Thanks Xavier, not a bad idea. I want to keep my bag simple, and the 50mm doesn't take up much space at all..

Having just gotten a 1dm2 myself, I understand your problem. I plan to add the tamron 28-75 (which I used to have on my 20d before the 17-50 came out), which isn't that bad on a 1.25 crop. I am keeping my 20d and 17-50, so for me it is not an issue. In your case, a 24-70 really is a good choice. 24 x 1.25 = 30, which isn't that far off from the traditional 28-xx..

If you havent bought the 300 try the 120-300 f2.8 it would eliminate the need for the 70-200 for sports. Then fill the range.. Buy a 16-35 f2.8 mkI. and a 24-70.105

17-40L and a fast prime, 50/1.4, 35/1.4L, 85 (either one), all good choices.

Oh man, I thought I was past the 120-300 and there you go bringing it up. I had decided against it for a few reasons:

1. Not quite as sharp at 300 as the 300

2. Might be a dust pump, and I will be shooting some motocross.

3. The 300 end isn't really 300.

Even still, this lens is super tempting. Do you happen to own one? I would love to see a raw @ 300/2.8

I would change the 300 to the 120-300 had that one and it was amazing and the test showed it actually was sharper than their own prime 300. I had an old test when the 120-300 first came out and he did state that it was sharper than the prime and second to the canon 300. I looked for the artical but it is now not on the website any more. It is just shy of 300 if you do the math but looks great with a 1.4x if you really want to push it. It will not be a dust pump like the canon 100-400 it is a zoom ring.

I also would put a second vote for the 28-75 tam 2.8 that was an amazing lens for the little dollars and very light. I did sell it to get my 24-70 2.8 but for the money still... man I just bought into the canon montra.

I just picked up a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 on fleabay about an hour ago, but I probably would have bought it regardless of the Sigma deal.

Did you shoot sports with yours? If so, any comments on the AF? Basically, I wish I could afford the Canon 300mm f/2.8, but can't quite stretch that extra thousand bucks over the Sigma. The zoom would come in soooo handy with the 120-300. If it's as sharp as the prime, that would make things so much easier, as it's cheaper and easier to find!

I am starting to come around with the Tamron. Any comments on the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8? It doesn't get the best reviews...

From what I remember back when bought my Tam 28-70 the review between it the similar sig and canon, well the canon won. But if price was thrown in the Tam was clear winner. That is why I went with it, but when I had the money and could support my addiction, I mean hobby with what I sold I bought the canon.

I used is exclusively for sports, one lens on one body was nice. Then I tried crack I mean the 400 2.8 and was hooked and could not justify both. Now looking back it would sure fill a nice gap in some cases but the 70-200 and the 400 is what I use. I never had a focus issue with the zoom but some say you had to learn how to zoom and focus

Holly crap I found the link. Here you go. 120-300mm

Awesome, thanks!

Edit: Wow, a great read. Thanks again for that. It's making me think twice for sure.

I'd start with the 100-400 as you are going to need the reach. Despite being a slow lense, it's the cheapest way of getting the length. The 300 is probably not going to be long enough.

Dec 16, 2007 at 06:36 AM:

corndog wrote:
= I can't find a good walk around lens! The 1.3 crop sucks!

Dec 16, 2007 at 10:26 PM:

corndog wrote:
Well...let's not blow things out of proportion here. My level of grief is about the size of a jelly bean, a minor inconvenience at most.

It's nice to see you calmed down in less than 4 hours….

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

jaclarkaus wrote:
I'd start with the 100-400 as you are going to need the reach. Despite being a slow lense, it's the cheapest way of getting the length. The 300 is probably not going to be long enough.

The 1-4 is a good reach but you have crap for speed. The nice thing about the 120-300 is slap a 1.4 and your over 400 and you are only at f4. Options, its all about options.

Well, the 24-70 used to be the 28-70, I believe Canon redesigned this lens making it wider on the front end with the 1D series in mind. They took this lens from a 35-88 equivament to a 30 to 88 equivalent focal length, which of course most people consider a nice "normal" coverage. Anything wider than 30 gets into the ultrawide arena, which of course they have many great lens options to choose from there.

And finally, and most importantly, if 30mm equivalent isn't wide enough for you on your normal lens, then you have plenty of full frame body options to choose from! All of this would have taken about 5 minutes worth of research to figure out, and most importantly your problem isn't for a lack of options from Canon. Their body lens combinations are nearly astronomical, and much moreso than Nikon or anybody else.


Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

Photon wrote:
corndog wrote:
... But, doesn't anyone find it odd that nobody ever made a "traditional" 18-55mm f/2.8 equivalent for 1.3 bodies? It seems so logical to me. ...
I don't think anyone has marketed any lenses specifically for the 1.3 crop (which is really 1.25). It's reasonably close to full frame, and the sales volume of those bodies is not large.
It's odd to realize that the 18-55 can already be thought of as traditional, since we've only had lenses specifically for 1.6 bodies for a few years. I'm not knocking your discomfort with the way zoom ranges "fit" with the 1D series. If a 24-105 doesn't go wide enough for your needs, and carrying two lenses won't work, the best solution could be a FF or 1.6 body. I wouldn't expect a 19-80mm any time soon, since it would need to cover FF in order to have enough market.