New Lenses To Enjoy (Canon)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by al256, Aug 21, 2010.

  1. al256 macrumors 6502a

    al256

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2001
    #1
    Hey all,

    I recently got my first salaried job after graduating college and now I feel this Canon L lens lust kicking into effect. I plan on getting the new 70-200mm f2.8 IS II lens first but I wonder what would be a great second lens to pick up. The new 100mm IS macro comes to mind but I'd love to hear what other users enjoy with their Canons.

    What's in my bag:
    40D + BG-E2N
    28-135mm kit lens
    50mm f1.4
    70-300mm
     
  2. Eaton Photos macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Location:
    KY
    #2
    There is no cure for the L Addiction.

    However, to best answer your question, my question to you is, what are you shooting? Landscapes, People, Sports/ Events, etc....

    You already have a decent line-up in your Sig. What focal lengths do you find yourself using the most frequently. Just b/c you may be able to afford to spend $2400 on a lens, does not mean you need to drop that kind of cash on a lens for your first investment.

    Watch out for Lens Envy. It can break the bank quickly. The following is how I got started, and what I have currently.

    My 1st lens, was the 28-135, with an EOS 1N. I shot everything possible, but I also learned about the limitations of the lens (light or lack-thereof, IQ, & its overall strengths & weaknesses).

    Then from there, I've bought/ sold the following lenses:

    70-200/2.8 Non-IS
    20-35/3.5-4.5
    17-40/4
    28-70/2.8
    24-105/4 IS
    300/4 IS
    50/1.4
    85/1.8
    100-400

    Currently have:

    16-35/2.8 II
    24/3.5 TS-E I
    70-200 2.8 IS I
    300/2.8 IS
    1.4x II & 2X II TC's
     
  3. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #3
    you know the "L" thing is just marketing gimmick, right? it tells you nothing about how they really perform, just that Canon thinks you should buy them.

    I'd get the first 70-200 IS and save $1000, but it's your money... get rid of the 28-135 and get a 15-85. everything besides that depends on what you shoot. do you really need a macro? does it have to be the 100L? why not the 100 macro, or Sigma 150, or Sigma 105....
     
  4. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #4
    Sorry, but "L" is the way to go if you can afford it.
     
  5. cosmokanga2 macrumors 6502a

    cosmokanga2

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Location:
    Canada, where we live in igloos.
    #5
    I've used it on a MkIV and it was amazing! Depth of field is really shallow; 3/4 of the focus markers are for macro alone. If you are going to use it in a fast moving environment though, rent it first as due to the huge range the focus elements move, locking on to subjects of varying distance was not supper quick. Easily usable, but just be aware. Otherwise, great lens. I will be buying the Nikon variation in the future!
     
  6. al256 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    al256

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2001
    #6
    Well, I find myself changing between the 50mm and the 70-300mm often. I like the shallow depth of field and the fast aperture of the 50mm but I like the reach of the zoom. I just don't like most of the pictures I take with the zoom. I generally prefer to take action shots of people and animals and love the 6.5 fps on my 40D. The IS on the zoom is great but when I get out to 300mm, the slower 5.6 has cost me some shots depending on available light.
     
  7. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #7
    or Leica and Zeiss
     
  8. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #8
    Of course :)
     
  9. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #9
    That's simplistic and bad advice to give to noobs who use it without reflection. The red L is just a marketing designation that should indicate whether Canon thinks it's a pro lens or not. It's not an indication whether this lens is actually beneficial for the type of photography you're doing.

    In many instances, there are other/better alternatives in terms of price/performance. Regarding the particular lens the OP has in mind, I can think of better ways to spend this much money: starting with a 70-200 mm f/4 + other lenses/equipment would be one. (The OP mentioned getting a 100 mm macro lens: he could afford that and then some.)

    Plus, pro grade tele zooms are twice as heavy as their consumer counterparts.

    I'd recommend getting a different lens (e. g. a 70-200 f/4 or a third-party/used Canon 70-200 f/2.8 + an external flash + a macro lens and then use the change to do trips.
     
  10. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #10
    I recommend the 70-200 F/4 IS version over the 2.8. Only because the 2.8 is a monster and it sounds like your shooting outside where you maybe dont need a 2.8 zoom. I would sell your 28-135 and get a 17-55. Keep your 50 1.4. The 100L? Go for it. I own one and would never part with. Its a great portrait lens as well as a macro....at least on a FF..... I have never used it on a 40D.

    My 40D setup was primarily:
    10-22
    17-55
    Sigma 150 Macro
    70-200 F4 L IS
    100-400
     
  11. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #11
    Nope.

    Generally speaking, L glass is superior to non-L. There, of course, are excellent non-L lenses (100/2.8 macro, 85/1.8, 100/2, and others). But L glass is generally of the highest quality.

    It certainly is not "just marketing gimmick".
     
  12. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #12
    The L lenses (luxury I believe is what that stands for - read something about that years ago) are great quality. The optics are superb, but not are all immaculate.

    For example, the 16-35L (not the MKII) had softness problems on the corners. The MKII is supposedly better. The 17-35L was soft on the corners as well, as is the 17-40L on a FF sensor (or film). On an APC body, I noticed no such problems with the 16/35 or 17/40.

    If you shoot with live view and manual focus, there are tons of superior lenses to what Canon makes. Of course you lose AF, unless you have someone convert one. I saw a Contax 17-35 go for $3500 on eBay, and it was converted.

    I am going to be buying a Canon FL 50mm 1,2 and haveJim Buchanan convert it to EOS mount. It is a superb lens (many say equal to the 50 1.2L, but that is all subjective), and worth the conversion!

    As with lenses, (perhaps minus the Zeiss, Contax, Leica, Voightlander..) there are variations in copies. I cannot tell you how many times I have read about people sending in a lens to Canon for calibration (and then Canon wanting them to send in the body as well). Seemed to happen a bit with the 85L (back focused), the 50L, 24-70..

    You can't go wrong with primes! If you can live with the redundancy of switching lenses, that is the best bet. Constant aperture (and quite a bit faster), and sharper. Even the non L primes are very good, but not all of them. The 50 1.8 is proof that a cheap prime can be sharp.

    Just remember that there ARE excellent EOS mount alternatives. My Sigma 10-20 was as sharp as my 10-22mm, and cost a bit less. The Tamron 28-75 (or whatnot) is a very good lens as well, as are the Sigma primes. Just do your research. FredMiranda's forums have 10 years worth of info, just search. Look on the nature forums, and you will see many that shoot with the Bigma (Sigma 50-500), and the results are amazing. Same goes with the Sigma 70-200 EX. I know that if I had $1300, I would by a Zeiss over an L. If you need AF, perhaps this may not be the best idea (as a conversion is not the cheapest and there is a wait, from what i gather)
     

Share This Page