Need new lenses

mikeanywhere

Heres my dilemna - I want to have a few more lenses in the kit bag so I can take even better pics rather than relying on a current lenses that might not be giving me the best results. So in a nutshell I need you lovely people to give me some ideas as to what you think I need.

The one I defo am looking to get is the 100mm 2.8 Macro. I need a decent landscape lens and I want to be able to do some decent portraits. I looked on Canons web site earlier but christ they have too many lenses there to go through.

By the way this thread was as a result of seeing the replies on this thread a little while back

I currently only have the 18-55mm that came with the 20D & a 70-200mm L IS.

On a side note, if I go for the 70-300mm would it be worth keeping the 70-200mm?

Apologies for the essay!!

Cheers

Mike

Fajitas!

Canon 50mm 1.8, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 105 macro instrad of Canon. Don't bother with the 70-300 if you have a 70-200 IS!!!

If yer photos ain't good enough, yer not close enough!

mathias

For portraits it cant hurt to get the 50mm 1.8 prime , its less than 100 euro and pin sharp , everyone should have one of these ,

For landscapes maybe the 10 - 22 wide angle ? this is an excellent lens but is EF -S , you may want to go for the Sigma 10 20 , a lot of people go for that over the Canon.

The 70 -200 L is " L " glass , in canon land thats Godlike , and is most certainly going to be better than the 70 -300 mm ( one would hope at least...considering the price difference )

Dimy

For a portrait lens I'd definitely go for the 50mm f/1.8 (if I wouldn't have one already that is!). That lens is a must have and can be bought for less than 100 euro online and about 150 euro's in Dublin shops. It's price/quality is unrivalled and almost legendary

Hand_Of_Steel

Eh....I'm only new to this game, but the book*points to book* says you should use a 100 or 105mm for portraits.
Why is everybody saying get a 50mm?

Dimy

Hand_Of_Steel wrote:

Eh....I'm only new to this game, but the book*points to book* says you should use a 100 or 105mm for portraits.
Why is everybody saying get a 50mm?

Maybe the book you have is referring to 35mm film camera's whereas digital SLR's have a crop factor of about 1.3. Meaning that you need to multiply the mm's with 1,3 to get the actual focal lenght of what it would be like on a 35mm film camera... so on a digital camera 50mm works like a 65mm on film. That's still not 100-105mm range of course, but an 80mm prime is just a lot more expensive and 65mm does the job just as fine!

rymus

well... 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm. Close enough...

In a nutshell, Fajitas got it spot on. I have the 50mm 1.8 (everyone should), the 10-20 is a wonderful lens and a damnsight cheaper than the Canon EF-S. I've got the 150mm sigma macro, comparable to the 105mm. If you already have the 70-200 I wouldnt bother with the 75-300. Maybe get a 1.4x TC for the 70-200 to give a bit more reach if you need it.

Dimy

Oops...rymus is right of course... it's 1.6x even!

sionnach

Hand_Of_Steel wrote:

Eh....I'm only new to this game, but the book*points to book* says you should use a 100 or 105mm for portraits.
Why is everybody saying get a 50mm?

Because it's fan friggin tastic. It's called the "nifty fifty" for a reason. Razor sharp, small, light and crazy cheap. I got mine for 60 euro second hand in perfect condition. 80mm is a good focal length for portraiture and the 50mm on a 1.6 crop body = 80mm.

I've rarely used my 18-55 kit lens since getting my nifty fifty, the kit lens is utter cack compared to this little beauty.

CraggyIslander

We'll my accountant told me to spend some dineros to lower my income tax... so I now have two lenses... 100mm macro and 70-300mm IS..... but no camera as I've sold the 350d .... but just got news that my 30D with 24-85 lens is being shipped today All I need to get now is a 50mm 1.8 and I'll be good to go.

The 50mm on a film camera, pretty much represents the viewing angle your naked eyes can cover... so hence its kinda a de-facto standard. On a digital that'd be a 35mm roughly I think.

Definately keep your 70-200 L lens.. and maybe get a big gun to spy on your neighbours, like a 400mm one.... mind you their bit pricey

mikeanywhere

Thanks for the feedback from everyone, its been very interesting reading indeed.

The reason I asked about going for the 70-300 was because of those few times when I have been out reach with wildlife etc so I suppose the cheaper option would be to go for a 1.4 extender or as Dobbsy says get a bigger one altogether.

I do have a few quid spare but not that much :eek:

Roen

Mike, if you have a 70-200mm L IS lens it has to be the ƒ2.8 cos the ƒ4 L IS isn't out yet. These things cost a fortune and are regarded as one of the best zooms around. Why you'd want to replace it with a 70-300mm consumer grade lens is beyond me (bags first shout if you're flogging it).

The 100mm macro will double as a great portrait lens, but the 70-200 should be wayyyy more than adequate for portraiture.

It depends on the type of wildlife you want to shoot but even with the 300mm ƒ4 L IS (480mm) on my 20D I'm nowhere near what I need to have for birds. Granted I prefer to be hiking when I'm out and I don't set hides and wait for animals to come close, but I reckon the 500mm ƒ4 L IS is the job, it's what I'm saving for and will give me a rather grand 800mm on a crop body.
If you're prepared to lay in wait for birdies and things then the 320mm that your 70-200 with crop gives you at the long end should be fine.
It's all down to you though, no point in shelling for a lens that will be used once in a blue moon.

The 50 mm 1.8 or 1.4 would also be a great choice. The 100mm macro is a must as well as far as I'm concerned.

Best of luck (but whatever you do don't flog off the 70-200mm ƒ2.8 L IS)

mikeanywhere

Roen wrote:

Mike, if you have a 70-200mm L IS lens it has to be the ƒ2.8 cos the ƒ4 L IS isn't out yet. These things cost a fortune and are regarded as one of the best zooms around. Why you'd want to replace it with a 70-300mm consumer grade lens is beyond me (bags first shout if you're flogging it).

OK, word on the street - dont flog the 70-200 IS unless its to Roen)

The reason I wanted another lense like the 300 was to allow me to get that little bit closer. I'm not quite at the stage to be heading out for a proper wildlife session ie laying in wait. Its usually that shot that comes about as a result of taking a piccie of something else.

Prime example can be found here. Ideally I would have liked to have a got a closeup of the bird but wasnt too far away. Look, its me tying to be a perfectionist, thats all!!

Again, thanks for all the feedback as its been very helpful! :cool:

digitalage

I think Roen was spot on, your 70-200mm and 100mm macro would be perfect for portraits, the 50mm 1.8 is handy for low light photography. In relation to telephoto lens theres no cheap option when it comes to IQ.The canon 400mm f5.6 is about your cheapest choice at approx 1200euro, but its slow, if you want a fast 400mm f2.8 your talking around 7000euro...if you have a few quid to spare around 4500euro I would highly recommend the canon 300mm f2.8 this works superbley with a 1.4x and 2x extender, giving you you a 300mm, 420mm and 600mm on a FF body. Photography is an expensive business and unless your passionate about it or making money out of it, it would'nt make sense to buy one of these telephotos. I cannot recommend any zoom lenses in this range as I have never used them, but from all accounts the canon 100-400mm seems to be good but it also has a nice price tag of approx 1500euro. Anyway good luck in what ever you choose...

B0rG

Crop factor on Canon is 1.6 not 1.3.

50 mm is reasonable good for portrait, but too sharp. Too sharp means you have to do a lot of photoshop work to remove facial features that you don't really want on your portraits. Or use "soap" filter (forgot what they called (soft or something), they are not cheap though... about E70 for a pop.

The champions for portrait work are EF 135 & EF 85 mm lenses. And don't tell me that 50 * 1.6 = 80mm. It's not the focus length. What you need is small DOP and a nice soft lens drawing (bg blur, focus to out-focus border, etc). DOP after all depends on a focus length, not on a crop factor (latter only affects distance to cadre ratio). Which one to choose depends on a size of your studio - you have 70-200 set it to 85 and check the distance you get the head to elbow portrait from, same goes with 135. 50 mm means you will have to be within 2 meters of the subject, it may not be comfortable to work from this distance for you or your model.

For landscapes you'd need some wide angle - I like my 17-40 4L (around 700), there is also 16-35 2.8L (1200 mark), but with enough light you can also put a kit on 20mm 8F, stick a tripod and you'll get everything sharp

I'd advice to get 17-40, then wait and see 70-200 you have is a good lens for portraits too: just set it to 85 or 135 focal length, aperture at around 5 and you're good to go.

I personally don't like long zooms - I didn't achieve that buddist state of physic where I can hold anything longer than 120 mm focal length.

digitalage

Borg just for the record a canon 1d mIIN has a crop factor of around 1.3, a consumer DSLR has a crop factor 1.6.

B0rG

digitalage wrote:

Borg just for the record a canon 1d mIIN has a crop factor of around 1.3, a consumer DSLR has a crop factor 1.6.

Valid correction :-)
And 5D has full frame... (hell I shouldn't really held one at our night shooting...)

Thing is though, people who have that sort of equipment do not ask questions about lenses on the forum

JMcL

If you do have a 70-200 f2.8 IS, why not go for a 1.4x or even 2x extender? You'll even still have AF with the 2x, and a range of 140-400mm even before taking crop factor into account. You'll lose some image quality, but with the optical reputation of that lens, I'd say the result would still beat a consumer grade 70-300mm hands down

mikeanywhere

JMcL wrote:

If you do have a 70-200 f2.8 IS, why not go for a 1.4x or even 2x extender?

Thats what I have done regarding the bigger mm, i've gone for the 2x

mervifwdc

Another vote for the 17-40L Pricey, but not insane. Super results. Always buy lenses that can work with full frame camera's (NOT ef-S) as you never know what you might buy in the future. And good lenses maintain their value, while consumer lenses and camera's drop in value.

Prime lenses work better with extenders than Zooms, so something like the 300 2.8 suggested above is just about as good as it gets, and is still a kick ass 600mm/5.6 with IS with the extender.

Merv.

Merv.

B0rG

wow... I guess money is not an object here? :-)
portraits go EF 85 mm - they come in flavours (1.8, 1.4, 1.2 may be) - all give the same result (nearly Another option is to go 135mm primes, but with crop factor, you'd need have big studio... Another interesting option to expore is some old russian Gelios glass in 80mm range (extremely cheap) - I'm thinking of getting one for myself - very good picture.

Landscapes: if you want zoom: 17-40 4F. if not look at 35mm primes. if money is not an object (again) consider 16-35 2.8F - though 2 more f stops ain't that needed for landscape shooting - you'd be always using a tripod.

For your long range needs get yourself a 1.4 or 2.0 convertor and a tripod 70-200 2.8L is if that's what you have is already kinda very very good zoom lense, and if you like it why part with it?

Fionn

hmmm is it a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS or EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Non-IS
there's a pretty big difference both in price / build quality and results

I own the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L and it's a great lens especially for portraits and some types of sport wildlife. My major complaints with it is that it's not weather sealed and at distances you really need it on a tripod.
I'd think the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Non-IS would be pretty similar.
I'm thinking of selling my 70-200 f/4.0 L and investing in the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. It would mean saving like mad - no nights of indulgence etc. and it'd have to be got in the states as the cost would be just too high this side of the planet.
So mike i think if you've got the IS version of the 70-200, keep it as it's considered the best in it's class you wont get better!!!

B0rG

Fionn...
there is generall rule - IS gives you that 2 more stops. and soaps the picture in return 2.8 IS will give you 4 more stops (compared to 4F L) at a price of whatever kilos and a tripod on the other hand 2.8F gives you paper thin DOF, and the major question is - do you really want it? In that light new 4L IS sounds like a good value for a money, but...

joolsveer

B0rG wrote:

Fionn...
there is generall rule - IS gives you that 2 more stops. and soaps the picture in return 2.8 IS will give you 4 more stops (compared to 4F L) at a price of whatever kilos and a tripod on the other hand 2.8F gives you paper thin DOF, and the major question is - do you really want it? In that light new 4L IS sounds like a good value for a money, but...

Is it not one stop between F2.8 and F4?

mikeanywhere

I have the 70-200mm L IS (that weighs a ton as mentioned earlier and use it as part of a weight training programme ) and it wasnt a case of not wanting to keep it. As I mentioned before, I currently only have the two lenses and felt I wasnt getting the picture I wanted due to the lack of performance, reach (call it whatever you want). I also wanted to get an understanding of what people recommended and that is partly due to the information overload on manufacturers web sites. Christ, if money wasnt an issue, I would buy every Canon lens I could :eek:

So hopefully now people will see where I am coming from. I do have a couple of quid spare but 2nd hand, if in decent nick, is just as good for me too.

JMcL

joolsveer wrote:

Is it not one stop between F2.8 and F4?

'Tis indeed