My shooting of sports and weddings have reinforced my love for my Canon 70-200 2.8, and my dislike of my Sigma 28-70 2.8 (too slow autofocus). I am at a point where I am having to debate between a 1.4 TC for the longer sports this summer (rugby and some rodeos) and a 35-135 (or simular range) for weddings and other sports (ie continued bball).

I looked at Canon's lens, but am disapointed to find that it is not a 2.8 lens. There are a lot of times where I need as much speed as I can get. Others where the shallow DOF is what I need. Therefore, I cannot seem to think of any reason to NOT get a fast lens. I saw Tamron has one that is a 2.8, but do not know anything about it. My experience with the Sigma len's slow autofocus has me concerned about other 3rd party setups. Or maybe the 70-200 is just faster than most.

Comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

-- David Primm (dprimm@isunet.net), March 25, 1999

Answers

You won't find a sharper lens than the Canon EF28-70/2.8L. Yes, I know its not a xx-135 zoom, but you do have 70-xx already covered. And the EF28-70/2.8L is at least as fast focusing as the EF70-200/2.8L!

-- Dave Herzstein (dherzstein@juno.com), March 25, 1999.

the 70-200 is one of the faster focusing lenses on the planet. it's hard to use that a banchmark because not many lenses live up.

28-70 is about the biggest range you can go with a 2.8 lens and still have good quality. 3 to 1 is the rule of thumb. so if you wanted a 135 2.8 lens the wide wnd would have to be about 50. 28-105 (4 to 1) and 28-135 (5 to 1) are just too much range. that's the same reason why the 70-200 is only 70-200 instead of 70-300 like the smaller aperture lenses are.

if you NEED f2.8 you'll have to get the 28-70.

P.S. canon makes the 28-135 IS lens. the IS will help you with handholding, but not as much with fast moving sports. it may interest you.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), March 25, 1999.

I have to agree with the first answer, get the Canon 28-70mm 2.8L it is tack sharp and the autofocus speed is as quick as the 70-200mm 2.8L. Any third party lens will focus slower than a Canon USM lens, with the possible exception of the new Sigma HSM lenses. You do have coverage at 135 with the 70-200 2.8L and if you attach a 1.4x you will have a zoom range of 98-280mm, still covering 135 and giving range to 280. The 28-135mm IS is also a good choice. Third party lenses may not function with Canon's future bodies, ie: Tokina's 28- 70mm 2.6-2.8 did not function with an ELAN IIE, shutter would lock up. Tokina will fix this problem with a new chip but after warranty it will cost you. Canon lenses will work with future bodies without problem.

-- Dave Mitchell (mitchell@effectnet.com), March 26, 1999.

Thanks for the answers. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. The reason why I wanted the 35 to >70 was so that I did not have to change lenses in the middle of the shoot. Esp when the players are running at me. :)

I really appreciate the answers on Canon's 28-70. I will work towards getting this lens. Perhaps experiment with a 1.4TC on it for just a little longer reach when needed with the wider side.

Thanks again.

-- david (dprimm@isunet.net), March 28, 1999.

the canon 1.4x tc won't work on the 28-70L. (it will on the 70-200L) so you'd have to get a 3rd party tc. (yuch) and adding a tc will also put you slower then f2.8.

the way pro sports photographers handle this is with a 2nd body. (1 lens on each) if you can afford the 28-70L and the 70-200L you should be able to get a 2nd body. having a 2nd body is good in case one has trouble too. it doesn't have to be the same body you use for your "regular" body. a cheaper (lighter) one is usually a good way to go. i use an old elan as a backup for my eos-5. it's really handy for:

1. having two lenses mounted at the same time. 2. having two different films loaded. 3. having a cheap, light body for taking to places where i'm afraid to take my "expensive" camera. 4. as a backup.

think about it...

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), March 28, 1999.