Printable View
What three lenses
- macro
- telephoto zoom (top end 300-400mm)
- general purpose
are the best for a 1.6x crop sensor within a budget of +- $200, $3000? Which three lenses offer the best in my budget for IQ, contrast and speed (hopefully IS - but does it make so much difference to the finished image?). L and non L lenses considered.
Many thanks,
Joe
Joe,
I'll take a quick stab at this though for most of these lenses I'm only going by reviews and what has been said on this forum.
I'll start by saying that everyone seems to agree that the 70-200L IS f/2.8 II is one of the best IQ lenses available. Unfortunately, that's in a really bad spot in your lineup - and $2k of your $3k budget. Add the 1.4x or 2x teleconverter (+$450)to get the max telephoto you're looking for (and even the 2x will AF on any body).
Add the EF-S 60mm macro ($400) and you're right at $2850. The EF-S 17-85 IS is a good all general purpose lens ($475). You're now right at your limit.
The weakness in my lineup is at the short end. Keep in mind that I shoot mostly outdoors and sports so I'd lean that way. If you feel you're more of a landscape guy then maybe cut back on the 70-200 and choose a 70-300 instead and spend more for the ef-s 17-55.
Good luck!
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS $1,438 @ B&H
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS $1,000 @ B&H w/ $120 Rebate
EF 100mm f/2.8 macro $ 499 @ B&H w/ $60 Rebate
TOTAL $2,938
If you can go a little higher on your spending tolerance, then I would replace the macro above with an EF 100mm f/2.8L Macrro IS at B&H w/ $110 rebate for a total of $3,325.
Pat
would probably be able to reach $3,300 give or take...
So, this is sort of a "let's sum up all my questions in one post" thread? ;)
In my opinion you cannot get the best of all three lens types within your budget. So I will offer suggestions as to the best type for each category, and then suggest some possible places to compromise and meet your budget.
IMO, the best general-purpose zoom lens for APS-C is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's the right focal range, and has optical quality equivalent to L-series lenses.
The best telephoto zoom lens out to 300mm or 400mm depends on whether or not you actually need that extra 100mm. If you do, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is the best choice; if you don't, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS is the way to go.
For a macro lens, the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is a great choice. Excellent for macro, good for portraits, too.
All three of those come to a bit over $3200/3300 with current prices (which include rebates on all three lenses).
I'd suggest two possibilities to cut the cost down into your budget.
1) EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro instead of 100L. No IS, but it doesn't help all that much at 1:1 anyway - a tripod is almost a must for sufficient DoF. $500 less.
2) EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS instead of 17-55mm. A reasonable choice if you'll be using it mostly outdoors and not for portraits.
Of the two options, I'd opt for the 60mm macro substitution, personally.
Hope that helps!
John
You asked a priority question, and everyones priority is different.
The best macro with the best IQ and bokeh, the 180mm F/3.5L would be my first choice if macro was the most important thing, second choice the best all around macro the 100mm F/2.8L IS macro and it can do other things very well to.
The 100-400mm for the reach, second choice would be the 70-300mm.
Since there isn't much money left I would just use the kit lens.....
But....personally this is what I would do if only had this much to spend. I would buy the 70-200mm F2.8L II, with it you have the best of the best when it comes to zooms. I would have to debate with myself long and hard, either try and make the stretch and get the 24mm F/1.4L II or one of the macro lenses. I would probably go with the 24mm F1.4L II, then I have most of my ranges covered with very, very good glass and wouldn't have to use a cheap lens to cover the wide end.
My two cents worth is,
EF-S 17-55mm
70-300mm L
100mm L macro good portrait lens as well.
With this you will have a reasonably lightweight, hiogh IQ, very portable kit, the only thing you would have to add to that would be a fast prime like the 50mmf/1.4 at some stage.
Good luck with your decisions.
(using B+H prices, all of them are priced "with instant-savings" until Feb 4, )
Best of the Wide/standard zooms: 17-55 f/2.8 $1000
second-place, 15-85 $660
Best of 100mm macro: USM L $970 (imported version, or $885 for USA-version with instant rebate but out of stock)
second-place USM non-L $500
180mm: $1330
EFs 60mm: $385
MP-E 65: $885
Longest zoom: 100-400mm L: $1440
second-longest 70-300mm L: $1350
honourable mention: 70-200 f/4L IS: $1130 (but is that long enough?)
70-200 f/2.8 L IS: $2070 + 2x Teleconverter: $475, will get you to 400mm f/5.6, and it may serve you ok for macro too, but you've pretty much blown your whole budget by then...
So add up the 17-55, 100-400, 100 L IS macro, and you get $3400 plus shipping.
Substitute the 17-55 for the 15-85 gives you $3050.
Or sub the 100-400 for the 70-300 and you're at $3300
Or take out the 100 L IS for the 100 USM non-L makes $2930, for serious macro the MP-E 65mm will give you $3300 total
So you can get 2 lenses in 'best of' (depending on need, of course) and 1 in 'second-best' category.
But 'best of' depends on what you want.
The 15-85mm is 'better' than the 17-55 for focal-length range, that extra 2mm on the wide end makes a big difference, and if you've got a decent flash you won't notice the slow-aperture indoors as much as using natural-light.
Or the 70-300L is lighter and more compact than the 100-400 and has arguably slightly better IQ, it's just 100mm shorter.
And the 100mm USM non-L macro has better IQ than the L in places, but you have to use it wide-open (so near-0 DOF) for handheld macro, the Hybrid IS of the L makes a lot of difference with the smaller apertures you need to get any DOF at all at 1:1 macro.
Well, I own the EFS 15-85, 100-400L, and 100L macro. That would run just over $3k.
It does get down to preferences and what you are planning to shoot. Generally if you are all about people I'd get the 17-55, 70-200 f/4 IS (f/2.8 if you can afford it) and 100 L macro. If you want more general purpose, I'd start considering the 17-55 or 15-85 and 70-300L. If you plan to shoot outdoors and wildlife/birds, I'd be thinking of the 15-85 and 100-400L.
But, all these lenses are great and you'll likely be very happy with any combination.
$3,325 and shipping is free in the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
Yeah, with the out-of-stock USA rebated one, i think I added them all up counting the imported but in-stock non-rebated one...Quote:
Originally Posted by conropl
Thanks a lot for all the help everyone - i really appreaciate it!!!:)
If you want to cut the budget on one of the lenses, consider the Tamron 17-50, 2.8 nonIS. No IS, and the autofocus is slower and hunts a bit in low-light conditions (not a big issue in landscape photography), but optically equal to the Canon (in some reviews it scores better, in some the Canon wins, I think it evens out).
Also, the Tamron 90mm macro has gotten very good reviews, and has often been rewarded best buy due to its high quality and low price. Optically probably not as good as the Canon 2.8 L, but better than most other similar macros. And the price is one third of the Canon 2.8 L (at least in Norway). The slow autofocus can be an issue if you are trying to shoot BIF (bugs in flight), but it could be a nice introduction to macro photography (and portrait too).
Just my thoughts for saving some money to be able to afford the lens of your life.
Lars
If you're looking to save a few dollars and like primes, you might consider the sigma 30 f1.4 as your "general purpose" lens. It's obviously not a wide lens on a crop body, but otherwise it's very versatile. It's currently my general purpose lens.
Otherwise, I think the 70-300L, 100L macro and efs 17-55 make the best combo. I have the 70-300L and 100L. Both are spectacular.