THE portrait zoom?

[sonicfantom]

I'm looking for a counterpart for my Tamron 17-50 on the short-to-medium tele end - not a general purpose walkaround lens, a "special event" lens of sorts, mainly for candid shots/portraiture, with the odd nature thrown in. I work a lot with DOF and available-light. There's the choice of:

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro
Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG Apo Macro HSM II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
Alternative: Canon EF 85 f/1.8 + Canon EF 135 f/2.8 Softfocus.

From the information I've gleaned off the internet: The Tamron has excellent optics, but noisy, slow AF; Sigma has FTM and ultrasonic motors, but has weaker IQ and QC; Canon is only let down by the slow aperture. In other words, out of IQ, AF, and Aperture, I can have two. I'm leaning towards the Tamron at the moment (which has the strange effect of giving me a Canon body without Canon lenses).

Any words of advice, opinions, or experiences? I'm not too fussed about the gap between 50mm and 70mm.

[Lazlo Woodbine]

You might consider the Sigma 50-150 2.8 if you're not going full frame. It's smaller and lighter than the 70-200 and better image quality. There are a couple of versions around now. I used to have the II but I think there is a new one coming out with image stabilisation.

[Frostiboy]

85mm f1.8 would nice for portraits. consider a 70-200 f2.8 non is? gives very nice DOF

[jackinavox]

I have the 85mm f1.8 and it's an awesome lens, fast and sharp. great for studio type work, but if say you're doing event work and going around a room shooting portraits of people, it's a bit long, specially on a crop body. i find the sweet spot at around f2-4 anyway.

a 70-200 would work to complement your 17-50. in terms of which one? buy the best that you can afford :)

[smurff]

i bought the sigma had it for the weekend before i sold it because a canon 70-200 F/2.8L came up so i got that.
the sigma was a great lens, the shorter focus was good.with the canon you have a focuse limit of 1.5m IIRC. the canon also has a focus limiter, which is awesome

if you look at getting the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L, try get the one with IS, i hear it is well recomended as its light and the IS is said to be very helpfull with portrait shooting.

-smurff

[tomberkley]

I have the canon f4 70-200, it is a really good lens in terms of build,focus speed,nice zoom ring, nice size and weight for a good zoom.
If you mainly shoot on sunny days or just days with good light then it you will find this lens amazing and all you need. But if you are shooting in wedding ceremony in a church for example, It does get a bit tricky. It isnt unusual to have to crank your iso to 800 or iso to get a good hit rate and 200mm.
If I was to look back I now would have saved up the extra 1000 and got the f4 IS, as has been said it does help a whole lot having the IS but it is almost twice as much and this may not be worth it for you, but for me i can see why people say that.
A lot of people go for the 70-200 2.8 over the f4 IS as they are near the same price, which i don't really understand as the f4 IS is a whole lot smaller and lighter which is only a bonus and with IS the f4 isn't much slower vs 2.8

I still think the 70-200mm f4 is my favorite lens I own, It can be a hard lens to use at times but I like that about it. When I get a good shot with it, it feels that much more satisfying.

I havent used any of the others on your list, but im sure there are pros and cons with all of them.

Be warned when you get your 1st L lens you may not ever want to look at any others again...

Sorry this doesn't help much

[jackinavox]

yeah i tried the f4 70-200 outdoors in good light and it was a pleasure to use. i opted for the faster f2.8 because i do a lot of indoor stuff (but hardly use it for that now! :rolleyes:)

but imho, f2.8 + good light = win!

..and it's worth remembering, buying L glass is an investment ;)

[smurff]

yeah i tried the f4 70-200 outdoors in good light and it was a pleasure to use. i opted for the faster f2.8 because i do a lot of indoor stuff (but hardly use it for that now! :rolleyes:)

but imho, f2.8 + good light = win!

..and it's worth remembering, buying L glass is an investment ;)

and a curse lol, sense i got my L ive been dreaming of upgrading a few of mine, such a pitty money dosnt grow on trees though

-smurff

[sonicfantom]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I've decided to save for the Tammy, because I really can't justify saving for the 70-200/2.8L when I don't even own a tripod or a much-needed flash (for the AF-assist lamp).

While I'm at it, is there anyone that makes an external AF-assist lamp, or do I have to buy an external flash? Canon's pop-up-flash-strobe is ridiculous.

[Redal]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I've decided to save for the Tammy, because I really can't justify saving for the 70-200/2.8L when I don't even own a tripod or a much-needed flash (for the AF-assist lamp).

While I'm at it, is there anyone that makes an external AF-assist lamp, or do I have to buy an external flash? Canon's pop-up-flash-strobe is ridiculous.

Canon ST-e2 is what you are after, it isnt cheap, maybe their is a chinese knockoff somewhere.

[tomberkley]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I've decided to save for the Tammy, because I really can't justify saving for the 70-200/2.8L when I don't even own a tripod or a much-needed flash (for the AF-assist lamp).

While I'm at it, is there anyone that makes an external AF-assist lamp, or do I have to buy an external flash? Canon's pop-up-flash-strobe is ridiculous.

Here is a review on the lens if you are interested. Here is the down side to the lens you have chosen. ( from the review)

Of course, the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens' very good image quality will only be seen in a properly-focused picture. Unfortunately, AF accuracy is the biggest problem area for this lens. Both Tamron 70-200mm lenses I've had appeared to be properly autofocus-calibrated, but neither autofocused consistently accurately. My percentage of properly-focused shots is highest at 70mm and lowest at 200mm. The accuracy percentage was low enough to raise my red flag for critical shooting situations. The accuracy percentage was even lower in low light situations. An indoor available light event and portraits in the shade are examples of situations that delivered especially low AF hit rates for me. Narrowing/stopping down the aperture increases DOF (Depth of Field) and therefore increases the keeper rate from this lens. But this of course negates a definite attraction of this lens - the constant max f/2.8 aperture.


If this isn't a prob for you then it will be a very good lens for the money
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

[jackinavox]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I've decided to save for the Tammy, because I really can't justify saving for the 70-200/2.8L when I don't even own a tripod or a much-needed flash (for the AF-assist lamp).

While I'm at it, is there anyone that makes an external AF-assist lamp, or do I have to buy an external flash? Canon's pop-up-flash-strobe is ridiculous.

Get a cheap yongnuo speedlite. if you look in ebay you can get a manual-only YN560 for about $120-150NZ delivered to you from Hong Kong.

Or spend a little and get a full ettl Nissin, about $200NZ from trademe, good alternatives to canon speedlites.

Just one advice re: buying the tamron or sigma, from what i've read some 3rd party lenses may not work with future canon bodies, unless you get it 'flashed' or 'chipped'. From my personal experience, my old sigma 28-70 f2.8 wouldn't AF with a 5d2 and 50d but was fine with a 30d/40d :D

Not knocking the quality of those lenses, but just thought it's important to point it out.