canon 70 200 f4 l or 100 mm macro?

[Cris]

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]Ok here is the
deal&hellip;<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]I&acute;m very confused about lens should
I get&hellip;<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]My setup is a tamron 17 50 f2,8 and
now i&acute;m moving to something more tele&hellip;but I don&rsquo;t know what to choose&hellip; and my
budget isn&rsquo;t that wider too&hellip; so i&acute;m considering a <st1:metricconverter w:st="on" productid="100 mm"]100 mm</st1:metricconverter> macro f2,8 usm or the 70 200 f4
usm L &hellip;<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]I will be doing a mix of portraiture
and some photojournalism&hellip;<o:p></o:p>

[Brendan7]

If you are doing "portraiture and some photojournalism", GO FOR THE 70-200.


The 70-200 is overall a better lens, a great value for the money. The 100mm macro is also good, but its main use is for taking product photos. If you are doing that, get the 100mm.


If you can spare a couple hundred more, get the EF 70-200 f/2.8 USM. (no IS)


brendan

[Jon Ruyle]

If you aren't doing macro, why get the 100mm macro lens? I would think you'd be considering the 100mm f/2 (which is faster and cheaper than the f/2.8).


Do you have a cropped body or full frame?

[Cris]

a 50D...


I was considering the 100 mm macro bcause it is extremely sharp at all apertures is faster (in aperture not in focusing)than the 70 200 f4 but the downside is that isn&acute;t is as versitle as the 70 200 f4.... but i thing i&acute;m gonna go to the 70 200 f4 usm lens.. And it&acute;s alwayce a L lens...


I dont need to buy the 70 200 f2,8 because my brother already have a 70 200 f2,8 IS lens in his 40d... and i use it sometimes an its a great lens.. but i am expecting getting the 70 200 f4 to be a general propouse lens... and when we are shooting at the same time it is more versatil have a 70 200 insted a 100 mm macro

[Sean Setters]

Get the 70-200 f/4. It's much more versatile, and it's one of the best zooms canon makes. You won't regret it.

[jasbsar]

Get the 70-200mm f4, it is a great lens, I use to have one before upgrading to the f2.8 IS and it produced great shots. You can get extension tubes that will give you a bit more macro on normal lenses and they aren't priced to bad.

[Cris]

Thanks guys

[Jon Ruyle]

I was considering the 100 mm macro bcause it is extremely sharp at all apertures


I believe the 100 f/2 is just as sharp.



[it's] faster (in aperture not in focusing)than the 70 200 f4


But the 100mm f/2 is faster still. The only reason to get the macro lens is to take macro shots.



but i thing i&acute;m gonna go to the 70 200 f4 usm lens..


Then it is a moot point [:)]


The 70-200 is more versatile (though not nearly as hand-holdable in low light).

[abyssal20]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.03/sample.jpg


Here is an example of the 70-200mm f/4 L Non-Is. Canon 30D, ISO 1600, 1/250, f/4, internal flash. I prefer the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, but this was what I had on hand. I will say that this lens is a extraordinary value and half the weight of the 2.8

[Cris]

awesome pic!!!