Recommend Something 2.8 , to work alongside the 55-250 Canon ?

[gothgirl]

Recommend Something 2.8 , to work alongside the 55-250 Canon ?

Need something with more reach than the 17-55 2.8 , but faster than the 55-250.

So something 2.8 ideally 100mm or above , would consider a prime , must be AF though . (However if there's some very cheap old glass under £50 used that's MF , I may give it a punt )

For shooting fast moving horse and dog sports, indoors in P*ss poor lighting , when they're too far away to use the 17-55.

Cheaper the better as always , and doesn't matter if its old/heavy/bulky , as long as it works fast .

 

[Phil V]

Double post

 

[Phil V]

I'd originally thought of the 200mm prime, but checking used prices on eBay they sell for similar prices to the older sigma 70-200 2.8 zoom (£300 ish).

I'd say sell the Canon and buy the Sigma, the swap won't cost too much, the IQ won't go down and the increase in speed will be well worth it.

My other thought was the 135mm 2.8SF, which is OK so long as you remember not to switch in the soft focus effect.

 

[odd jim]

Agree with Phil, but note, there are no really "cheap" f/2.8 solutions!

Your best option would be to replace your 55-250 with a used Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, but even decent old ones will be at least £300.

 

[troutfisher]

The old non IS 100mm macro although AF speed is not brilliant or the 85 1.8

 

[realspeed]

What about a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM Lens.I had one for my nikon and its is a very good lens, I got rid of mine to upgrade to the Nikon version

Maybe here will help

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=sigma 70-200 mm lens for canon&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

 

[maarten.dhaese]

If you need to photograph dogs from a distance, I think a zoom reaching to 300mm might be useful?

In that case the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 could be an option? It is likely to be more expensive than the 70-200 f/2.8 alternatives mentioned above though.

 

[gothgirl]

hmm , the sigma sounds very possible but I had such a poor sigma 17-50 2.8. It makes me air on the side of caution

the canon 85mm 1.8 is one I hadn't considered, is there an arm version ?

I love my 55-250 and am loathe to part with it unless its for something that's a real jump up

 

[wave01]

I would look at the canon 70-200 f2.8. its pricey but a very good lens what body do you have

 

[gothgirl]

I would look at the canon 70-200 f2.8. its pricey but a very good lens what body do you have

canon 60d

 

[Nawty]

hmm , the sigma sounds very possible but I had such a poor sigma 17-50 2.8. It makes me air on the side of caution

the canon 85mm 1.8 is one I hadn't considered, is there an arm version ?

I love my 55-250 and am loathe to part with it unless its for something that's a real jump up

Well it's relatively simple, f/2.8 buys you two stops at the long end so if you are struggling for shutter speed or noise then think what two stops will give you (for example 1/1000 instead of 1/250).

Chances are the older Sigma's aren't as sharp as your Canon but then a shot at the right shutter speed / exposure is more important that absolute sharpness.

 

[srichards]

What's the highest ISO you can use the 60d at? How many more stops do you need to get the results you want?

 

[gothgirl]

the 60d is definitely better than the 40d & 50d , if the images were for my own pleasure then probably iso 3200

for someone else , anything above iso 800 is too noisy Imo.

 

[Nawty]

the 60d is definitely better than the 40d & 50d , if the images were for my own pleasure then probably iso 3200

for someone else , anything above iso 800 is too noisy Imo.

There you go, two stops.

 

[Phil V]

the 60d is definitely better than the 40d & 50d , if the images were for my own pleasure then probably iso 3200

for someone else , anything above iso 800 is too noisy Imo.

Well you're doing it wrong. (Sorry)

Either your exposure is out, your processing needs work or your judgement is off, you should be able to sell images above 1600 ISO from that camera, the 7d is allegedly a PoS but I have no hesitation putting ISO 3200 and above in wedding albums.

But back to the point you've been told numerous times, you can't judge every Sigma lens ever made on the performance of a bad example of a not very good lens.

The 70-200 is a perfectly good lens used by many.

 

[odd jim]

Well you're doing it wrong. (Sorry)

Either your exposure is out, your processing needs work or your judgement is off, you should be able to sell images above 1600 ISO from that camera, the 7d is allegedly a PoS but I have no hesitation putting ISO 3200 and above in wedding albums.

But back to the point you've been told numerous times, you can't judge every Sigma lens ever made on the performance of a bad example of a not very good lens.

The 70-200 is a perfectly good lens used by many.

Yep, the OP needs to acknowledge that Sigma make very good lenses. And as I said time and time again in her previous posts, the Sigma she had (18-50) was never good to start with!

I could buy the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 tomorrow but my Sigma 70-200 that I've had for about 5 years is so good I really don't see the need.

 

[Banker]

What sigma lens are you using odd jim ? as I am debating on buying the new 70-200 os one myself. But if the older model is as good, I could save a few ££. Thanks

 

[gothgirl]

what about primes ?

sigma 105mm f2.8
or canon 100mm f2

 

[woof woof]

what about primes ?

sigma 105mm f2.8
or canon 100mm f2

Isn't the Sigma 105mm f2.8 a macro lens?

Macro lenses don't tend to be the quickest at auto focusing so if it is a macro lens and you want to take pictures of fast moving horses and dogs you may struggle.

 

[odd jim]

What sigma lens are you using odd jim ? as I am debating on buying the new 70-200 os one myself. But if the older model is as good, I could save a few ££. Thanks

Mine is the HSM II "Macro" version (which only means it has a closer MFD not that it's a true Macro of course!), the last non OS version produced.

 

[odd jim]

Isn't the Sigma 105mm f2.8 a macro lens?

Macro lenses don't tend to be the quickest at auto focusing so if it is a macro lens and you want to take pictures of fast moving horses and dogs you may struggle.

It is a Macro lens, and is optically one of the best lenses out there.

You're right about the AF though, as a Macro it's slower to focus (but very, very accurate) so not ideal for sports.

That said, I've shot my dogs and horses with mine [emoji3]

 

[woof woof]

It is a Macro lens, and is optically one of the best lenses out there.

You're right about the AF though, as a Macro it's slower to focus (but very, very accurate) so not ideal for sports.

That said, I've shot my dogs and horses with mine [emoji3]

I've shot dogs with a manual lens and horses and dogs with a dog slow Medion compact (by preempting the shot and pressing the shutter so that it fires at the right time ) but these are not necessarily ideal ways to get the shot

I don't know if the 105mm has a focus range limiter, my 150mm had one but even so these aren't necessarily ideal lenses for action shots.

 

[gothgirl]

Nah , throws the 105mm out for me .

Needs to be fast .

 

[odd jim]

I've shot dogs with a manual lens and horses and dogs with a dog slow Medion compact (by preempting the shot and pressing the shutter so that it fires at the right time ) but these are not necessarily ideal ways to get the shot

I don't know if the 105mm has a focus range limiter, my 150mm had one but even so these aren't necessarily ideal lenses for action shots.

Yes it does have a focus limiter but that's really for the close up end, otherwise you select "full" which de restricts the limiter but then uses the full AF range for further away stuff so this wouldn't help on the Siggy 105.

 

[odd jim]

Nah , throws the 105mm out for me .

Needs to be fast .

If you want fast AF and fast aperture, prepare to get your wallet out.

Your only answer, for best value and usability would be a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, I'd suggest the latter HSM (non OS to keep the cost down) version as the AF is quicker. An older used one won't break the bank, but it won't be cheap. The AF speed would then only be limited to that of the 60d.

That's your answer in a nutshell.

 

[Phil V]

If you want fast AF and fast aperture, prepare to get your wallet out.

Your only answer, for best value and usability would be a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, I'd suggest the latter HSM (non OS to keep the cost down) version as the AF is quicker. An older used one won't break the bank, but it won't be cheap. The AF speed would then only be limited to that of the 60d.

That's your answer in a nutshell.

This...
A 100mm f2 costs almost as much for less versatility, a 135mm is more expensive.

The Siggy really is a no brainer, and IMHO costs little if you sell the Canon which would be virtually redundant.

 

[gothgirl]

Reviving an old thread , rather than starting a new one.

Is the tamron 70-200 2.8 on par with the sigma or not ?

Would the sigma be a better choice or is there not much in it ?

I keep seeing the tamrons pop up but not many of the sigmas

 

[Nawty]

The older non-VC version is optically pretty good but has slow AF, probably not ideal for action.

The newer VC version is a great lens.

 

[JJ!]

The VC version is very good. There is a new version out or coming out so the older one might drop in price a little, but not much (both VC).

I think I would take the Tamron VC over Sigma if 2.8 was what I was looking for.