Decision finally made (I think) I which two lenses to buy - Being a newbie, I hope I made the right choices! Feedback appreciated!

[ddt0725]

After many weeks of reading review after review and taking everyone's replies from my last post about Macro's and ISinto consideration, I think I have finally made up my mind!!


I have decided on two Canon lenses for my newly owned Canon RebelT1i- the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens (if I don't sway back to the 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM)!


I haven't pushed the "Buy" button yet, so any feedback on my two choices extremely appreciated [:)]


Thanks (and Happy Holidays),


Denise

[Brendan7]

OK, I'm so glad I am the first to reply to your post, I need to change your mind!![:D]


You have to get the ef 300mm f/4l is usm.


It is better than the 100-400 for sports. It is A TON sharper. It has faster AF. It has better image quality overall. It has a built-in lens hood. It is half super telephoto, half macro. The 300 focuses at 5'.


I have tried both lenses. Most people shoot at the extremes of the zoom range. At 100mm, your 100mm f/2.8 macro will produce signifigantly better quality. People who switch from the 100-400 to the 300 are amazed. People who switch from the 300 to the 100-400 are disappointed, wondering what happened to the image quality they were used to. If you are thinking about the 100-400, you must be thinking about sports and wildlife. The 300 is arguably far superior in both of these categories.





GET THE 300. sorry, i just have a strong opinion here [:P]


brendan

[alexniedra]

You have to get the ef 300mm f/4l is usm.


But if he thinks that he should go for the 100-400 L, he should go for it. He has done the thinking. He has done the research. And he is ready to make a final decision and take the plunge. Remember, his needs and expectations differ from your own.



Most people shoot at the extremes of the zoom range.


Sure - I agree with you. Maybe he wants the versitility offered by a zoom.


But he should consider your suggestion - Maybe he'll be better off, or maybe he prefers the zoom. It's entirely up to him.

[ddt0725]

Thank you so much for responding! I was sold for weeks on the 300mm& also getting the 1/4x II extenderbut then started reading about the versatility of the zoom on the 100mm - 400mm. Gosh, I am so confused! These are mega $$$ for me and I don't want to regret my decision.


Ok, I think I'm back to getting the 300mm [8-)]


Denise

[ddt0725]

You are correct, it is the versatility that came into play on deciding on the zoom but it does sound like the other has more to offer in other aspects. Narrowing down to two with so many to look atafter many weeks of research ain't bad but these two are so awesome in their own ways ...it is a tough decision.


Thanks for your input ...very much appreciated!


Denise

[jamiethole]

I don't think you could go wrong with either choice...


However, if it was me, I'd spend a few $ to rent the lenses and try them myself, before spending a lot of $$$$$$$ buying the lenses.

[Brendan7]

I agree with Jamie 110%.





I think you should rent both from lensrentals.com for a week or so. (will cost you about $70 for each)


If after testing both you prefer the 100-400, then go for it! I think that you can't go wrong between those two lenses. I just like one over the other. The 100-400 has a push-pull zoom, and it is critical to test this as you might hate it (I don't, but some do).





hope this helps!


brendan[H]

[Jorundr-Jorgensen]

Hi Denise, I won't advice you buying anything yet, because, I don't know what you'll be (mainly) shooting, if you would be so kind to tell us that I'm sure we can help you much much better because then we'll know what you really need and what's the best for you.


Tho it is, of course, to be said that we can guess from your current choice of lenses that you are going for sport/wildlife photography, but we might be wrong


Please inform us. :)

[ddt0725]

The macro I am getting to take photos of my many flower gardens and all they attract along with photos at a near by botanical garden.


With the 100-400mm or 300mm with extender, I will mostly be taking pictures of wildlife, zoo photos and birds and my grandkids at the park (unsuspecting since they prefer to avoid grandma when camera is in hand [:P] )! I also live in SE Wisconsin and I want to get some nice winter scenery photos now and boaters and seagullson Lake Michigan in the summer.


I am trying to teach myself this long lifetime dream of photography ...am I on the right track with the 300mm for my photo goals?


Denise

[JJphoto]

Denise, I'v had my 100mm macro for 3 years and loved it untill I see Juza nature photography ("http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/macro-italy_trebbia_valley.htm), he uses sigma 180mm macro, his work makes me think the focal length makes the difference( longer working distance which is better and better bokeh)canon has the 180mm macro too, right now i'm waiting the 180mm IS version coming out.

[ddt0725]

My second choice for a Macro was the Tamron AF 180mm f/3.5. I have seen beautiful photos posted online taken with this lens. I decided against it for the sole reason that it does not have IS but other than that it appears to be a wonderful lens and is $350 cheaper than the Canon 100mm.

[JJphoto]

Ok, I see, if you think IS is more important to you then go with the 100mm L IS., the reason I like the IS is when I use it handhold for non macro shorts.happy purchasing and happy holiday!

[Brendan7]

Unless you shoot bugs for a living the 100 macro will do you just as good. If you NEED to get close to an elusive butterfly, a 180 makes sense.


I think that the 100 is the right choice.



I'v had my 100mm macro for 3 years and loved it untill I see Juza nature photography ("http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/macro-italy_trebbia_valley.htm), he uses sigma 180mm macro,


Juza is an amazing photographer. He could take those kinds of photos with a plastic bag over his lens. The 180 has its downsides, too.


The Canon 100 is as sharp, has much better AF, and is Canon's 3rd best lens for the money (after 85/1.8 and 70-200 f/4l usm).

[Brendan7]

am I on the right track with the 300mm for my photo goals?


YES! 300 is a complex yet user-friendly cross between super telephoto and 1:1 macro. In fact, I have seen many great macro photos (esp. of insects) taken with it and with extension tubes. I am no more experienced than you with photography, but I have used a large amount of lenses and the 300/4 is among my favorites.


cheers!


brendan[H]

[ddt0725]

Thanks, Brendan! The 300mm with an extender is my final choice! Now I'm wondering if I should still get the 100mm f/2.8 L macro also if the 300mm can take some pretty nice macro shots ....decisions decisions!!! [*-)]


Thanks so much for your help .....Happy Holidays!


Denise

[ddt0725]

Even though the 300mm takes great macros also, I think I will go with that and the 100mm for 1:1.


Your input has helped tremendously...thanks again!

[Brendan7]

Congratulations!


You will enjoy your new gear.


cheers!


brendan[H]

[HiFiGuy1]

I have a 400mm f/5.6 Sigma, the 1:3 macro version of the lens, on a D100 body. It is amazing what a super telephoto can do when it comes to shooting pictures of small stuff because of the focal length. The neat thing is that you don't end up obscuring the natural lighting because you're not on top of the subject, so you can get a different look and aren't forced to use flash. Of course, you're close enough that you still can if you want. The f/5.6 makes for some nice bokeh because of the focal length, too.


I have just gotten a good tripod that is capable of holding this camera setup, so I will try to get some shots and show what I mean. Mostly have been handholding so far, and the results aren't necessarily post-worthy, but I can see what the combo is capable of.

[Feanor]

I'd hate to add to your confusion - I know what it's like - but your decision is an unusual one for your first two lenses and I think you may find it restrictive.


With these lenses you'll be able to focus on macros and not-so-nervous wildlife. But IMO you'll find that for other, more everyday, subjects that these focal lengths are limiting.


Most people go for a "walk-around" zoom for their main lens, say the 17-55, 24-105 or 24-70; a few are happy with a prime, say 50mm. Many then go for one of the 70-200 variants for their second lens. This combination, while far from ideal for macros or wildlife, is IMO far more versatile.


I'm sure that you've considered these points, I just thought my tuppence might help. Either way best of luck and have fun! :)

[ddt0725]

I do have two lenses that came with the kit I purchased. I have a 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS and a 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS so I thought the two new ones I have picked would help me venture into new territories. I may have to do some rethinking it seems like.


Thanks for you advice ...Happy Holidays! [:)]


Denise

[Brendan7]

I may have to do some rethinking it seems like.


Seems to me you're off fine! Don't worry too much, and just trust your instinct.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

For general wildlife, get the 100-400, for macro get the 100 f/2.8L IS. I like your first decision.


Nate

[Fast Glass]

I will go with Nate on that one, the zoom offers far more flexibility.


John.

[Brendan7]

are we getting into the flexibility vs quality debate again?


oh dear[:P]

[Feanor]

I do have two lenses that came with the kit I purchased. I have a 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS and a 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS so I thought the two new ones I have picked would help me venture into new territories. I may have to do some rethinking it seems like.


Thanks for you advice ...Happy Holidays! /emoticons/emotion-1.gif


Denise
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Then fair enough, don't let me confuse you, sounds like you're doing the right thing :)

[ShutterbugJohan]

Unless you shoot bugs for a living


My goal...[:)] OK, some other nature, too. [:P]

[Daniel Browning]

The 300mm with an extender is my final choice!


Great choice.



Now I'm wondering if I should still get the 100mm f/2.8 L macro also if the 300mm can take some pretty nice macro shots


I think you should. If you put some extenders, TC, and/or close-up adapter on the 300mm, you can get some nice macro, but they wont be as nice as the 100mm.

[ddt0725]

Thanks for reassuring me of my decision. I ended up ordering the 100mm, the 300mm and the 1.4x extender. I should have all on Wed! [:D]


Denise