Fast Lens... sigh...

Ugh... Why are fast lenses so expensive... I don't have that kind of money to be spending on a lens... if I want to stay married that is... ;-)

Rent them when you need them - if feasible. I've used cameralensrental.com and have had great service, good rates, and perfect lenses. I try to rent when I know I can get the most out of them...ie football pics Friday, wedding Saturday, portraits Sunday...
--
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and
controversy. MLK

+1 to curradob's suggestion, rent, then you will ' see ' why they're more expensive. When I started my sports' photography business in September 2009, I didn't want to invest, so I'd rent the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM lens locally when I needed it, until I made enough money to go and buy it.

Bernard

--

I measure my success in life not by my awards, but by the amount of smiles, hugs and kisses I get from my family on a daily basis !

What's "expensive" mean? And "fast"

The Canon 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, and 85mm f1.8 are fast, and -- at least compared to some other lenses -- not expensive.

And they will all give you great 12x18 prints using a current or recent Canon D-SLR.

BAK

This was my thinking as well, there are many fast primes that I consider inexpensive lenses, where my definition of expensive is anything over 500$, really.

Canon 50 f1.8, f1.4
Sigma 50 f1.4
Canon 85 f1.8
Sigma 30 f1.4

and a bunch of others are all under or at the 500$ mark.

Canon's 200mm 2.8...One of Canon's lowest priced "L" series lenses and an excellent performer. The 200/2.8L is small, light and works great with the Canon 1.4x and 2x TCs.

At 2.8

Keith Z Leonard said:

This was my thinking as well, there are many fast primes that I consider inexpensive lenses, where my definition of expensive is anything over 500$, really.

Canon 50 f1.8, f1.4
Sigma 50 f1.4
Canon 85 f1.8
Sigma 30 f1.4

and a bunch of others are all under or at the 500$ mark.

Click to expand...

yep

100 f2
28 f1.8
35 f2

I use a very old sigma 24-70 f/2.8. I paid about $350 or so a long time ago. I figured the lens was designed for full frame and because I was using it on my 20D (at that time) any corner softness would be "cropped out" by the APS-C sensor. That proved to be the case, and remains so years later with my 7D. On a crop body I would hold up that cheapo sigma to the 24-70L. It's really that good. So that's what I have done. I picked up an old sigma 70-200 f/2.8 using the same reasoning, and on my crop body the performance is great. Not as sharp as the L wide open, but stop down just a tad and you're in.

Those two old sigma lenses comprise the heart of my wedding kit. I have complete faith in their ability to focus well and render a nice sharp image.

For wildlife I shoot with fast, expensive primes, but for almost everything else I shoot Sigma. Not the new "designed for digital" lenses that only work on crop bodies, but their full frame lenses, some of which are very, very good. Good enough to satisfy the needs of the SD1-M, a camera body that will test a lens to it's limits.

Try KEH or fred miranda and look for used sigma glass if you don't have the $$$ for new.

Good luck
Rich

--
http://www.iceninephotography.com

Rich,

That's great advice!

I too am on a budget and would really love to have a Canon L 70-200 2.8, but without the price tag, even on the used market these lenses often command over $500.

I'll have to check out the Sigma. I'm still trying to figure out how Sigma, Tamron, and the other 3rd-party lens makers sit in the quality vs. price hierarchy.

--

• Dan G.

Panny DMC-ZS7
Oly C-750UZ
Canon 40D / Canon 55-200 IS

how fast do you need.

i agree re the sigma 24 - 70 exc . lens . Also the 15-30 is very sharp on crop camera . not sure if they are still being made . The 8-16 [ crop] sigma = vg . Photozone .de is a good site to check lens performance .
--
jim flavin

I picked up a sigma 120-300 2.8 to shoot my girls soccer games for a grand. Not super cheap, but I consider it a rental as I dont think I will lose much when I resell after soccer life is over.

Thanks all... some great advice... I like the rental idea, intrigued by the

off brand quality comments, think I'll rent those too and see for myself.

Sterling Imagery said:

Sterling Imagery wrote:

Ugh... Why are fast lenses so expensive... I don't have that kind of money to be spending on a lens... if I want to stay married that is... ;-)

Click to expand...

Fast lenses have bigger glass elements, which costs lots more to produce than smaller ones, especially in the area of optical corrections. That is the one sentence answer. Also since they cost more the makers stick even more features on them that also raises the price some since the percentage of increase is lower than to do that with cheaper slower lenses.

Kent Gittings

BAK said:

BAK wrote:

What's "expensive" mean? And "fast"

The Canon 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, and 85mm f1.8 are fast, and -- at least compared to some other lenses -- not expensive.

And they will all give you great 12x18 prints using a current or recent Canon D-SLR.

BAK

Click to expand...

They are not expensive because the glass elements as still small. It costs about 100 times as much to grind and perfect the 6" diameter front element of a 600/4 than it does the 1" one of the Nifty 50. Everything in between is a percentage of that.

Kent Gittings

When going for Sigma EX lenses there are only a few things to watch out for. Stay with "DG" ones if you can because they can be rechipped if they have an issue with your camera body. However not all do. I have a Sigma 100-300/4 EX HSM IF, a non-DG lens, and so far from my 20D up to my 60D it has shown no problems. If you have a choice in 70-200/2.8 lenses look for an EX DG HSM, the one before the Macro version. To put in the macro feature most feel that they compromised the resolution at 200mm and made it slightly inferior to the earlier ones. Among the 28-70, 24-70, and 24-60 I generally rate the 24-60 the best with the 28-70 only a hair behind. the 24-70 is very good for normal work but it falls down a little in closeup use compared to the other 2. In spite of that I have both the 24-60 and the 24-70, but the 24-70 only gets pulled out when I intend to use the 70-200 so I have no gaps. The Sigma HSMs all focus very fast. If you don't need that, another option is the Tokina 28-70 in either the AT-X I or II versions ( but not the SV one). The Tokina 80-200/2.8 AT-X is very good but focus is slow compared to Canon/Sigma. The latest Tamron with VC and such is supposed to be good also but I have no experience with that.

Most of my Canon and Pentax pro lenses are Sigmas with a few factory one thrown in when there is no reliable substitute. I also have a Tokina 300/2.8 AT-X which although it focuses slower and has no IS is a very sharp lens. Plus it only cost me $700 in mist condition. As long as you use it on a monopod at least it is not a real handicap. Having shot for more that 40 years I know how to do things that don't require IS on every lens.

Kent Gittings

Searching said:

Searching wrote:

how fast do you need.

Click to expand...

You mean the 50/1.8 as the 50/1.4 is no bargain.

Kent Gittings

johnboy said:

johnboy wrote:

I picked up a sigma 120-300 2.8 to shoot my girls soccer games for a grand. Not super cheap, but I consider it a rental as I dont think I will lose much when I resell after soccer life is over.

Click to expand...

Wow a real bargain. Let me know if you ever want to sell it. It could replace my Tokina AF 300/2.8.

Kent Gittings

EF 85mm f1.8 is not really expensive at $370us....good fast lens...or EF 100mm f2


Boris