Next lens purchase suggestion.....

Hi everyone!


I need an advice on my next lens purchase. Based on my profile/bio, i am planning to sell my 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS. Now that being said, I'm gonna lose the longer end of my gear which is from 85mm-200mm. I have made a different posts which concerns more on macro photography. But this time it will be more of a versatility/functionality v.s. IQ & OOF characteristics. Please see below choices:


> Canon 135 f2 L


>Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS


>Canon 100mm macro


>Canon 100mm macro L IS


>Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro


>Canon EF-S 60mm macro





Please help me out. It's (70-200mm 2.8L) going to be sold tomorrow. I might reconsider saving up for macro but I need something to fill up the longer end of my gear.


Thanks in advance to bburns223, neuroanatomist, Oren, Whatsreal, Chuck Lee, & Rob Gardner for the advises on macro lens decision-making!





All suggestions are highly welcomed!





Thanks in advance.....

For portraits and indoor sports, nothing beats the 135 f/2L. I don't really know if that's what you're into, though. Since half of your lens picks are macros, I will say that if you are buying a dedicated macro lens the Sigma 150 and 180 are IMO two of the best lenses Sigma, or anyone, makes. I could be wrong on this, but AF on those two lenses isn't all that fast, and if you plan to use your macro lens for other uses the 100 f2.8L IS would make sense. For just a general-purpose, jack-of-all-trades, the 70-200 f/4L IS looks like a good choice.


brendan

Why in the world would you consider selling your 70-200 f/2.8 L in order to purchase a 70-200 f/4 L IS? Are you wanting your new lens to be dedicated to macro photography, or are you wanting a general purpose lens? What are you wanting to shoot? Is your camera a crop-sensor or full frame?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Why in the world would you consider selling your 70-200 f/2.8 L in order to purchase a 70-200 f/4 L IS? Are you wanting your new lens to be dedicated to macro photography, or are you wanting a general purpose lens? What are you wanting to shoot? Is your camera a crop-sensor or full frame?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

He has an EF-S lens as an option, so I imagine he has a crop sensor.

I am going to assume that you have good reasons for selling your 70-200/2.8. I think you are going to miss the fast zoom. I would suggest another 70-200/4, either IS or non. if you go with non then you can probably get a dedicated macro lens right away. When I made the decision on a dedicated macro lens I went with the Sigma 150 because I get extra working distance from bugs' stingers without sacrificing speed if I need it (I don't have a flash for macro yet, so I am needing the speed at times.)


If you love macro work nothing beats a high quality dedicated macro lens. the Sigma 150 and both of the Canon 100mm are good buys for their money.


Sorry that is kinda ambiguous.


dan

Why don't you keep that 70-200 2.8 and get a 77mm Canon 500D close up lens, that screws on the zoom like a filter? They go for about $150. The advantageis that you would get a macro lens with variable minimal focusing distance. As you see there are different macro lenses with different focal lengths (and MFDs) and by keeping your zoom and buying the close up lens you would have it all. The disadvantage would be slightly decreased periferal sharpness, which, by the way, is not that bad on a good quality lens that you have,plus, this phenomenonis not necessaryan issue in macro photography. There are many happy reviews of this close up lens, especially coming from 70-200 2.8 users of both Canon and Nikon kits. If you find this lens not being satisfactory and once you establish your favourite focal length you can move on to a dedicated macro lens.


The reason why I am writing all that is my own experience with macro. I started with the Canon's original 100 2.8 and I loved it for many reasons but I found it to be too short to photograph certain bugs, they would simply escape when I got closer to them, especially with the hood on. I tried my brother's Sigma 150 2.8 and loved it aswell but it was still not long enoughfor some little critters. I wound up selling the 100 and buying Sigma 180mm 3.5 (Canon's 180Lwas just too pricey) andfound that it works forwhatI photograph. I occasionally use it with Sigma's 1.4 teleconverter with very goodresults.


My 2 pennies... And good luck with whatever you will wind up buying.[:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TucsonTRD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Why in the world would you consider selling your 70-200 f/2.8 L in order to purchase a 70-200 f/4 L IS? Are you wanting your new lens to be dedicated to macro photography, or are you wanting a general purpose lens? What are you wanting to shoot? Is your camera a crop-sensor or full frame?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

He has an EF-S lens as an option, so I imagine he has a crop sensor.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Good point. ;-)

100-400L which is very useful for me since 70-200 2.8 IS was too short.

Great advices piiooo!


But something's still holding me back from selling my 70-200mm and I do have a very short period to make the final decision as someone has contacted me to have the lens inspected, personally, tomorrow afternoon. My decisions are playing around as to sell the lens &amp; purchase a 135 F2 L (for its legendary sharpness) or the 100mm macro L IS (I can use it for portraiture, macro photography, &amp; other general usage as I already have a 24-70 F2.8 L). Are either the lenses worth it if I get to sell the 70-200mm 2.8L?





Edit:


My body is a Canon 40D.....


Thanks again to those eye-openers you have provided above! You know who you are guys![;)]

Is the 24-70 f/2.8 L better than the 70-200mm f/2.8 L? I don't think it is. However, the 24-70 is probably a much more useful focal range (especially when paired with a crop-sensor camera). The 24-70 is a workhorse for many, many photographers (it's not necessarily fun or glamorous to use, but it gets the job done). Personally, I wouldn't sell the highly regarded 70-200 f/2.8 (with its great image quality and versatility) and replace it with a prime that's within 70-200's focal range (no matter how good the IQ was).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Posts 1,000

---

Congratulations Sean! You just hit 1,000 Posts!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Is the 24-70 f/2.8 L better than the 70-200mm f/2.8 L? I don't think it is. However, the 24-70 is probably a much more useful focal range (especially when paired with a crop-sensor camera). The 24-70 is a workhorse for many, many photographers (it's not necessarily fun or glamorous to use, but it gets the job done). Personally, I wouldn't sell the highly regarded 70-200 f/2.8 (with its great image quality and versatility) and replace it with a prime that's within 70-200's focal range (no matter how good the IQ was).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Congratulations Sean! 1,000 posts &amp; more to come!





BTW, you are probably right! I just love the WHITE color of that zoom lens! I think there's a little difference when it comes to IQ this lens delivers compared to the 135 F2 L. The IQ is close to that of the prime based on the reviews &amp; MTF charts. I might try &amp; give a shot at the Canon 500D &amp; 70-200mm set up for starting up with macro photography. Is there a big difference with the F2 &amp; F2.8 light gathering ability? Do you have sample photos, both portraiture &amp; macro, taken with a 100mm macro L IS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhc_1

Is there a big difference with the F2 &amp; F2.8 light gathering ability?

---

f/2 is one stop faster than f/2.8 which means itwill gather twice as much light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhc_1

Is there a big difference with the F2 &amp; F2.8 light gathering ability?

---

f/2 is one stop faster than f/2.8 which means itwill gather twice as much light.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Based on my gear profile, I rather keep the 70-200mm 2.8 L non-IS than trading it with a 135 F/2 L since I do have an 85mm 1.8 for low light &amp; has an equivalent FOV similar to a 136mm lens on a full frame. So, which one to chose for my 1.6 crop camera? the EF-S 60mm, EF 100mm macro L IS, or Sigma 150mm macro?

Since you have the 85mm for portraits, get the Sigma 150mm macro. Also of interest might be the Sigma 180mm f/3.5, which is just as good as Canon's own 180mm but for half the cost. Check out Juza's review:


http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_180mm_macro_review.htm


brendan

I guess it's entirely a question of what he's hoping to gain.


I wouldn't trade my 70-200 for any of those options listed. In fact, I think aside from the 24-70, it'd be the last thing to go. In the context that he's going to be missing a good chunk of focal length range, to replace it with a prime, particularly considering that under 200mm, subject movement can change the picture size significantly, I just wouldn't do it.


I've got the 135 f2, and it'sa great lens, superb actually, and the image quality is fantastic, but it's still short enough that if things are moving toward or away from you, it changes the framing enough that you'll need to move with them, and if you've got people or objects in your way, you're screwed. It's also long enough that you can't change the framing significantly without at least a few steps, as opposed to the under 50mm range.


I've used my macro lens for general purpose pictures too, and it's worked well, but the versatility and of a zoom can't be discounted.


Personally, I like the suggestion of the close up lens, or simply adding the EF-S 60mm as finances allow. Any other way you're giving up far more than you're getting.