So I am shooting with a fairly new to me, Canon 50d. ; I currently have my walkaround Tamron 18-270 and a Canon 50f.18. ; What are your guys thoughts on what my 3rd lens should be. ; I am considering: 1. ; Tokina 11-16 f2.8 2. ; Sigma 17-50 f2.8 macro 3. ; Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Thoughts for most useful to expand my lenses? ; I will eventually get something in those 3 spaces, but can't decide which would be most useful to go with for #3
That really depends on your shooting style and what you like to do with your camera. ; Me personally I'd aquire them exactly in the order you have listed starting with the Tokina- but then again 6 of my 8 lenses are 50mm or wider so I may be a little wide-angle biased. ; :
Yeah, I understand. ; I find myself liking the "wide" shots on flickr and here...but I can see a huge usefulness of the 70-200 f2.8 to photo my kids at school events / band. ; Low light and far away is the norm in these situations. ; hmmm....decisions, decisions
I would tend to agree on the order you posted as well - all depends on your photography needs or wants. ; Ultrawides can be a ton of fun, and a totally different shooting style. ; If you think you'll be into wildlife type shooting, maybe a nice long prime or big zoom. ; If you do a lot of walkaround daylight photography, a higher-end mid-zoom or wide-zoom might be the priority. ; If you find most of your focal length use on your ultrazoom lens falls in the wider end of the spectrum, the 17-50 may be the way to go. Of course, that's not even getting into all the desirable primes, like a wider fast standard, a fast portrait, and a nice macro!
I think you may have answered your own question. ; The Tamron goes to the smallest aperture pretty quickly, so at 200mm, you're looking at a 2 - 2.5 stop improvement with a 2.8 zoom. ; Which can make a difference.
I have a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8. ; From my perspective I like using the Tokina much more but I also like taking wider shots. ; The 70-200 is a great lens but have not used it as much. ; I like both lenses but enjoy the wider angles much more. ;
So if I go the 70-200 route (for the Canon shooters) would you guys think I would be better with the Sigma 2.8 or the L F4 Canon?
ok, here's where i do have some knowledge, as i currently own both 70-200 f4 L, great lens, light weight, sharp as a tack, can be used with the canon tc and reatains auto focus, cons, no iso, although supposedly sharper than the iso version, white, draws attention in a crowd, max aperture is f4, so not so low light 70-200 f2.8 L IS mk2, wow is all i can say, this is one sharp lens, and the new IS is really 3 stops handheld difference, this is what i go to for motorsports, and low stage light concert work. let's face it, sometimes only f2.8 will do cons, this beast is heavy, i am not looking forward to working the bluegrass show all day with this one, i may alternate between the 2, go over to f2.8 for after dark there are 2 alternatives i would suggest you consider, especially if you can make these focal lengths work for the kids stuff the 135 f2 and the 200 f2.8, both are outstanding sharp primes, both can be used with the 1.4 tc, and still retain reasonably fast aperture, the 135 makes a great portrait lens if you can back off enough from the subject and the best news is that both can be gotten used in excellent shape, combined for not much more than the cost of a new 70-200 f4 IS, and probably less than a used 70-200 f2.8 IS first generation. yes you could also get a used 70-200 2.8 first gen IS, but you have a as much weight as the newer model. and the mk2 is a real improvement. something to consider if yiou think you might ever go full frame. don't forget, quality glass, taken care of holds it's value, and is good for years of use, you have a good body now, i would respectfully suggest starting to think along the lines of now building up a set of high end glass
