lens quandry.....still.....lol

i am trying to decide what my next lens should be.....even though i already had a post up about a wide angle zoom, i think i would like a prime first, before i get another zoom. i have it narrowed down to 3 lenses.....100f/2.8 macro, 100f/2.8L macro, or the 135f/2L. i enjoy taking nature and wildlife photos, as well as people, and to a certain extent macro shots with what i have already. i know, not really macro, but i try ;)


currently i have an XSi, 18-55f/3.5-5.6, 28-135f/3.5-5.6, 70-200f4L, and a 270ex.


i am leaning towards the 100/2.8Lmacro, but would like feedback from you guys

the 135 f/2 is more of a sports lens; go with the 100 macro. They both have the same IQ, but if you plan to handhold a lot definitely get the IS version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx0069

i enjoy taking nature and wildlife photos, as well as people, and to a certain extent macro shots with what i have already.

---

What kind of wildlife? A 300mm f/4L prime might be a good investment; it has reach, IQ and can focus at 4.9'.


brendan

most of the wildlife is what i happen to come across in the back yard and woods close by, birds, rodents, insects, arachnids, amphibians, etc. and of course family......indoors mostly, so a 2.8 lens will be an asset. as i said, i am leaning towards the 100/2.8L macro. i would like to hear from people who may have upgraded from the 100 macro to the 100L macro. i dont think i want a prime as long reaching as 300, i do have my 70-200f4 and if i have enough saved when i buy a prime, i'll prob pick up a 1.4x teleconverter to use with my 70-200. and saying that, i find myself wondering about the merits of each 100 lens, besides price. i do like the fact i can get the 100 non L and the 1.4x converter for less than the 100L......but i do like the IS option of the L.


just a little confuggled


james

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx0069

most of the wildlife is what i happen to come across in the back yard and woods close by, birds, rodents, insects, arachnids, amphibians, etc. and of course family

---

Well, if you don't want a 300mm lens than the 100 macro is a very logical choice. I think you can consider yourself un-confuggled. [:D]


brendan

Go with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. The price has dropped.


I have a 100 f2.0. I love it for portraites and have used it for sports, Basket ball, base ball and barrel racing.


Mark

From the choices you gave, I would suggest the 100mm f/2.8 Macro as well -- but only if you're planning to do available light and hand-held. If you're going to use flash or a tripod, get the cheaper non-IS macro, as the I.S. wont be much help.


I would also suggest considering a telephoto lens for wildlife -- like the 300mm suggested above or the 100-400.

i think i'll get one of the 100 macro's...just gonna wait to see how fast i can save up the money and hope i get a tax refund. i just wish that the price of the 100L was as cheep up here in canada......its 1250 here. quite a difference than south of the border. even with exchange, thats only a little over 1000 if i were buy online.......what gives?? why such a difference between canada and the states??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx0069

thats only a little over 1000 if i were buy online

---

Then add in shipping, and order from the US. Remember to add another 1-2% to the exchange rate to account for the credit card company doing the exchange. There is no duty on cameras and lenses (there is on filters, and possibly other things like flashes). Canon's warranty is US/Canada, so you shouldn't have warranty issues either.


edit: I've seen reports that B&H uses the wrong customs code for lenses, and you do get dinged for customs fees. No idea if B&H has fixed that, but with Adorama you'll have no issues.