EF 24-70 f2.8L or Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or wat else would you suggest?

[sehsuan]

the 24-70 isn't that heavy, really. same for the 70-200 2.8's. just a matter of getting used to it.

 

[Benjymocha]

With that kind of money, I'd rather go for the EFS 17-55 my friend. The 24-70L is very bulky and is neither wide nor a long tele when used on the 30D. Why dont you give the 17-55 a try first before making the plunge to buy the L-lens. Not everybody needs an L for sure. Everybody keep saying they 'might' upgrade to the 5D when the price becomes more 'affordable' but I think that wont happen so soon.

Just a different opinion. No offence to anyone.

cannot lah.. the range will make me very pek chek... L or no L, IS or no IS...

but thanks for your opinon! no offense to me... hope to no one too!

 

[Benjymocha]

That said, I've shot my Tamron at f2.8 many times, and I still can't fault the quality unless I do some serious pixel-peeping. Focusing could be a tad slow in low light, but not serious enough to be a real issue IMO.

that's actually one of my major concerns... cos the shots are going to be fast & furious..:bsmilie:

dun really know how to explain but i guess closest example i can give is like prize giving ceremonies but higher turnover???

so focusing in that kind of situation? how?:dunno:

 

[Benjymocha]

after 3~4hrs my arms start to feel wobbly and I get handshake all over my pictures

:nono:
i cannot have pics full of handshake for the event... i'll :cry: :cry: :cry:

haha... but ok lah... i'm quite used to heavy cams... *psyching myself up now!*

agree with sehsuan... must get used to it!!!

 

[Benjymocha]

:embrass:

i like the 24-70 leh... anyone wan to sell to me???

but seriously, now that i've tried to explain what i'll be using it for... anymore suggestions/recommendations?

i know many of u give :thumbsup: advice... consider me newbie & blur...

help help okiee?

 

[jeryltan]

That's where IS or high ISO comes in

:nono:
i cannot have pics full of handshake for the event... i'll :cry: :cry: :cry:

haha... but ok lah... i'm quite used to heavy cams... *psyching myself up now!*

agree with sehsuan... must get used to it!!!

 

[sehsuan]

Wrist aches come occasionally for me if I'm using the 1D with the 70-200 2.8, when in the vertical grip position. The lack of feeling of holding securely makes it harder to hold that way. But for 24-70, so long you ensure you remember the reciprocal rule, you'll be fine. But while not using the camera, whatever setup you have, you'll surely find a way to hold it without cramping your wrists. I used to hold my setup by the tripod collar, but now I did away with the collar, and just hold the camera via the lens/body interface area.

Not directly related to the lens of your choice, but if you're thinking about how to tahan the weight for prolonged periods of time...
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=205147
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=205959

 

[PnS]

The Tamron works for me coz it's lightweight, not too big, fits 67mm filter which is cheaper, and has got sharp f2.8 images and can focus very near about 30cm i think. Focussing speed though not as fast as ultrasonic is not slow either. Of course the L glass focuses faster, maintains a fixed length without extending when zooming, is tougher and heavier. Most importantly for me, the Tamron is more affordable.

 

[Robbo73]

The Tamron works for me coz it's lightweight, not too big, fits 67mm filter which is cheaper, and has got sharp f2.8 images and can focus very near about 30cm i think. Focussing speed though not as fast as ultrasonic is not slow either. Of course the L glass focuses faster, maintains a fixed length without extending when zooming, is tougher and heavier. Most importantly for me, the Tamron is more affordable.

The 24-70L has a reverse extending lens (wide is extended). HOWEVER, it does have dust & humidity sealing through gasketting. Interestingly (or not) although the 70-200 does not extend, only the 2.8IS is weather sealed...go figure.

 

[el69]

Great advice so far!

If I do go for the L, do you think it'd be something I'd outgrow?

I'm currently eyeing it cos I have a big event overseas soon (which is why I favour this range plus the low light conditions I'll face in the stadium).

but other than that, I usually do abstracts, nature, scenery etc with my kit lens (surprisingly wonderful lens btw) and my 75-300... events come few & far between.

so just wondering....

thanks again guys...

keep the advice coming....

Actually, you can always opt to rent and try out before you part with your $ to buy.
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=204716

 

[Benjymocha]

Actually, you can always opt to rent and try out before you part with your $ to buy.
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=204716

yeah... rockscar18 already contacted me... but next week or so no time lah... so read wat u guys have to say 1st... learning quite abit... :embrass:

 

[Benjymocha]

Not directly related to the lens of your choice, but if you're thinking about how to tahan the weight for prolonged periods of time...
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=205147
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=205959

eh, sehsuan! the thinktanks are so cool... but i cannot lah... dun have the size to carry like that ;p By the time get all my barang packed up, it'll all drop off me.. :bsmilie: i'll stick to my crumpler... hahaha...

but :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[sehsuan]

Benjymocha,

If it helps, my waistline is "only" about 29 inches.

No problem!

 

[Benjymocha]

Benjymocha,

If it helps, my waistline is "only" about 29 inches.

No problem!

:bsmilie: okiee... heng ah... i smaller... hahaha

getting abit OT but abit too macho for me also lah... :embrass: i'm quite girlie ...

 

[Benjymocha]

back to my thread topic...

my next question is... for a mid-zoom, would I need IS? so far my shots are pretty steady, even with my 75-300 (except when i dun eat lah.. those not counted ;p )...

cos surprisingly, no one has suggested 24-105 f4L IS... or even the 28-135 IS... any reasons why?

must excuse my seemingly stupid qns... I used to use a FM10... haha

 

[sehsuan]

Deanne uses this:
http://www.thinktankphoto.com/home_pros2.php?photo=8

You wouldn't need IS if you really don't foresee yourself shooting in really low light. The 24-105 L IS is a f/4 lens, so should light levels go down and shutter speeds dip below 1/100s... it still COULD do. But the price doesn't seem justifiable somewhat, similar to the 70-300 DO IS.

 

[Garion]

back to my thread topic...

my next question is... for a mid-zoom, would I need IS? so far my shots are pretty steady, even with my 75-300 (except when i dun eat lah.. those not counted ;p )...

For very low light situations, even with good handholding, the shutter speeds may dip to very low and at the longer end of the mid-range zoom, you may still encounter shake. But in most normal circumstances with normal or outdoor lighting fast mid range zooms up to around 70mm can be handheld with no problems.

cos surprisingly, no one has suggested 24-105 f4L IS... or even the 28-135 IS... any reasons why?

must excuse my seemingly stupid qns... I used to use a FM10... haha

Well in the first place you were asking about comparison between f2.8 zooms mar. From what I heard, 24-105 f4L IS is a decent lens for walk around or travel. Go for it if most of your intended work is for outdoor or in good lighting.

 

[Robbo73]

back to my thread topic...

my next question is... for a mid-zoom, would I need IS? so far my shots are pretty steady, even with my 75-300 (except when i dun eat lah.. those not counted ;p )...

cos surprisingly, no one has suggested 24-105 f4L IS... or even the 28-135 IS... any reasons why?

must excuse my seemingly stupid qns... I used to use a FM10... haha

Hi Benjymocha - I suggested it in post 4 !!! :bsmilie:

To reinforce the comments above, nice range if you're not planing to get a superzoom (too much overlap with the 70-200 for me). Also, it's got the build, IS, less weight and similar price. If you shoot a lot of moving subjects, a faster lens may suit you better though. IS is most effective for slow moving objects and handheld shooting (unless you are looking to get motion blur specifically). It's not really a simple either/or decision with the 24-105 as they have good features in differing situations.

Some say slightly inferior IQ relative to the 24-70L - mainly distortion - likely because of the relative range sizes. Not sure I can recall seeing pics side by side though. :think:

 

[Robbo73]

28-135 gets good reviews but not in the same IQ/build league (or cost !!) as the 24-70L or 24-105L. If you like the 24-105 features like range, limited wide end, IS etc but you're on a budget then the 28-135 may be up your street.

 

[Robbo73]

...and don't forget the efs 17-55...