Camera Labs

wc one is better



canon 50d/ 24-105

.
I deleted your duplicate pst in the Lens Gallery section. It not only broke that section's guidelines but we don't allow duplicate posts here at CameraLabs. Forum Rules refer. Good luck with your purchase.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

The sigma.

F2.8 allows you to do things that just wouldnt be possible with only an f4, so it wins hands down no matter how sharp the canon is.

Unless you're a landscape tripod shooter

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Do you really say that that extra stop is more important than a sharper lens?
Im not offensing you, but could you explain why?
Im buying a telelens soon, and I cant decide between the Canon 100-300 USM which fits my budget, the Canon 70-200 f/4 or the Sigma 70-200 f/2,8.

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

do you mean 70-300 or 100-400 by any chance?
I am also looking at those zooms, but most likely will get the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM first.
Wonder how that will go with an extender?

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

Of course.

The f2.8 aperture has, for me, two main advantages.

1.) Depth of field. Sure f4 will give you some subject isolation, but f2.8 just gives you so much more. Sometimes if your shooting a subject and the background is either really close behind, or really distracting, you need to blow it out completely, and setting the aperture at 2.8 lets you do this so much more than an aperture of f4.

2.) Twice as much light. Say you're shooting a dark concert and you know you need a certain shutter speed to freeze the motion of the band, say 1/500 of a second. At f4 you may need an ISO of 3200, which on most cameras is pretty noisy. With an f2.8, you can lower your ISO a whole stop to 1600, which is suddenly very easily usable on all DSLRs. This works too by the same principals for sports where fast shutter speeds are needed.

Thats why Id recommend an f2.8 over an f4 any day. Even if the f4 has some sort of stabilisation, that doesnt help in either of the above situations.

Does that answer your question Ruben?

Cheers,
Jeremy

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

From my experience with concerts, stabilisation might actually help on APS-C on focal lengths around 200mm. You'd need a shutter speed of 1/300th, where 1/100th is generally enough to capture facial expressions of the performers.

But in general use, I completely agree with Jeremy. Even 2.8 is still kind of slow for concerts.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

Yup, my questions are answerd

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies