Upgrade path, which would you do?

Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,509
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
I have 2 lenses for sale on the forum and I plan to upgrade. But I'm having a hard time choosing between two options.

First
70-200 AF-S vr
1.4 or 1.7 tc

Pros:
  • better glass then the others
  • longer than the 50-150
  • hand holding at lower shutter speeds

Second
50-150 Sigma
70-300 AF-S vr
30 1.4 Sigma

Pros:
  • 50 versus 70 on the low end
  • 50-150 is smaller and lighter than the 70-200
  • 70-300 is smaller and ligher then 70-200 with TC and probably good enough for what I would be using it for
  • 30 1.4 would go nicely with my 85 1.4

And although it would be nice, can't combine some from column a and b, can't afford to.

I shoot events (weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc) and protraits for work. But I enjoy nature, birds, buildings, etc as well I just don't get paid for it at the moment.

Here is a client area gallery I created and got releases for, Bar and Bat Mitzvahs (Bar = boys and Bat = girls for those that might not know) and house parties.
http://www.blueberryphoto.com/gallery/2967783

Password is: demo
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
79
David,

Why not the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with a Sigma 1.4 TC. This could be had used for about $600-700. Then get the Sigma 30 f1.4 for about $400 and you're all set.
 

Commodorefirst

Admin/Moderator
Administrator
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
20,598
Location
Missouri
Option 1




( I did the same wording as above on purpose, upgrade the glass to the best if you can afford it, and get a 35 f2 to suplement until next big purchase)

Wade
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,509
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
Go with option 1 and then you won't think about the 70-200 that you almost bought.
Actually I had one and sold it a while ago, so there wouldn't be any of that. I liked the lens, but for what I was doing at the time I found I wasn't using it. Yes I know it's a great lens but I either needed below 70mm or I used my 85. The only real advantages I found over the 80-200 is a little faster/quieter focus and VR for hand holding at slower shutter speeds.

I must say I'm surprised at the 100% option one. I had actually been leaning to option two. :redface: (and hoping others might think it made sense as well since it's $300-$500 cheaper. :frown:
 

Commodorefirst

Admin/Moderator
Administrator
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
20,598
Location
Missouri
I must say I'm surprised at the 100% option one. I had actually been leaning to option two. :redface: (and hoping others might think it made sense as well since it's $300-$500 cheaper. :frown:
You didn't mention price as a large concern, just a point in your original post, and you also mentioined nature and birds, which involves lower light focus sometimes and blurred backgrounds which comes with the 2.8 aperture, that is probably why all of us suggested the 70-200VR and 1.4. with that combo you get a faster long tele at 280mm vs 300mm, and better focusing in poor light.

If money is a strong option than sure option II is a great bet and would give lots of bang for the buck.

Cheers and good luck

Wade
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,509
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
You didn't mention price as a large concern, just a point in your original post, and you also mentioined nature and birds, which involves lower light focus sometimes and blurred backgrounds which comes with the 2.8 aperture, that is probably why all of us suggested the 70-200VR and 1.4. with that combo you get a faster long tele at 280mm vs 300mm, and better focusing in poor light.

If money is a strong option than sure option II is a great bet and would give lots of bang for the buck.

Cheers and good luck

Wade
Money is always a concern, but not the highest.
But I almost didn't put nature and birds in my post as for most of those interests are mainly as a tourist on vacation and not as a serious pursuit. Builds and location type shots are more my interest on vacation, so my 17-55 has that covered anyway.
 

Commodorefirst

Admin/Moderator
Administrator
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
20,598
Location
Missouri
Money is always a concern, but not the highest.
But I almost didn't put nature and birds in my post as for most of those interests are mainly as a tourist on vacation and not as a serious pursuit. Builds and location type shots are more my interest on vacation, so my 17-55 has that covered anyway.
In that case option 2 is a great kit for you and the 30 1.4 will come in very very handy for your type of shooting.

Cheers,

Wade
 
Top Bottom