Reading mode: Light Dark

Big Gap in "personal event" lenses? 35-135 f/2.8?

Go to last post
M

M Irwin

Veteran Member
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
11
Location
US
There's all this talk about the ideal carry-around lens. I'm talking about cheaper to moderate price range. I know no such thing exists, but I feel very torn in having to choose from a fast f/2.8 lense around 24-70 or a mid-range but slowish f/3.5-5 type one in the 28-135 range or a really sluggish 70-300mm on the long end.

How come there isn't a mid-range constant aperature lense? Say maybe a 35-135mm f/2.8? Would the design of this be too difficult? I bet it would sell like crazy. I picutre that most personal event photography - kids sports, weddings, family get-togethers, vacation outings, etc - take place in this mid-range. One can work around not having wide and one may not always need the super long end, especially when the long ends of many cheap lenses are either too soft, too light-demanding, or tripod-dependent to conveniently use anyway.

Any opinions? Canon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron...PLEASE HELP AND TAKE OUR MONEY!!!
 
I know nothing about it but this is close (and expensive):

http://www.tamron.com/35mm/35mm_af/a28105_28.htm

Lee Jay
M Irwin said:
There's all this talk about the ideal carry-around lens. I'm
talking about cheaper to moderate price range. I know no such thing
exists, but I feel very torn in having to choose from a fast f/2.8
lense around 24-70 or a mid-range but slowish f/3.5-5 type one in
the 28-135 range or a really sluggish 70-300mm on the long end.

How come there isn't a mid-range constant aperature lense? Say
maybe a 35-135mm f/2.8? Would the design of this be too difficult?
I bet it would sell like crazy. I picutre that most personal event
photography - kids sports, weddings, family get-togethers, vacation
outings, etc - take place in this mid-range. One can work around
not having wide and one may not always need the super long end,
especially when the long ends of many cheap lenses are either too
soft, too light-demanding, or tripod-dependent to conveniently use
anyway.

Any opinions? Canon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron...PLEASE HELP AND TAKE
OUR MONEY!!!
Click to expand...
 
I haven't jumped to a DSLR from my 35mm yet. Here's why. My "walking around" lens is the 24-85. I usually find that even 24 is not quite wide enough. Close, but I'd really like to see something like a 20-80 or 20-80 IS. I'm not as picky about speed although faster is certainly better. I could live with 3.5-5.6.

So that would be:

20 - 80 for full frame (1Ds)
15 - 60 for 1.3x (1D)
12.5 - 50 for 1.6x (300D and 10D)

Until something is available to give me this range in one lens, I probably won't buy a DSLR. I've thought about the 17-40L or the new Sigma 17-35 but I really would hate to have to change lenses to cover this range.

Am I being unreasonable here? It doesn't seem like it to me. The 18-55 (300D kit lens - 29 - 88 equivalent FF) is cheap, decent and in the neighborhood of what I want. If Canon can make a decent 18-55 for $100 (1.6x image circle), they should be able to make one of the lenses I want for $500. IS version for $200 more. Don't you think?

Lee Jay
M Irwin said:
There's all this talk about the ideal carry-around lens. I'm
talking about cheaper to moderate price range. I know no such thing
exists, but I feel very torn in having to choose from a fast f/2.8
lense around 24-70 or a mid-range but slowish f/3.5-5 type one in
the 28-135 range or a really sluggish 70-300mm on the long end.
Click to expand...
 
...and quite expensive. Am I really asking for a 4-second 0-60, 180mph Ferrari? Would the world flock to the same spec Corvette (sans mystique?). It seems odd that there's so few choices here. Thanks for the responses.
 
In lenses, speed is what costs money (quality too of course). One additional stop means twice as much lens area which means 1.414 times as much lens diameter. Lens costs increase much faster than linearly with diameter so an extra stop (like from 4.0 to 2.8) costs big bucks.

Good analogy. If you want the 4 second Ferrari (f 2.8), you'll have to pay. If you can settle for an 8 second Toyota (f 4.0), you'll pay a lot less.

Lee Jay
M Irwin said:
...and quite expensive. Am I really asking for a 4-second 0-60,
180mph Ferrari? Would the world flock to the same spec Corvette
(sans mystique?). It seems odd that there's so few choices here.
Thanks for the responses.
Click to expand...
 
ljfinger said:
http://www.tamron.com/35mm/35mm_af/a28105_28.htm

Lee Jay
M Irwin said:
There's all this talk about the ideal carry-around lens. I'm
talking about cheaper to moderate price range. I know no such thing
exists, but I feel very torn in having to choose from a fast f/2.8
lense around 24-70 or a mid-range but slowish f/3.5-5 type one in
the 28-135 range or a really sluggish 70-300mm on the long end.

How come there isn't a mid-range constant aperature lense? Say
maybe a 35-135mm f/2.8? Would the design of this be too difficult?
I bet it would sell like crazy. I picutre that most personal event
photography - kids sports, weddings, family get-togethers, vacation
outings, etc - take place in this mid-range. One can work around
not having wide and one may not always need the super long end,
especially when the long ends of many cheap lenses are either too
soft, too light-demanding, or tripod-dependent to conveniently use
anyway.

Any opinions? Canon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron...PLEASE HELP AND TAKE
OUR MONEY!!!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 is apparently a very ordinary lens. Do not buy.

Many people on this forum would love to see something like a a 24(28)-120(135) f/2.8(4)L IS. An L equivalent of the 28-135 f/24.5-5.6 IS. I would love to see a 35-70 f/2L IS myself but I can't see that coming off.

Well for value I would get a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di as a fast zoom, and pair it with the 70-200 f/4L. Fairly light combo and all up about $900.
 
ljfinger said:
Good analogy. If you want the 4 second Ferrari (f 2.8), you'll
have to pay. If you can settle for an 8 second Toyota (f 4.0),
you'll pay a lot less.

Lee Jay
M Irwin said:
...and quite expensive. Am I really asking for a 4-second 0-60,
180mph Ferrari? Would the world flock to the same spec Corvette
(sans mystique?). It seems odd that there's so few choices here.
Thanks for the responses.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hmm 28 f/1.8 $379, 35 f/2 $220 50 f/1.8 $65, 85 f/1.8 $320 all very fast and all quite reasonable. But zooms are a different matter, there are no fast non L zooms. How about a 28-105 f/4 IS non L zoom then
 
I think an f/4 zoom series would be an excellent move for Canon (or anyone interested in selling lenses, really). With a full frame, something like 24-105/4 and 100-300/4 would pretty much do me. I don't care much for the wider-than-24mm field of view, but that's just my taste. That f/4 would be a great compromise of weight versus speed. But I am paranoid of variable aperture zooms, so I'd insist on the constant f/4.

--
JCDoss
 
Yes! That's exactly the kind of thing that would ROCK! I'd also say why not 24mm rather than 28 and why not f/3.5 IS. You're also right that a 28-120 L f/2.8 would be crazy good, even 35-120. Ah well, I just decided to get the Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 for now - pretty high ratings for the price. This is driving me nuts!!!

http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html

Mr Majestyk wrote:
How about a 28-105 f/4 IS non L zoom
Mr Majestyk said:
then
Click to expand...
 
Primaries are great aren't they. If you want the great performance, high speed and low cost of a primary but the flexibility of a zoom, you need something like this:



Okay, so that might be a bit cumbersome.

Lee Jay
Mr Majestyk said:
Hmm 28 f/1.8 $379, 35 f/2 $220 50 f/1.8 $65, 85 f/1.8 $320 all very
fast and all quite reasonable. But zooms are a different matter,
there are no fast non L zooms. How about a 28-105 f/4 IS non L zoom
then
Click to expand...
 
M Irwin said:
There's all this talk about the ideal carry-around lens. I'm
talking about cheaper to moderate price range. I know no such thing
exists, but I feel very torn in having to choose from a fast f/2.8
lense around 24-70 or a mid-range but slowish f/3.5-5 type one in
the 28-135 range or a really sluggish 70-300mm on the long end.
Click to expand...
The IS in the 28-135 IS USM makes up for some of the slowness of the lens.

At full zoom I can handhold 1/10s all the time, and quite a few at 1/6s, and 10-15% at 1/4s.

Of course, the the target is moving this is of no use.
 
ljfinger said:
I haven't jumped to a DSLR from my 35mm yet. Here's why. My
"walking around" lens is the 24-85. I usually find that even 24 is
not quite wide enough. Close, but I'd really like to see something
like a 20-80 or 20-80 IS. I'm not as picky about speed although
faster is certainly better. I could live with 3.5-5.6.

So that would be:

20 - 80 for full frame (1Ds)
15 - 60 for 1.3x (1D)
12.5 - 50 for 1.6x (300D and 10D)

Until something is available to give me this range in one lens, I
probably won't buy a DSLR. I've thought about the 17-40L or the
new Sigma 17-35 but I really would hate to have to change lenses to
cover this range.

Am I being unreasonable here? It doesn't seem like it to me. The
18-55 (300D kit lens - 29 - 88 equivalent FF) is cheap, decent and
in the neighborhood of what I want. If Canon can make a decent
18-55 for $100 (1.6x image circle), they should be able to make one
of the lenses I want for $500. IS version for $200 more. Don't
you think?
Click to expand...
I think I see myself getting closer to the reality of going for a 12-24 Sigma for the wide end. I would leave a tiny gap between my 28-135 IS, but I can live with that. Only thing I don't like are the aberation problems with such a "popeyed lens", if you know what I mean. I'd probably end up constructing some humongous lens hood that would take up the whole trunk of the car.
Dennis
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay
M Irwin said:
There's all this talk about the ideal carry-around lens. I'm
talking about cheaper to moderate price range. I know no such thing
exists, but I feel very torn in having to choose from a fast f/2.8
lense around 24-70 or a mid-range but slowish f/3.5-5 type one in
the 28-135 range or a really sluggish 70-300mm on the long end.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
What you propose is great but would be expensive (and probably heavy). Canon’s 28-135mm with image stabilization makes up for not having the 2.8 glass by allowing you to use a slower shutter speed. Of course that doesn’t help if your subject is moving in low light and it won't create as shallow a DOF as a 2.8 lens but I'm usually looking for more DOF, not less, so that's Ok with me. Until your lens is made I find this to be a pretty good substitute.
M Irwin said:
There's all this talk about the ideal carry-around lens. I'm
talking about cheaper to moderate price range. I know no such thing
exists, but I feel very torn in having to choose from a fast f/2.8
lense around 24-70 or a mid-range but slowish f/3.5-5 type one in
the 28-135 range or a really sluggish 70-300mm on the long end.

How come there isn't a mid-range constant aperature lense? Say
maybe a 35-135mm f/2.8? Would the design of this be too difficult?
I bet it would sell like crazy. I picutre that most personal event
photography - kids sports, weddings, family get-togethers, vacation
outings, etc - take place in this mid-range. One can work around
not having wide and one may not always need the super long end,
especially when the long ends of many cheap lenses are either too
soft, too light-demanding, or tripod-dependent to conveniently use
anyway.

Any opinions? Canon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron...PLEASE HELP AND TAKE
OUR MONEY!!!
Click to expand...
 
M Irwin said:
There's all this talk about the ideal carry-around lens. I'm
talking about cheaper to moderate price range. I know no such thing
exists, but I feel very torn in having to choose from a fast f/2.8
lense around 24-70 or a mid-range but slowish f/3.5-5 type one in
the 28-135 range or a really sluggish 70-300mm on the long end.

How come there isn't a mid-range constant aperature lense? Say
maybe a 35-135mm f/2.8? Would the design of this be too difficult?
I bet it would sell like crazy. I picutre that most personal event
photography - kids sports, weddings, family get-togethers, vacation
outings, etc - take place in this mid-range. One can work around
not having wide and one may not always need the super long end,
especially when the long ends of many cheap lenses are either too
soft, too light-demanding, or tripod-dependent to conveniently use
anyway.

Any opinions? Canon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron...PLEASE HELP AND TAKE
OUR MONEY!!!
Click to expand...
For general 'event' photography a wide aperture mid-range zoom is often all you need. Have you considered a SH 28-70mm f/2.8 L ?
--
Simon - http://www.pbase.com/phoenikz/
 
I agree...I'd love a 24-70 F4L or maybe even longer like 28-105 F4L.
JCDoss said:
I think an f/4 zoom series would be an excellent move for Canon (or
anyone interested in selling lenses, really). With a full frame,
something like 24-105/4 and 100-300/4 would pretty much do me. I
don't care much for the wider-than-24mm field of view, but that's
just my taste. That f/4 would be a great compromise of weight
versus speed. But I am paranoid of variable aperture zooms, so I'd
insist on the constant f/4.

--
JCDoss
Click to expand...
 
M Irwin said:
How come there isn't a mid-range constant aperature lense? Say
maybe a 35-135mm f/2.8?
Click to expand...
What you're asking is approx 50-210mm zoom on a normal camera. That is almost 70-200mm almost every manufacturer makes. Why no 35-135mm for normal cameras? Because almost nobody needs it. Historically general walkaround focal length was always 28-70mm. Plus-minus few mm.
M Irwin said:
Would the design of this be too difficult?
I bet it would sell like crazy.
Click to expand...
No they won't. In fact, situation is worse on the wide end: the current crowd of 28-70mm zooms doesn't work well on the cropped cameras. What we need is an affordable 17-45mm f2.8 to get that historically most popular (and best selling) 28-70mm focal range.
 
Perfect! I'm going to B&H ;-)
ljfinger said:
Primaries are great aren't they. If you want the great
performance, high speed and low cost of a primary but the
flexibility of a zoom, you need something like this:



Okay, so that might be a bit cumbersome.

Lee Jay
Click to expand...
 
I don't know. I find I get great effect when I can really capture peoples' expressions during events as well as some wider (but not necessarily wide angle) shots. Plus, you don't want to be running around getting the perfect angle or distance so one often shoots from where they're standing. For that, I think people need more than the traditional 70-80mm. But with the crop, I guess you're right, a 28-70 would be pretty good. A 28-100 would be awesome! 135 I guess would get crazy expensive.
castlenut said:
M Irwin said:
How come there isn't a mid-range constant aperature lense? Say
maybe a 35-135mm f/2.8?
Click to expand...
What you're asking is approx 50-210mm zoom on a normal camera. That
is almost 70-200mm almost every manufacturer makes. Why no 35-135mm
for normal cameras? Because almost nobody needs it. Historically
general walkaround focal length was always 28-70mm. Plus-minus few
mm.
castlenut said:
Would the design of this be too difficult?
I bet it would sell like crazy.
Click to expand...
No they won't. In fact, situation is worse on the wide end: the
current crowd of 28-70mm zooms doesn't work well on the cropped
cameras. What we need is an affordable 17-45mm f2.8 to get that
historically most popular (and best selling) 28-70mm focal range.
Click to expand...
 
castlenut said:
M Irwin said:
How come there isn't a mid-range constant aperature lense? Say
maybe a 35-135mm f/2.8?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
...
castlenut said:
No they won't. In fact, situation is worse on the wide end: the
current crowd of 28-70mm zooms doesn't work well on the cropped
cameras. What we need is an affordable 17-45mm f2.8 to get that
historically most popular (and best selling) 28-70mm focal range.
Click to expand...
I don't understand Castlenut's reply. For your (film) 28-70mm range to work on digital (cropped) cameras, you need MORE focal length, not less. So Irwin's question is right on the money, and I second it, I am shopping for lenses for my DSLR for general events and portraits. Most lenses I see sit on either side of this valuable middle ground.

But I've seen for sale here and there:
Canon USM 35-135, 28-105, and 24-84 lenses.
I am most interested in the first range.
ANybody have experience with these lenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top