but that would be an issue with any lens, I think). I'm not much of a body builder (heck, I can't do a pull-up) but I have no problem handholding a 70-200/2.8 for a football game. I'd certainly try it out before investing in a ring+monopod if you go with the 70-200/4.

If the 100-400 are totally heavy, they are out of the question. Can you do sports with them? I kind of want a lens that has a decent aperture wide open.

I think I might still end up with the 70-200 for now and maybe a cheaper lens for birding or a prime for that. I don't think I can carry around something so heavy.

it is really not that heavy but it is heavier than the 70-200 F4 by a significant amount..

Ah, now comes the part where I think.

What about this proposition?

For now I buy a 70-200 whatever, a 85 1.8, and the Tamron 28-75. Then later, I find a deal on a used Tamron 200-500 locally and pick that up? This way I have no overlapping focal lengths except 85 which I have a reason to (to go ahead and shoot indoor sports), and I don't have too heavy a lenses (the Tamron is a little lighter then the Sigma.) Is the tamron sharp, or just cheap cause of it's focal length?

What are the comments on the Tamron? Is it fast enough for bird and duck shooting? What about if you ever decide you want to do some outdoor sports or motor sports for example?

Oh, and now the next question:

Is the 70-200 f2.8 worth the extra money over the 70-200 F4? I won't be doing indoor sports with it obviously as I'm getting a 85 1.8. I'm on sort of a tight budget and would only be willing to buy the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 or canon 70-200 F4L. I would like to travel as light as possible, so I'de prefer the 70-200 f4l in that respect. I've seen some sharp photos with the F4L, has anybody done a comparison with it and the 2.8? I'm thinking of slapping on a 1.4x converter anyway.

JaGWIRE:

I'm picking up my Tamron 200-500mm from the Post Office today. Hopefully this weekend I'll get some bird shots that I can post here. If you go to www.birdforum.net there are a good number of galleries from people using the Tamron 200-500mm. Looking through those sold me on the Tamron. Plenty sharp. As far as my eye can see, it's just as sharp as the Bigma. My next purchase will be a 70-200 f4L to cover the lower range.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2101418
Oh, and now the next question:

Is the 70-200 f2.8 worth the extra money over the 70-200 F4?

Yes. I chose the sigma 70-200 f2.8 over the Canon f4L. The extra stop of light is definetly worth it. If you cannot afford a 70-200 with 2.8, look into the canon 200 f2.8L, which is sharper than all the 70-200s and under $600.

ghms421 wrote in post #2102350
Yes. I chose the sigma 70-200 f2.8 over the Canon f4L. The extra stop of light is definetly worth it. If you cannot afford a 70-200 with 2.8, look into the canon 200 f2.8L, which is sharper than all the 70-200s and under $600.

I need the zoom though. I really want the USM motor as well. Weight is probably the biggest factor for me though.


Torque, good to hear!

I test drove both, owned and sold the Sigma it can really get freaking heavy after a while.

The Tamron is substantially lighter although the lack of HSM doesn't help any. It is mostly plastic, that's where the weight savings come from, as opposed to the full metal build of the Sigma.

And your duck fever; are you confusing it with L fever?

If you do get the lenses, bear in mind a pod helps a lot, you just have to be willing to carry it (lazy ole me is not). Otherwise, you do actually get used to the weight over time.

If you stop at the 200mm range, why not go for the Sigma 70-200? It's alot cheaper than the Canon but very similar optics from what I read.

EDIT: Nvm wasn't reading.

jcw122 wrote in post #2104223
If you stop at the 200mm range, why not go for the Sigma 70-200? It's alot cheaper than the Canon but very similar optics from what I read.

Weight primarily, and I think for 70-200 the USM would benefit me.