[BigMike]

I have decided to finally bite the bullet and buy a nice lens. I'm looking at the Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM. I chose that over the canon one because I just don't have the cash for a nice canon lens.

Where is a good place to get nice lenses cheap? I've come across quite a few places that have it for $600, but they look REALLY shady. Is the best bet to just go with a place like B&H, or is there better out there?

Thanks

 

[maxyedor]

The camera industry is a highly regulated industry price-wise. You usually can't find better, legit prices than what B&H list. However most all the mail-order companies will match that price. My personal favorite is RobertsImaging.com

As for those super cheap prices, they are often not legit, and the rest of the time when you order they charge like $150 for ground shipping, and then try to upsell you on accessories, like the box, manual, and the actual lens elements. However I have also had luck finding lighly used stuff at KEH.com for decent prices.

 

[Toshi]

stick with b&h or adorama, or keh.com if you want used.

and i'd really recommend saving up a little more for the canon in this case. there are some things that canon does well, and telephotos are one of their strengths.

 

[firetoole]

I agree with Toshi, the name brand lenses are a bagillion times better than Sigma or Tameron. B&H is a great place to get lenses you might also try Ebay but I recommend sticking with brand new if you go that way.

 

[binary visions]

BigMike, have you considered going with the Canon 70-200 f/4? I know that one extra stop is nice, but man do you pay a weight and price penalty for it.

 

[chicodude]

I agree with Toshi, the name brand lenses are a bagillion times better than Sigma or Tameron. B&H is a great place to get lenses you might also try Ebay but I recommend sticking with brand new if you go that way.

Really? Everyone told me that as far as fisheyes go the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 was the tits...

 

[binary visions]

Really? Everyone told me that as far as fisheyes go the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 was the tits...

firetoole is blindly biased against non-Canon lenses. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all make some really awesome lenses, and some of them are as good or better than their Canon counterparts.

I think it's silly, personally .

 

[narlus]

i think toshi nailed it, in that Canon makes some awesome zoom and telephoto lenses...wide angles have more competition imo...the tokina 12-24 i have was about $200 cheaper than the canon 10-22, and i think it's a great lens. ditto for my sigma 30mm f/1.4; this is a crazy-sharp lens, very good focusing, and the canon wider prime offerings just aren't in the same league, for IQ or price.

bigmike, if you don't need the extra stop, the 70-200 f/4 is a GREAT lens. i love mine.

 

[Mike B.]

I've got the Sigma 70-200 DG HSM and have no complaints of weight, sharpness or otherwise. I felt I needed the f/2.8 and got a great deal on a used one through fredmiranda.com. It suits me well and I'm not lusting after the white version.

Check normancamera.com for new stuff. I've purchased several things from them and they are very helpful folks, ship quick, don't try to upsell and have decent prices.

 

[BigMike]

BigMike, have you considered going with the Canon 70-200 f/4? I know that one extra stop is nice, but man do you pay a weight and price penalty for it.

I have gone back and forth on the issue, but I do NEED the extra stop. I do a lot of shooting in theatre, and its really dark. The extra light coming in the lens is definantly worth the weight and price to me.

But thanks for the suggestion

 

[mobius]

If i were you i'd go with the 2.8 for sure. Canon if you can but i'm sure the sigma will perform good, what do i know i speak nikon.

 

[binary visions]

I have gone back and forth on the issue, but I do NEED the extra stop. I do a lot of shooting in theatre, and its really dark. The extra light coming in the lens is definantly worth the weight and price to me.

Silly rabbit... You need the 200mm f/1.8L.

 

[narlus]

Silly rabbit... You need the 200mm f/1.8L.

the freakin' HOOD costs almost $500.

http://www.47stphoto.com/item.asp?invky=40805&siteID=FG10

 

[Toshi]

I have gone back and forth on the issue, but I do NEED the extra stop. I do a lot of shooting in theatre, and its really dark. The extra light coming in the lens is definantly worth the weight and price to me.

But thanks for the suggestion

canon 135mm f/2L. i guarantee that you will LOVE this lens.

 

[merrrrjig]

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8L, I have never used anything but canon, but I have heard good things about the sigma lens. I would say go for the sigma, or get a used canon from fredmiranda.com

 

[qualude]

I've got the Sigma, and have no complaints! Has everything that the Canon has....only reason I would have gone with the Canon would be to get the Image Stabilization, but that adds a pretty penny to the price!

 

[firetoole]

firetoole is blindly biased against non-Canon lenses. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all make some really awesome lenses, and some of them are as good or better than their Canon counterparts.

I think it's silly, personally .

yea thats probabbly why I soot Nikon,
it's just what I hear in the biz about the offbrand lenses

personally I have owned a Tameron 28-200 1.4F and it was kinda flimsy but thats just me.

 

[narlus]

tamron makes a zoom of that range w/ an max aperture of 1.4???!!!! holy bejeesus.

 

[binary visions]

tamron makes a zoom of that range w/ an max aperture of 1.4???!!!! holy bejeesus.

I hear Sigma is introducing a new 50-500 this year... It's an f/2 constant aperture

 

[Toshi]

tamron makes a zoom of that range w/ an max aperture of 1.4???!!!! holy bejeesus.

i think he means f/4. to probably f/8, twisting and telescoping to boot

 

[narlus]

I hear Sigma is introducing a new 50-500 this year... It's an f/2 constant aperture

does it come w/ it's own oompa loompa for use as a monopod?

 

[BigMike]

Silly rabbit... You need the 200mm f/1.8L.

How about this BV, you buy the lens, i'll pay the shipping to my house and tell you how it work out

 

[BigMike]

Well, I just realized that for the price of the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, I can buy the Canon 70-200 F4 for most of my shooting, and then another lens for super low light, and still spend less money!

 

[narlus]

if you are looking to use the 70-200 for indoor use, get the 2.8 version. for outdoor use, the f/4 version should be fine. it's a killer lens too. problem is that the diameter (67mm) isn't consistent w/ my other lenses, so i had to fork over more $$$ for a UV filter and CP filter.

 

[Toshi]

step down/step up rings wouldn't have worked? with the crop factor vignetting shouldn't have been an issue...

 

[maxyedor]

Well, I just realized that for the price of the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, I can buy the Canon 70-200 F4 for most of my shooting, and then another lens for super low light, and still spend less money!

If you want a VERY slighly used 70-200 f4 I got one that I may be able to be talked into selling. Got a 70-200 f2.8 IS also, but when shooting outside with just my 20d and no grip the f4 balances far better, and is less weigth to cary around. Still not sure I want to sell it as it's great for a remote lens, damn I'm confused.

Also, if the 2.8 is key to you, check around for a Canon non-IS 70-200, a lot of newspapers have been dumping them latley as they have been around awhile and are being replaced with the IS version.

 

[narlus]

step down/step up rings wouldn't have worked? with the crop factor vignetting shouldn't have been an issue...

i'm sure they would have worked, but i decided to just get 'em. the CP i am finding is fairly indispensible for certain outdoors shots, so maybe i'll get a stepdown ring so i can use it w/ my 30mm prime.

 

[BigMike]

if you are looking to use the 70-200 for indoor use, get the 2.8 version. for outdoor use, the f/4 version should be fine. it's a killer lens too. problem is that the diameter (67mm) isn't consistent w/ my other lenses, so i had to fork over more $$$ for a UV filter and CP filter.

See, thats a tricky thing......... I'm using it for outdoor stuff like riding, but......... also indoor stuff. But the indoor stuff is theatre, which has over 100,000 watts of light on stage. The thing is sometimes there are very dark scenes that need to be shot. I've gotten by with my cheap 18-55 f3.5/5.6, so i'm thinking the f4 won't be tooooo terrible to start off with as a good lens. If I start making money, I can upgrade to the 2.8.

 

[merrrrjig]

good choice, I would say, and maybe you can use that saved money for another lens, or a flash

 

[narlus]

See, thats a tricky thing......... I'm using it for outdoor stuff like riding, but......... also indoor stuff. But the indoor stuff is theatre, which has over 100,000 watts of light on stage. The thing is sometimes there are very dark scenes that need to be shot. I've gotten by with my cheap 18-55 f3.5/5.6, so i'm thinking the f4 won't be tooooo terrible to start off with as a good lens. If I start making money, I can upgrade to the 2.8.

what focal length do you need for theater shots? the so-called 'thrifty fifty' 50mm f/1.8 is only ~$80 and is great for this sort of shooting, as long as the focal length works for you. most of the shots you can see here were taken using that lens.

if you need more reach, the primes aren't so cheap any more.

 

[BigMike]

I've actually been looking at that lens Narlus

 

[BigMike]

So i've found the Canon 70-200 f/4 for about $600, and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for $750. They both come with a case and lens hood, but the Sigma comes with a tripod collar. (another $100-$150 for the Canon)

So whatcha think, should I go for the Sigma 2.8, or the Canon? I'm guessing I won't notice a huge difference, but the price is niiiiiiice.

Also, with the IS, i've read that its not as easy to get good action shots with it. That if you are trying to follow the subject and blur the background it takes a little longer to get the gyro moving for the IS. Anyone have experiance with that?

 

[maxyedor]

I would get the Canon f/4. The tripod colar is not need because the lens is really light and just puting the body on your tripod will give it fine balance and stability. Also being light you won't really need to put it on a tripod as often, it's a fully hand holdable lens.

As for the IS there are 2 modes on the Canon IS system, one stabilizes in all 360 degrees and is great for portraits and still life. The other only stabilizes the vertical axis so it actually lets you pan with better stability and smoother blur. The IS lenses have let me pan at speeds down to 1/8 handheld with excellent results.

 

[Toshi]

So i've found the Canon 70-200 f/4 for about $600, and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for $750. They both come with a case and lens hood, but the Sigma comes with a tripod collar. (another $100-$150 for the Canon)

So whatcha think, should I go for the Sigma 2.8, or the Canon? I'm guessing I won't notice a huge difference, but the price is niiiiiiice.

Also, with the IS, i've read that its not as easy to get good action shots with it. That if you are trying to follow the subject and blur the background it takes a little longer to get the gyro moving for the IS. Anyone have experiance with that?

you don't need the tripod collar with the f/4. and if you get it the black one is much cheaper. it just isn't "L white". and i would go with the canon for sure.

 

[BigMike]

you don't need the tripod collar with the f/4. and if you get it the black one is much cheaper. it just isn't "L white". and i would go with the canon for sure.

they make a black one?

 

[BigMike]

I don't see a black 70-200 f/4

 

[Toshi]

black tripod collar, not lens itself

 

[BigMike]

black tripod collar, not lens itself

ahh..... I misunderstood

 

[BigMike]

Well, tomorrow, the day is upon us. I will order me a brand spankin new Canon 70-200 f/4 from BPAV.com. They are the cheapest I could find with a good rating at resellerratings.com. free shipping is a plus too

 

[Transcend]

How much cheaper are they than BH? It just sin't worth the hassle for under $100 normally. I shop exclusively at BH, and willingly deal with border fees and the like.