long, fast lens cheap? - DPChallenge Forums

05/29/2006 10:11:07 PM · #1

I know. I know. It can't be done.

I was thinking that in addition to wide angle landscapes the thing I like taking pics of most is bands. I am often VERY frustrated because I don't have any fast lenses. This doesn't bother me most of the time with my wide angle. but anything longer than 10mm is hard to capture in clubs at anything less than ISO 800, and that is a little noisy for my taste.

I have several options. I think I am going to get primes for the medium range. I already have the 50mm 1.8, and I love it. I was thinking of getting the 28mm 1.8 prime so that will cover me to that point.

I'm sure this has been asked before but I want a fast lens (or lenses) to cover the long end. A max of 200mm is probably fine since I will mostly be in relatively small clubs.

I figure I can either get

1. this lens

the 200mm 2.8L for $609-I don't know much about this lens and it would require me to fill in some of the other focal lengths with other primes. i.e. the 100mm 2.0 for $389

2. Or I can go with 70-200mm 2.8L for $1139

3. Or maybe
70-200 2.8 ISthat runs $1699.

I can easily afford the first option, but that makes the total over $100 and I will have to be changing lenses all the time, although the lenses will be smaller and easier to deal with (and faster for the 100mm) but it leaves a gap between the 100 and 200mm, I don't THINK that would be a great problem what do you think?

the second choice is a little more expensive but perhaps more convient when things are moving quickly.

the third choice is questionable. How valuable is the IS? I will BARELY be able to afford this lens even if I get it used. but I COULD I suppose. is the IS that worth it? On one hand I think "if you are going to spend that much money on a lens, you might as well spend the extra and get the best one" on the other hand I don't know if the IS is worth the extra dough.

What do you guys think?

BTW, if you read a previous thread, I've decided to stick with canon (obviously)

05/29/2006 10:32:21 PM · #2

this isn't out of the price range, have you thought about the 135L 2.0?

fotomann_forever

05/29/2006 10:32:34 PM · #3

I know you will get bombarded with posts that say IS is definitely worth it, but in your case I don't think it is.

What I see you shooting is bands (which tend to move around a lot) in low light. IS is good for stopping blur cause by camera shake, but does nothing to stop motion of the subject.

So, if your shutter speeds aren't fast enough to stop camera shake blur, they sure aren't going to stop motion on stage. I hope that made sense.

I think, I'd go with option #2. I've shot live music quite a bit in my career and changing lenses all the time and the fact that you usually have to deal with crowds around you, option one isn't very pratical.

*All the above is my two cents ofcourse. Now back to your definitely get the IS thread :-)

05/29/2006 10:51:16 PM · #4

I HAVE had problems with camera shake... lets say the singer is looking at the audience... he is rather still and is staring at them... or has his eyes closed singing and I am zoomed in all the way, I can keep him steady only at ISO 1600.... but that is at f/6.3

so the 2.8 might make up for the motion there, or would I still need the IS?

drake

05/29/2006 10:53:50 PM · #5

buy a lens used. Maybe the non-IS. Try it out, if it works for you keep it, if it doesn't work for you, you can still sell it for the same price you paid over at FM.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/29/2006 11:04:33 PM · #6

is the best place to buy a used lens on ebay? anyone got one for sale? do we all agree that I should be going for option #2

drake

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

05/29/2006 11:07:29 PM · #7

I don't yet own these but I think the 200L is one of those sleepers. The images and review I have read have been very very good and in your case it might be a good option (I agree that IS is not going to help you a lot but the fixed vs 70-200 zoom is something you need to determine).

The other choice (as above) is the 135L and then add a 1.4 extender. I can see this combo in my future because it gives two options and the reviews on the 135 are better than the 200.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

05/29/2006 11:08:33 PM · #8

if you buy a used 70-200L 2.8 i believe the going rate is around $900 for a good condition one. If you go to www.fredmiranda.com and register, they have a buy and sell forum where you can request to buy from there. Just post a WTB: 70-200L non-IS thread and you'll have an offer or two within a day or so. I've had nothing but good expiriences buying and selling there. Often people have already sold things and you can check their history in the feedback forum by searching their username. Ebay might be an option, but i'd be more comfortable at FM.

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

05/29/2006 11:13:39 PM · #9

I know that being caught up in the "which lens to buy" is a big step.

The thing you have got to really ask yourself is...

...What will you use the lens for in the long term, not in the short term.

I use my lens sets for sports. Except for two lens that are not Canon quality, the rest of my lens are for action sports. The two IS lens sets that I use are great for horizontal movement, and are great in reaching out and touching someone.

Except for the 100-400mm IS I own, the rest of my 'sports lens' are fast so that I can enter an auditorium knowing that I can still have latitude in my settings.

Ask yourself, do you really need IS? Do you really need a prime lens? or do you need a telephoto that may be a bit slower than a prime but gives you more options.

What will you be shooting? or are you out to just get a toy to add to your current collection.

If you can answer these honestly, then you will know what type of lens you are actually looking for.

k4rp

Nikon D200

05/30/2006 03:32:28 PM · #10

sigma 70-200 F2.8?

Morry32

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/30/2006 03:58:51 PM · #11

Have you considered tracking down someone else in your area who might be willing to let you see and try out the lenses before hand? There is also the possibility of rental as well so you can make a truely informed decission, we're talking a lot of money imo

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

05/30/2006 04:54:50 PM · #12

I have shot bands where I had to use ISO1600 1/20s F2.8 at 200mm, thank God for the stabilising on my camera. Obviously, this was for bands that didn't move a lot. Bear it in mind!

05/30/2006 09:12:40 PM · #13

do you folks recommend the sigma lens? Sounds like a pretty good deal. anybody know how it stands up against the canon version?

drake

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

05/30/2006 09:43:13 PM · #14

i've heard it's a good lens, pretty close optically, definately one of sigma's best.

trnqlty

Nikon D90

05/30/2006 10:38:26 PM · #15

I have to agree with fotomann on every point. I've shot bands on numerous different occasions using an f2.8 lens and I am at ISO 1600, but that is just the territory you're in with music pictures. I rarely find myself less than 1/60s like BobsterLobster said because the lights are usually really bright on certain spots and I try not to blow anything out. One last thing, always shoot raw in those conditions so you have maximum control later.