Lineup suggestions!

[jultou]

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]I have seen a very interesting thread about suggestions for a 1500$ lens lineup.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]I would ask you the same for a 2000$ budget (on used lens market).<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]Here are the things to consider:<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]1- 18-200 range at least. (I use cropped camera 40d)
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]2- Large aperture (f/2-2.8 wide to normal, f/2.8-4 tele); I like speed, low light capability and good looking bokeh<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]3- Travel photography, creative stuff (abstract, macro) and portraits are what I mostly do.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]Thanks for your help!<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]Julien<o:p></o:p>

[Colin]

I think you need to include...


What's the body, full frame or 1.6 'crop'


What do you consider large aperture? Will f/4 do, or do you need f/2.8? Do you want the ability to do larger than that?


How macro? What magnification? Are we talking 1:1? Or, is 1:4 or 1:2 ratio good enough?


Are you willing to sacrifice image quality to get the range you want, or willing to sacrifice range to get better image quality?

[Bill M.]

Hey Julien,


What kind of camera do you have, ff or a cropped? That makes a difference. If you have a cropped camera, the 17-55 2.8 is always an option (probably could pick one up used for about $750-800), along with the 70-200 2.8 non-IS for under $1000 and maybe just go over your budget a little with a used or refurbished 100 2.8 macro.


If you have a ff camera, the 17-40L is not a bad option (had one before and loved it) but it's a f4. You could also go with some fast primes like the 50 1.4, which are relatively inexpensive and lightweight for travel. I personally would prefer zooms for versatility.


If you like creative stuff you could pick up a lensbaby used for less than the 100mm macro...there's a lot of options for you to consider. Get the lenses that you think would use the most first and for the shooting your going to be doing and worry about saving up for the rest...

[jultou]

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]Colin,<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]I have added some details per your recommendation.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]IQ is more important than range for me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I would say that 30-135mm is the range where I need IQ.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 14.4pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]I do a bit of FF with my analog Elan 7 but my 40D is used 95% of the time. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]I may go to digital FF one day but not for now.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 14.4pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 14.4pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]Macro 1:2 or 1:4 is enough for my kind of work. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]Nevertheless, I like macro lenses for their high quality bokeh.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 14.4pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 14.4pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"]As suggested by Bill M., my lineup could be composed by &ldquo;slow&rdquo; zooms and fast primes.<o:p></o:p>

[pierlux]

Hi everybody!


Nice topic indeed! Unfortunately, I don't think Canon will consider our suggestions, unless Bryan and other Canon gurus intercede with Canon for us...


The "perfect lens missing" in Canon's lineup at this time, in my humble opinion, is a 35-70 f/&gt;2.8 (i.e. f/2.5 or even f/2[!!!], it would be fantastic!) L IS USM.


We all know that one of the most wanted improvements in Canon lens' lineup would be the 24-70 f/2.8 L II IS USM to replace the 24-70 f/2.8 L USM. But why not introducing a lens that could perfectly fill the gap between the 16-35 f/2.8 L II USM and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM? There are several instances that make me think this would be the perfect lens: let me briefly list them, not necessarily in order of importance, which is relative to each one's preferences.


First of all, saving 11mm focal length at the bottom end would significatively simplify Canon engineer's life in designing the new lens; the resulting lens could be either smaller and lighter or brighter (or both!) with respect to the existing 24-70 f/2.8 L USM.


Another advantage would be the greater impact on image quality brought about by the shorter 35mm range with respect to the 46mm range. Moreover, consider Image Stabilization: whilst of little or no use on wide angle lenses (probably the major psychological obstacle in an optical engineer's mind when considering the opportunity to stabilize the 24-70 f/2.8 L USM), IS would be a more appropriate implementation on a 35-70.


I have previously mentioned size, weight and aperture as features that would benefit from a 11mm shrink at the bottom end of a zoom lens: let me add, last but not least, price. Well, if I actually had a Canon 35-70 f/2 L IS USM lens, I would be happy to sacrify weight, size and money for a 1-full stop increase. I'm not engineer, but I don't think such a lens would weigh much more than the existing 24-70 f/2.8 L USM.


Many would be a little concerned about not having an overlap at the extreme focal lengths between zoom lenses (indeed I usually avoid shooting using the bottom and top ends of my zoom lenses, if I can), but, thank Heavens, an excellent 24-105 f/4 L IS USM exists, too!


So, please, everybody cheer and shout for a 35-70 f/[the widest possible] L IS USM zoom lens! Don't forget that the old Canon FD 35-70 f/2.8-3.5 SSC, one of the first and best Canon zoom lenses introduced in 1973, is considered a milestone in Canon's history (see http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/Documents/digital_slr_educational_tools/en/ef_lens_work_iii_en.asp - CANON'S CHALLENGES, p. 19).


I apologize for my not so good -especially technical- English...


Thanks!


Pierluigi

[pierlux]

Jultou, apologies for my previous post. I was looking for a thread to discuss eventual suggestions for new lenses in Canon's lineup, and I wrote about this. I did not notice this was relative to your personal lineup for 2000$ budget. Sorry!


Apologies to everybody else, also.


Best regards,


Pier

[Colin]

I would suggest...



<table border="0" width="148" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 111pt; border-collapse: collapse;"]
<colgroup><col width="84" style="width: 63pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 2986;"]</col><col width="64" style="width: 48pt;"]</col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" width="84" style="width: 63pt; height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]24-70 f/2.8</td>
<td width="64" align="right" style="width: 48pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]1190</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]70-200 f/4</td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]569</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]50 f/1.4</td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]325</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]25mm ExtTube</td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]140</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]2224</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>



It's a little over, but given what you said, I'd purchase in that order. I was initially thinking the 24-105, which I really, really like, but I noticed that Bryan says that with a 25mm extension tube, you can get 1.25 magnification.


You might want to augment that with a wider angle lens later, or pay more for the IS version of the 70-200, or even toss the extension tube idea, perhapssubstitute a 24-105 f/4 IS, and just get the 100mm Macro, which I think would be better overall setup...



<table border="0" width="170" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 128pt; border-collapse: collapse;"]
<colgroup><col width="106" style="width: 80pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 3783;"]</col><col width="64" style="width: 48pt;"]</col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" width="106" style="width: 80pt; height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]24-105 f/4</td>
<td width="64" align="right" style="width: 48pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]1059</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]70-200 f/4</td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]569</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]50 f/1.4</td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]325</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]100mm macro</td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]469</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td height="18" style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td align="right" style="background-color: transparent; border: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]2422</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>



BTW, I'm using B&amp;HPricing links, because they're handy from Bryan's site, and I'm only familiar with Canon lenses, so I'm sure there are some other brands that I'm totally oblivious about :)


Have fun!





Anyway, those are my bean contributions.

[Benjamin]

I would suggest...



<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 111pt; border-collapse: collapse;"]
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td style="width: 63pt; height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border-color: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]24-70 f/2.8</td>
<td align="right" style="width: 48pt; background-color: transparent; border-color: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]1190</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border-color: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]70-200 f/4</td>
<td align="right" style="BORDER-LEFT-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: #e0dfe3"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]569</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border-color: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]50 f/1.4</td>
<td align="right" style="BORDER-LEFT-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: #e0dfe3"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]325</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border-color: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]25mm ExtTube</td>
<td align="right" style="BORDER-LEFT-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: #e0dfe3"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]140</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border-color: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td style="BORDER-LEFT-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: #e0dfe3"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border-color: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td style="BORDER-LEFT-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: #e0dfe3"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.2pt;"]
<td style="height: 13.2pt; background-color: transparent; border-color: #e0dfe3;"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</td>
<td align="right" style="BORDER-LEFT-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: #e0dfe3"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]2224</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






Agree, this line up makes sense. The 24-70L is absolutely what you need if you require IQ from 35mm on and you need speed and do portrait. There's also a potential alternative as to delete the 70-200/4L non-IS and Ext tube, add 85/1.8 and Sigma 150/2.8 Macro EX. I own the 85/1.8 now and have owned the Sigma, both are fantastic!

[jultou]

Thanks Colin and Benjamin for your suggestions.





I was thinking maybe I can find a used 28-70 f2.8 L to save money. It is suppose to be as good as the 24-70 no?


I would get a cheap 18-55 IS in case I need wide angle.





I would make:


18-55 IS


28-70/2.8 L


50/1.4 or 85/1.8


100/2.8 or Sigma 150 macro


70-200/4





Another option would be:


18-55IS


30/2


50/1.4


85/1.8


100/2.8 or Sigma 150 macro


70-200/4





Both lineup should be close from 2000$ on the used market.

[Benjamin]

See this review if you haven't for reference, it's 24-70L VS 28-70L:


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml ("http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml)


As I monitor the used market values, the 28-70L is sold @ $700-800 normally, and you can find a 24-70 for $900-1000 easily, $200 difference is subject to justify. Maybe you can delete the 50/1.4 and go for the 24-70L since this lens coverssuch afocal length, I personally do not use the 50/1.4 as it's not amazingly good wide open and the point of having such a lens is to use it at large apertures.

[MVers]

Option 1

Tamron 17-50/2.8 - $430

Canon 70-200/2.8 - $1150.00
Sigma 30/1.4/Canon 85/1.8/Canon 50/1.4 - $380/350/325
Kenko Tubes - $100



Option 2

Tamron 17-50/2.8 - $430
Canon 70-200/2.8 - $1150
Canon 100 macro - $480



Option 3

Sigma 17-70 - $330
Canon 70-200/4IS - $1090
Sigma 30/1.4/Canon 85/1.8 - $380/350
Canon 50/1.8 - $85

Kenko Tubes - $100



Option 4

Tamron 17-50 - $430

Canon 70-200/4 - $595
Canon 50/1.8 - $85
Canon 85/1.8/Sigma 30/1.4 - $350/380
Sigma 150 macro - $580



Option 5

Sigma 17-70 - $330
Canon 70-300IS - $530
Sigma 30/1.4/Canon 50/1.4 - $380/325
Canon 85/1.8 - $350
Canon 100 macro - $480



Option 6

Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8IS - $1000
Canon 70-300IS/Canon 70-200/4 - $530/595
Canon 100 macro - $480



Or any combination of the above. All prices reflect new products.


-Matt