Which fast mid-range Zoom?

G

GadgetRick

Suspended / Banned
Messages
30
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
No
Ok, looking at adding a mid-range fast zoom to my equipment list (small one that it is). I need it for shooting wrestling and grappling indoors. I can't afford Canon glass at the moment (unfortunately) so I'm looking at these three lenses:

-Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro DF US$569
-Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG US$349
-Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Xr Di LD US$459

Now, the first lens seems to also double as a macro which wouldn't be so bad for me as I enjoy photographing watches (I collect them). But I don't know how it would do for sports photography.

The 2nd Sigma seems to get reasonably-good reviews for sports. Focus seems fast enough. Typical Sigma problem with possibly getting a lens with focus problems but they'll replace it right away.

The Tamron has gotten very good reviews--and others here have told me it's a good lens--but I've read the focus is slow, which is something I'm afraid of for sports.

Just checking to see what anyone here thinks about these lenses and which one seems like the better purchase. If there's another idea, I'm open to that as well. I just don't have money for a Canon lens as I just bought the new camera (50D) and am buying a new computer.

Thanks for your input!
 
The 'Macro' designation means it will take closeup pictures okay, but it won't be a proper 'Macro' lens (think, the eyes of a bug, etc).

You mentioned that you can't afford Canon Glass - there is other Canon Glass out there than L lenses, many quite cheap.
 
trencheel303 said:
The 'Macro' designation means it will take closeup pictures okay, but it won't be a proper 'Macro' lens (think, the eyes of a bug, etc).

You mentioned that you can't afford Canon Glass - there is other Canon Glass out there than L lenses, many quite cheap.
Click to expand...
Yeah but not at f2.8 which is what I need for indoor sports photography--unless I'm missing something... (Keep in mind, I'm in the US.)
 
What about the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 IS

Or how about a prime, problem with indoor photography is you need fast glass, so hows about the 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2 all reasonable money, or the 50mm f1.8 or 1.4 won't break the bank balance either, remembering you have a 50D so the 1.6x crop factor comes into play, so you would need to multiply the focal length of the lens by 1.6 to get the true framing of your image, example 50mm lens frame like an 80mm lens on you 50D due to the smaller sensor size.....
 
Well I'm shooting with the 50mm f1.8 right now and I find myself wanting a bit more reach and a bit wider (at times). Was thinking of getting the 85mm but, I'd have more problems at the wide end of the focal range. Not practical to switch between lenses in the middle of the matches. So a mid-range zoom is what I'm looking at.

I know, I'm in a tough spot. Either spend a lot of money on L glass or...
 
Anyone tried the Tokina atx pro 28-70 f2.8? See one on Craig's List for a decent price but I see mixed reviews. Some people say it's a bit soft at f2.8--what I need it for--others say it's sharp. Maybe QC issues? People say Tokina has excellent customer service.
 
GadgetRick said:
Anyone tried the Tokina atx pro 28-70 f2.8? See one on Craig's List for a decent price but I see mixed reviews. Some people say it's a bit soft at f2.8--what I need it for--others say it's sharp. Maybe QC issues? People say Tokina has excellent customer service.
Click to expand...

The first 2.6-2.8 was the best, then it went down the hill from there. I can't say how good it is as I haven't tried it yet, but may consider as a backup or when I don't want to risk my Canon.
I had the Sigma for a day and was extremely disappointed with it. Canon 18-55 kit lens did a much better job at the same apertures. It could be a QC issue, or a bad design altogether. Surprisingly the seller nor the other buyer (after me) didn't see anything wrong with it, so I presume some people just don't care about the output at all.
Tamron f/2.8 lenses are good value for money, just not as well built. If I was in your situation I'd pick up either 17-50 or 28-75mm. On crop 17-50mm makes more sense as long as you have something longer at hand. 28mm is quite limiting, unless you have an UWA.
 
daugirdas said:
The first 2.6-2.8 was the best, then it went down the hill from there. I can't say how good it is as I haven't tried it yet, but may consider as a backup or when I don't want to risk my Canon.
I had the Sigma for a day and was extremely disappointed with it. Canon 18-55 kit lens did a much better job at the same apertures. It could be a QC issue, or a bad design altogether. Surprisingly the seller nor the other buyer (after me) didn't see anything wrong with it, so I presume some people just don't care about the output at all.
Tamron f/2.8 lenses are good value for money, just not as well built. If I was in your situation I'd pick up either 17-50 or 28-75mm. On crop 17-50mm makes more sense as long as you have something longer at hand. 28mm is quite limiting, unless you have an UWA.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as I do more research, it's obvious I need to bite the bullet and get good glass. Just not sure where I'm gonna come up with the $$$ for the better glass. :(
 
Another vote for primes here. You will almost 2 stops slower than your current lens even with an f2.8 zoom, so not only will you need the slower shutter speeds/higher iso, the background will be more in focus, which I can't imagine is what you'd want for boxing photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top