Mid range 2.8 zoom?

Messages
182
Edit My Images
No
I'm in the market for a new lens for gig photography. I'm using a Canon 7D and at the venue I'm working now, my Tamron 17-50 2.8 suits perfectly. I'm going to be working a slightly bigger venue soon and I need a longer lens. I've seen the Tamron 24-70 2.8 but 70 is just a little short for my needs. The next option up seems to be a 70-200 2.8 which is just too long on the short end and more than I need on the long end. Is there a 2.8 lens that sits somewhere in the middle that I'm unaware of? Something like a 20+ to 100+ 2.8 would be perfect. I assume no one has filled this gap yet? If not, is anyone aware of a reason why not?
 
What would make it heavier and more expensive than the 70-200 2.8? Canon has the 24-105 F4. What's to stop them making a 2.8 version? I see many people using this lens at gigs and I just don't think F4 will cut it but it seems these photographers are making do with what's available. I believe there's a market for a 2.8 version of that lens but there must be a reason why Canon haven't done it.
 
shufflemoomin said:
What would make it heavier and more expensive than the 70-200 2.8? Canon has the 24-105 F4. What's to stop them making a 2.8 version? I see many people using this lens at gigs and I just don't think F4 will cut it but it seems these photographers are making do with what's available. I believe there's a market for a 2.8 version of that lens but there must be a reason why Canon haven't done it.

It would be pretty big and heavy. The 24-70 or even a Canon 100m macro would be your best options.
 
I've never used one but there's the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 isn't there?
 
Phall82 said:
I've never used one but there's the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 isn't there?

I was just about to suggest that!

If you can get your hands on one this would be the best option.
 
70-200 2.8 IS is really a great lens, and the new version is meant to be even better. I guess it's quite long on a 7D. Get a 70-200 and a full frame body :)
 
Back
Top