Which 70200 2.8

[mcddeb]

Looking at purchasing a 70-200 2.8 lens. The Sony costs about $1800.00(USDollars) Sigma and Tamron will each release their version soon but at about 700-800 US Dollars. I am fairly new to photography and have only purchased Sony or Minolta lenses. Is there enough difference in quality between the three potential lens choices mentioned here? Since the 3rd party lens have not been released I can only judge by the features and specs sheets. Based on that, the Sony sounds a lot better but at twice the price will it be a big enough difference to make the sacrifice for someone just starting out? I will be using it for portraits, this is the lens recommended by my Canon shooting wedding photo teacher at university and a couple of other photographers. Or is there a better suggestion for portraits that will be taken indoors and out of families, teens, small children. I do have a Minolta 50mm 1.7. I will trying that out with a group of 7 I'm shooting tomorrow, I also have the SAL 18-250 and the SAL 11-18-fantastic wide angle lens by the way.

Thanks for the assist,

Debra

[David Kilpatrick]

I do not suggest this lens for portraits on the APS-C 1.5X cameras. Let me explain why. First of all, 70-200mm is equal to 105-300mm on full frame, and unless all your portraits are big head shots (not conventional 3/4 length) and of just one person, or you work outdoors all the time, the distance you need to get back from the subject will be too much for many room sizes. To make a classically posed 3/4 portrait shot which includes the torso, arms and hands correctly positioned with shoulder to shoulder plus a little space and adequate headroom above the subject, at 70mm you must be 10 feet away.

To benefit from the differential focus of the wide aperture lens, the background must be a further 4 feet behind the subject; to light a background well, using a second wireless flash or a studio head, you may be better with about six feet between subject and background. You yourself need 2 feet behind you for ease of movement. Overall, setting up to shoot a good quality pro single person 'tight' 3/4 portrait will call for around 16-20 feet of clear space. The moment you start thinking of shooting a couple, a family or any group you need a ballroom! And this is assuming you leave this huge, heavy lens set to 70mm.

Secondly, the 70-200mm is a large white lens made for sports photography. Its weight and appearance is daunting to the subject, and impedes the relationship of photographer and sitter. On a tripod it needs a sturdy ball/3-way head, off tripod, it covers your entire face and makes even eye contact tricky. The Tamron and Sigma are black lenses but just as physically imposing and inappropriate for portraits.

The 24-70mm SSM f2.8 CZ is a much better choice for portraits. It equals 42-105mm, about the perfect range for good portraits, couples and small groups indoors or out. It is still pretty large, but not as intrusive. The quality is superior especially in terms of field flatness close up. At the 24mm setting, you can make 'environmental' portraits more easily, setting the subject in context. At 70mm, you can do big heads easily. At intermediate lengths you get ideal working distances and a variety of perspective choices (which influence apparent nose and ear size, etc) for indoor and outdoor portraits alike.

You will find the 50mm requires quite a working distance for a group of 7, and this will tell you why 70-200mm really is not ideal.

David

[mcddeb]

David, thanks so much for the clear explanation. I will price out the lens you suggested. This afternoon, I practiced around my yard with the 50mm and photographed my dogs - 2 White West Highland Terriers - and discovered it probably would not work with a large group, especially when comprised of 7 wiggly children. Again, great advice well explained. Just checked on the the 24-70 2.8 Zeiss, just as expensive, but after reading the description I can understand why. Thanks,

Debra

[mcddeb]

Just wondering, any thoughts on the Sigma 24-70 2.8? Worth a try or should I just bite the bullet and purchase the SAL 24-70 if I'm planning on becoming a portrait photographer? I have always heard a craftsman is only as good as his tools. However, $2000 vs $350 (US Dollars) is a bit hard to take.

Thanks,

Debra

[David Kilpatrick]

The Sigma is very good, and I know one professional who has bought it to use in place of his Canon 24-70mm f2.8. If you can get one for only $350, it sounds like an unmissable bargain. I would certainly go for the Sigma first and only consider the CZ lens if I found that this focal length range was so useful it stayed on the camera all the time.

David

[Magnusvb]

Debra,
I have used the Sigma 24-70 /2.8 EX DG for some years now. On both a Dynax 7D and A700. And I really like it and find it to be very good. It is quit big and heavy and it's biggest flaw is the narrow zoom ring which is placed very closed to the camera body. But you get used to that This is my main lens.

I have compared the Sigma with an old Minolta 28-105 /2.8 (?) and find the Sigma a little sharper at most zoom range.

The Sigma lens that is in the market now is – I think – slightly different from mine which is some years old.

Regards, Magnus

[mcddeb]

Just to be sure I am looking at the right lens here's the description from B & H Photo in NYC:

"The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF lens has now been optimized to capture superior quality images even with digital cameras. DG is a designation Sigma uses on lenses featuring optical systems designed to meet the performance characteristics of digital SLR cameras.

Responding to the demands from professional photographers for a constant aperture zoom lens with a wider view, this lens covers focal lengths from 24mm ultra wide angle to 70mm medium telephoto with a bright viewfinder and easy AF/MF all the way through.

Key Features

• Three aspherical lens elements minimize spherical aberration, astigmatism and sagittal comma flare
• Use of two SLD (Special Low Dispersion) elements results in excellent correction of chromatic aberration (the propensity of different colors of light to focus before and after the film plane)
• DF (dual focus) mechanism is incorporated, making it easy to hold the lens during AF while providing a wide focus ring for easy manual focus
• Non-rotating lens front allows the use of a flower shaped "Perfect Hood" and makes employing polarizing filters a snap"

I would be all into saving $1500.00 if I can. B&H has it for $429.00 I think I have seen it for lower somewhere, still $429 compared to $1749 is a good deal. I think this is the lens Magnus is referring to.

David K. you gave me excellent advice on settings to use for shooting interiors i.e., night portrait mode, ISO 200. Is there a general basic set up for portraits that provide a good base line to work for like the one you gave me for interiors? From the advice here, I will soon be purchasing a 24-70 2.8 lens. I know every scenario is different, but are there any basics to start from? I've posed this same question in the Technique forum as well. I am scheduled to attend a couple of seminars, and I practice a lot on my own and I'm reading every book and article I can get my hands on, but the learning process is slow going and being of the "microwave generation" I want it NOW!!

Thanks,

Debra

[Magnusvb]

Debra,
it must be the second generation of "my" lens. I don't have the macro setting, otherwise it seems to be the same. I also checked a swedish web shop (USD 670 !) and they say that the difference between old and new version is the macro and the new one is slightly smaller and lighter.

Don't forget the UV-filter

Regards, Magnus

[mcddeb]

I hate to show my ignorance, but what difference or effect does having the macro setting have?

Debra

[David Kilpatrick]

The macro setting simply means it focuses a bit closer than the older model, which is useful.

Portraiture - this is a massive subject. I suggest, depending on where you are, that you try to attend the Wedding and Portrait Photographers International Convention 2009 in Las Vegas. Given that a three-day masterclass with just one of the regular speakers, Bambi Cantrell, would cost you $1800 the WPPI event is a real bargain and you learn a huge amount. You can also subscribe, if you want, to our magazine for wedding/portrait/commercial photographers Master Photo Digital, but while the articles are all 100% relevant, all the events and seminars and tuition is of course in the UK! The US equivalent is called The Rangefinder, and is the WPPI house magazine. You really can learn a great deal from these resources.

I decided to assign my son Richard to cover seminars, this year. Up to now he has been selling advertising. Back in the 1970s I had to cover seminars - it turned me, in one year, from a journalist into a photographer able to propel myself very quickly into the top 5% of earners in the UK. Guess what? Richard has found the same effect. He's buzzing. He got himself a Nikon D3 and he's started to go for PR jobs and portraits. I don't need to pay him now to report on seminars. If I can get him in for free, he'll be there!

I can not over-emphasise this. Attending pro seminars, workshops and lectures is by far the fastest way to understand how the business works and pick up the tips you need to become a really good portrait photographer (same goes for wedding work).

David

[mcddeb]

Okay, ordered the Sigma 24-70 2.8 with a UV filter. I had already signed up for a seminar next month as well as one in September. Can't find WPPI 2009 information. I did order DVD's from Bambi Cantrell's website and a couple from Rangefinder. My problem is my impatience, I want to know everything right now, but a year in seminars and practice won't be bad. I love attending seminars and learning new stuff anyways. I have been attending some classes a the local university, but they haven't been extremely helpful. It's one thing to know how to do something and it's another to teach someone how to do something. One of the guest instructor's is in the business locally, so he probably wrestled with teaching and giving away his "edge" on the business. I'm waiting for my husband to get his garage built and then I'm taking over the basement and setting up a studio, hopefully that will be accomplished by late autumn, early winter.