which lens?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by scotthayes, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. scotthayes macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #1
    Just bought a Canon 400d and I'm now looking to buy another lens for it.

    looking for something in the range of 25/50-200/400. So many to chose from.

    Budget is around £500

    Would really like some personal recommendations.
     
  2. M@lew macrumors 68000

    M@lew

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #2
    25-400? That's a pretty big range. What will you be shooting?
     
  3. Shaduu macrumors 6502a

    Shaduu

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Location:
    Southsea
    #3
    Canon 70-200mm ƒ/4L
    Canon 90-300mm USM
    Sigma 28-300mm

    Careful though, long range telephotos tend to affect image quality, especially in the high ranges.
     
  4. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #4
    Sigma 50-500 if you shoot from a tripod.
     
  5. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #5
    Most lenses are good. But they are good for different things. The way the chosse is to know what you will be shooting and match the lens to the subject.

    Maybe you could tell us what kinds of shots you are not able to get with the lens you have.

    In general on a "crop body" any lens longer then about 200mm is a specialty lens and you will be wanting to use it on a tripod.
     
  6. scotthayes thread starter macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #6
    Sorry, just read my post and it's not that clear. I meant no less than 25 and not more than 400.

    only got the kit lens that came with the camera. 18-55mm, although good enough to begin with looking for something with a bit more range. Will generally be taking "out and about" type pictures of places we visit, but would like something that can give me options for those moments when a good long range lens is needed but also covers the normal type of pictures. hope that makes a little sense.
     
  7. scotthayes thread starter macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #7
    the Canon 70-200 is top of my list at the moment. Any one got one and could let me know what they think of it?
     
  8. Shaduu macrumors 6502a

    Shaduu

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Location:
    Southsea
    #8
    I wish I did have one however, like you, it's probably going to be my next purchase lens-wise.

    Although, I have used one coupled with a 2x extender (so, 140-400 x 1.6 = 224-640! :eek:) and the build quality and clarity are just unreal but then again, what can you expect from a Canon L lens. I tried it minus the extender too and the results were pretty much the same. The focal range seems to be the sweet spot for me, especially when shooting subjects which aren't that too keen on being photographed.

    One small thing I'll add in though, is if you have the extra cash available, definitely go for the ƒ/2.8 version: your photography will love you for it.
     
  9. scotthayes thread starter macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #9
    Maybe if I'm extra nice to my wife and do all the housework between now and christmas, then maybe, just maybe santa will deliver me and extra special treat.

    Thanks for the info and advice.
     
  10. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #10
    I have the 70-200 IS f/2.8, which is normally coupled with the 1.4x (98-280 x 1.6 = 157mm - 448mm equivalent ... at f/4)

    Someone (luminous landscape?) has a "400 vs 400" report, where they conduct a shoot-off between the 70-200 with 2x to the Canon 100-400 IS f/4.5-5.6 L lens. My recollections are that the latter had a slight edge. It also would be a bit cheaper too.

    The reason why I personally passed on the 100-400 was because I thought that it would be important/useful to have the capability to drop down to f/2.8 for some subjects. I haven't used that capability much yet, but its still there for when I start to need it :)

    There's only two problems:

    1) either lens is above the OP's price range.
    2) both are telephotos, no normal or wide angle capability.

    The real question here might be more along the lines of ... what are your near-term priorities, to which you may have the opportunity to add to the lens budget later on?


    -hh
     
  11. walangij macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    MI
    #11
    I'll agree with this wholeheartedly. If you can wait and save up or be extra nice, then get the f/2.8 IS. It's worth the money and the wait. By far, the most commonly traded lenses on professional and prosumer Buy & Sell forums are the Canon 70-200 f/4L and the 17-40f/4L. Not that they are bad lenses, no they are fantastic in their own right, but the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 24-105f/4 IS are just worth the extra cash.

    I'll recommend the 24-105 f/4L which is about £200 more than £500 but well worth it and not as expensive as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. With the 1.6x crop factor it reaches fairly well, the IS is great and is just a fantastic general lens (if you don't already have an all-around lens of this quality).
     
  12. scotthayes thread starter macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #12
    thanks for all the excellent advice.

    Think I will hold out a little longer and save up for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS

    Cheers.

    Scott
     
  13. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #13
    Canon have just announced a new cashback starting 1st oct in the UK. Think it's £130 off the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.

    I have the 70-200 f/4 non IS lens and recommend it. I'm wondering if you really need the f/2.8, o.k. it's a stop faster but it does weigh and cost a lot more. I know a fair few recommend the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. Which is meant to be a bit of a gem considering the cost.

    Hope it helps.
     
  14. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #14
    Of course it costs and weighs more- it's a stop faster. That means you can shoot in half the light- so the decision points generally start with "will I be shooting in half the light?" It doesn't matter how small and cheap a lens is if it won't get you the shot...
     

Share This Page