I got a gig doing event photography for RAWartists, the show is in a large brick building with low light, spotlights on art and fashion. The gig includes head shots (which I have lights and a 50mm for,) stills of the art (which don't move so I am ok with a 50mm or my 17-55mm, but then it includes a fashion show, bands and a performance art piece.
I started last night and struggled with lighting for the fashion show and LED light dance piece, less with the band, but still some frustration there.
I need to be able to pull out and zoom in during performances so a prime doesn't work.
Any tips on the best lens?? Also, I can Not to a $2,000 L lens, so if you have info on something on the lower end it would be helpful :D
A wide-aperture zoom is always going to be expensive, so none of the options below are cheap, although they're all significantly less than $2,000.
Three lenses to consider:
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 -- this is the only f/1.8 zoom currently manufactured for DSLRs, and as well as being extremely unusual because of this, it also has great image quality. The main downside is that the 18-35mm range is a bit limiting, but if you need a zoom that can stop movement in low light, and the focal length is acceptable, there's no other lens on the market that can touch this.
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 -- you mention this lens, but a lot of people confuse it with the 18-55mm kit lens, so I wanted to double-check you do have it already. If not, it's a great replacement to the kit lens, again with superb quality and a fixed, wide f/2.8 aperture. It's over a stop slower than the Sigma, but you can reach 55mm instead of 35mm.
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. This is a great lens if you need more reach, and again has a fixed f/2.8 aperture for working in low light. It's not as good as Canon's own 70-200mm, but it comes in at less than half the price, and the quality is still superb.
@abirkill Mine is the Sigma 17-55mm f/2.8 and it just isn't giving me the quality I want. But maybe it is the best I will get with the budget I have. I will look at the difference between the Sigma and Canon. I do need the 55mm, so I can get a body and close up of the model on the runway
@hopess13 Is that the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8? What are the issues you're having with it? If it's not fast enough (can't get the required shutter speed without boosting the ISO too much), then the Canon will be exactly the same. If it's not sharp enough (and you're sure it's not due to motion blur) then I suspect the Canon will have an edge.
@abirkill Oops, yes 17-50mm, part of it is ISO, but I can deal with that, but it is not tack sharp like I crave. I am a 50mm prime portrait shooter and I crave tack sharp images.
I will look into a Canon, I have heard differing opinions on Sigma, but so far this lens (my only experience) has left me wanting.
@hopess13 As with any lens manufacturer, some lenses are stunners, some are poor.
Sigma probably has a wider range in this than other manufacturers -- they produce some absolutely incredible lenses (especially some of the new range, including the 18-35mm f/1.8 and their new 35 and 50mm primes), and they also produce some disappointing lenses (such as the 28-70mm f/2.8).
The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 is a good performer, but probably not as strong as the Canon lens, which is pretty much the best zoom in that range you can put on a crop-frame Canon DSLR.
@abirkill Hi Alexis. Note your comment about the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 vis-à-vis the Canon equivalent. I did rent it out for a weekend on my Nikon some time ago and was disappointed with it. I settled on the newer 70-200 f/4 Nikkor for half the weight and half the price (of the equivalent Nikkor) and have not been disappointed.
@frankhymus It certainly isn't an amazing lens (at least when compared to Canon and Nikon's own offerings), but I find it very respectable if you need 200mm @ f/2.8 on a budget, such as for extreme low-light work.
If you don't need f/2.8, there are certainly cheaper, lighter and sharper lenses available. Canon also have a very nice, and reasonably-priced, 70-200mm f/4 lens in both stabilised and non-stabilised versions, which will produce better results in reasonable light, but to capture action in very poor light, I'd probably choose the wider aperture.
I'm not sure if it was a lack of sharpness or other issues you had (focusing speed, OS?) Sharpness-wise, test charts are only a tiny part of the story, of course, but here's the Sigma at 200mm f/2.8 up against the Nikkor (I believe the latest version?) at 200mm f/4 (mouse-over to switch to the Nikon). The Nikon is unquestionably sharper, especially in the corners, but the Sigma puts in a decent showing (and improves when stopped down to f/4 to match the Nikon, of course)
@abirkill I looked up the Sigma you recommend and it sounds fabulous -- except it seems to be only for cropped sensor cameras. What would you recommend for full frame? I currently use the 50mm 1.4 and the 24 - 70, 4.0
@jyokota If you're referring to the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (and not the 18-35mm I also mentioned earlier), it is a full-frame lens, so will work well on your 6D. You will be using all of the image circle of the lens, so the slightly soft corners of the Sigma will show up (as can be seen in the test chart I linked to), but it's still an excellent choice if you need f/2.8 on a budget.
The ultimate lens in this focal range is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. This is quite probably the sharpest zoom lens it's possible to own for a Canon DSLR -- it is outstandingly sharp at all focal lengths and all apertures, even in the far corners on a full-frame camera. It really is pretty much like having a bag of prime lenses, so if you can justify the cost, this is the lens to own. It would be a stunning pairing with your 24-70mm f/2.8.
If you don't need the fast f/2.8 aperture in this focal length, you might also consider these two, for less money than the Canon f/2.8, and in the same general ballpark as the Sigma:
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS: This is the baby brother to Canon's f/2.8 version, and comes with a more affordable price tag (and is a good deal lighter, too!). It's still an absolutely superb lens, and is very sharp even wide open (although probably not quite as good as the stunning f/2.8 version!).
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS: Despite being a variable-aperture zoom, which are generally known to be of lesser quality, this lens is a definite exception to the rule, as the L designation suggests. Yes, it starts at f/4 and gets slower as the focal length increases, but it's sharp wide open at all focal lengths. The obvious benefit of this lens is the extra 100mm of reach over the 70-200mm options, which is very useful on a full-frame camera. It's also more compact than the other lenses when retracted, which can make it easier to pack in a bag. If you're shooting fast-moving subjects then the aperture of this lens probably won't be good enough, but for stationary or slow-moving subjects (or indeed, action shots in good light), this gets you a great quality lens, a decent amount of reach, and it doesn't totally break the bank.
@abirkill The Sigma 70-200 was on my smaller D5100 so I didn't see any edge softening of course, but I was still disturbed by its significant, and unpredictable at different focal lengths, distortion characteristics and not only along the edges of the APS-C frame. The Nikkor f/4 too has significant "native" distortion (Ken Rockwell says so, so it must be true ;) ) but the in-camera distortion correction of the D7100 handles native lenses well and I seldom have to adjust further in post. In fact, I never really see it al all.
Also at 4 plus pounds, the Nikkor equivalent too of course, was a lot to swing around. It was the first really heavy lens that I had handled in my short photography career. But it was, too, the first constant length zoom I had ever used, and I really liked that.
If your Sigma is less than 5 years, it is under warranty. Send it in for a 'tune up'. It will take a full 6 weeks, but it may improve it. I recently did this with my super zoom and it has made a definite difference.
@abirkill -- thank you for the brilliant analysis! I own the 70-200 4.0 but will definitely consider the 70-300 you suggest as well.
Meanwhile, my question was actually about the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 because I have the 50mm 1.4 but I find it both brilliant when perfect range, but limiting at other times. I'm finding the draw to the 1.8 of the lens. But it seems to be a cropped sensor only? So would work on the small Rebel 1 but not the 6D?
@jyokota Yes, sadly the amazing Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is designed for crop-frame cameras only :(
Because it's a Sigma lens, it will physically fit and work on a full-frame camera (unlike Canon EF-S lenses, which don't physically fit on full-frame cameras), but it will suffer from extreme vignetting and corner softness, to a degree that it's almost certainly not worth trying. There's some examples of how it behaves on full-frame cameras here:
It seems unlikely that Sigma will be able to produce a f/1.8 zoom for full-frame cameras that's affordable, but then nobody expected them to produce one for crop-frame cameras, so we can keep hoping!
It should be noted that, while it is an amazing lens, it does 'only' bring crop-frame performance to a similar level as full-frame performance. Because a full-frame camera naturally has a narrower depth of field (for a given subject size and distance), a crop-frame lens needs to have a wider aperture to give the same results. So, depth of field wise, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 behaves equivalently to how a 29-56mm f/2.9 lens would behave on a full-frame camera, a range you already have covered by your 24-70mm f/2.8.
Similarly, while the f/1.8 aperture will allow the use of lower ISO settings for the same equivalent shutter speed, full-frame cameras typically have at least one stop better ISO performance than crop-frame cameras (so shooting at ISO 800 on a full-frame will typically produce similar/slightly better results than shooting at ISO 400 on a crop-frame camera), so again, f/2.8 on a full-frame camera will bring very similar low light image performance when the final image quality is considered.
If you did want better low-light performance at focal lengths other than 50mm, you could pair your 50mm f/1.4 with a 35mm f/1.4 (again, the latest Sigma model is a stunner) or 24mm f/1.4, but of course, that results in more lenses to carry around and more swapping :)
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
A wide-aperture zoom is always going to be expensive, so none of the options below are cheap, although they're all significantly less than $2,000.
Three lenses to consider:
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 -- this is the only f/1.8 zoom currently manufactured for DSLRs, and as well as being extremely unusual because of this, it also has great image quality. The main downside is that the 18-35mm range is a bit limiting, but if you need a zoom that can stop movement in low light, and the focal length is acceptable, there's no other lens on the market that can touch this.
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 -- you mention this lens, but a lot of people confuse it with the 18-55mm kit lens, so I wanted to double-check you do have it already. If not, it's a great replacement to the kit lens, again with superb quality and a fixed, wide f/2.8 aperture. It's over a stop slower than the Sigma, but you can reach 55mm instead of 35mm.
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. This is a great lens if you need more reach, and again has a fixed f/2.8 aperture for working in low light. It's not as good as Canon's own 70-200mm, but it comes in at less than half the price, and the quality is still superb.
I will look into a Canon, I have heard differing opinions on Sigma, but so far this lens (my only experience) has left me wanting.
This site has helped me in so many ways, unfortunately talking like I know anything is not one of them!!
Sigma probably has a wider range in this than other manufacturers -- they produce some absolutely incredible lenses (especially some of the new range, including the 18-35mm f/1.8 and their new 35 and 50mm primes), and they also produce some disappointing lenses (such as the 28-70mm f/2.8).
The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 is a good performer, but probably not as strong as the Canon lens, which is pretty much the best zoom in that range you can put on a crop-frame Canon DSLR.
There's a good review of the Canon here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
You could always consider renting, if you want to be sure that you'll see an improvement?
If you don't need f/2.8, there are certainly cheaper, lighter and sharper lenses available. Canon also have a very nice, and reasonably-priced, 70-200mm f/4 lens in both stabilised and non-stabilised versions, which will produce better results in reasonable light, but to capture action in very poor light, I'd probably choose the wider aperture.
I'm not sure if it was a lack of sharpness or other issues you had (focusing speed, OS?) Sharpness-wise, test charts are only a tiny part of the story, of course, but here's the Sigma at 200mm f/2.8 up against the Nikkor (I believe the latest version?) at 200mm f/4 (mouse-over to switch to the Nikon). The Nikon is unquestionably sharper, especially in the corners, but the Sigma puts in a decent showing (and improves when stopped down to f/4 to match the Nikon, of course)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=806&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=822&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
The ultimate lens in this focal range is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. This is quite probably the sharpest zoom lens it's possible to own for a Canon DSLR -- it is outstandingly sharp at all focal lengths and all apertures, even in the far corners on a full-frame camera. It really is pretty much like having a bag of prime lenses, so if you can justify the cost, this is the lens to own. It would be a stunning pairing with your 24-70mm f/2.8.
If you don't need the fast f/2.8 aperture in this focal length, you might also consider these two, for less money than the Canon f/2.8, and in the same general ballpark as the Sigma:
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS: This is the baby brother to Canon's f/2.8 version, and comes with a more affordable price tag (and is a good deal lighter, too!). It's still an absolutely superb lens, and is very sharp even wide open (although probably not quite as good as the stunning f/2.8 version!).
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS: Despite being a variable-aperture zoom, which are generally known to be of lesser quality, this lens is a definite exception to the rule, as the L designation suggests. Yes, it starts at f/4 and gets slower as the focal length increases, but it's sharp wide open at all focal lengths. The obvious benefit of this lens is the extra 100mm of reach over the 70-200mm options, which is very useful on a full-frame camera. It's also more compact than the other lenses when retracted, which can make it easier to pack in a bag. If you're shooting fast-moving subjects then the aperture of this lens probably won't be good enough, but for stationary or slow-moving subjects (or indeed, action shots in good light), this gets you a great quality lens, a decent amount of reach, and it doesn't totally break the bank.
Here are reviews of these three options:
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS
Hope that gives you some ideas, let me know if you have any questions!
Also at 4 plus pounds, the Nikkor equivalent too of course, was a lot to swing around. It was the first really heavy lens that I had handled in my short photography career. But it was, too, the first constant length zoom I had ever used, and I really liked that.
Meanwhile, my question was actually about the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 because I have the 50mm 1.4 but I find it both brilliant when perfect range, but limiting at other times. I'm finding the draw to the 1.8 of the lens. But it seems to be a cropped sensor only? So would work on the small Rebel 1 but not the 6D?
Because it's a Sigma lens, it will physically fit and work on a full-frame camera (unlike Canon EF-S lenses, which don't physically fit on full-frame cameras), but it will suffer from extreme vignetting and corner softness, to a degree that it's almost certainly not worth trying. There's some examples of how it behaves on full-frame cameras here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Sigma-18-35mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx#FullFrame
It seems unlikely that Sigma will be able to produce a f/1.8 zoom for full-frame cameras that's affordable, but then nobody expected them to produce one for crop-frame cameras, so we can keep hoping!
It should be noted that, while it is an amazing lens, it does 'only' bring crop-frame performance to a similar level as full-frame performance. Because a full-frame camera naturally has a narrower depth of field (for a given subject size and distance), a crop-frame lens needs to have a wider aperture to give the same results. So, depth of field wise, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 behaves equivalently to how a 29-56mm f/2.9 lens would behave on a full-frame camera, a range you already have covered by your 24-70mm f/2.8.
Similarly, while the f/1.8 aperture will allow the use of lower ISO settings for the same equivalent shutter speed, full-frame cameras typically have at least one stop better ISO performance than crop-frame cameras (so shooting at ISO 800 on a full-frame will typically produce similar/slightly better results than shooting at ISO 400 on a crop-frame camera), so again, f/2.8 on a full-frame camera will bring very similar low light image performance when the final image quality is considered.
If you did want better low-light performance at focal lengths other than 50mm, you could pair your 50mm f/1.4 with a 35mm f/1.4 (again, the latest Sigma model is a stunner) or 24mm f/1.4, but of course, that results in more lenses to carry around and more swapping :)