next lens to get?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rweakins, Dec 25, 2009.

  1. rweakins macrumors 6502


    May 3, 2007
    i have a 17-55 f3.5-5.6, 70-200 f4L and 50mm f1.8 lens and am looking to either add to or upgrade another lens. I do all types of photography (sports, portraits, nature) and have around $1000 to get a new lens. i shoot a canon 50d and wanted to see if anyone had any suggestions on a good choice for a lens.
  2. Mousse macrumors 68000


    Apr 7, 2008
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    I'd suggest the 135mm 2.0L. Spitting distances north of the $1000 mark, but well worth it. That's what I'd get since it's good for indoors sports, but a bit long for portrait and a bit short for nature.

    The weak link in your line up is your wide angle lense. I'd upgrade that one first if you choose the upgrade route. The Canon options will set you back well over $1000, so third party might be an option. Tamron 17-50 XR Di 2.8 VC (vibration control) or Sigma 18-50 EX DC are good choices. Both are EF-S type lenses. BUT I've found third party lense to be a hit or miss affair. If you get a good copy it'll rival Canon's offering at 1/2 or 1/3 the price.
  3. ronjon10 macrumors regular

    Dec 9, 2009
    You've got your normal ranges covered there.

    I've got the Tokina 2.8 11-16 wide angle which I really like. I use it all the time for indoor shots and architectural shots.

    The 300mm f4 is a highly regarded lens, very popular with people who shoot nature/bird shots.

    I'd probably get the f2.8 24-70mm. It's a great lens that would replace both your shorter lenses for almost everything and you'd have quality lenses from 24-200mm.

    I'd get a quality flash before I upgraded any of your lenses though.
  4. rweakins thread starter macrumors 6502


    May 3, 2007
    i had looked at the 135mm for sports. and maybe the 10-22mm for a wide angle for nature

    the 24-70 is definitely on my list of possibilities to get here soon.
  5. rweakins thread starter macrumors 6502


    May 3, 2007
    also what about a macro? 60mm or 100mm? aside from price is there a huge difference in those two canon lenses?
  6. vraxtus macrumors 65816


    Aug 4, 2004
    San Francisco, CA
    In terms of IQ, most reviews have said the 100 Macro L is pretty much the same as the regular 100 but without the Hybrid IS. The difference between the 60 and 100 though is the distance you have to frame your subject and your camera. Generally the rule of thumb is higher MM on a macro is BETTER for the fact that you have more room to shoot and don't risk getting too close to your subject.

    That said I think you should really decide first on what you like shooting the most. I find it's a waste of money to buy an assortment of sub quality lenses when you can save that cash for much better lenses.

    On your crop, I'd say the 17-40 L is a good bet - I was using that on my XT before I went to a 5D. Now I pretty much exclusively use the 24-105 L and the 85 1.2 II L for everything (mostly because the 24-105 covers a normal distance that the 17-40 would generally cover on a crop). While the 17-55 is a decent stock lens, the L glass even in the 17-40 is significantly better than the 17-55 for color / contrast and CA management. The level of fringing off the 17-40 is significantly more well controlled, especially at a stop down from wide open, compared to the stock lenses.

    Ultimately though it really depends what you like to shoot. I do a mixture myself between portrait and landscape, but I always prefer to have the best quality lenses before I go into each foray, rather than shooting one with a marginal lens!

Share This Page