i use an EF70-700f2.8IS ,EF70-200f4 IS, the 100-400f4.5-5.6IS USM, EF 28-300f3.5-5.6IS USM,EF-S17-55f2.8 Is USM, an EF-S17-85f4-5.6 IS USM and the EF-S10-22f3.5-4.5USM... i like and use all of them the two best being the EF-S17-55 and theEF 70-200f4.0 for IQ and walk about lenses,, the others for specifics needs
omg wow thats alot of money and lenses lol why do you need both f/4s and both 2.8s?? would the is just be good for everything why do you need the non is onses then lol jw
I've considered getting an f/4 version of the 70-200, for the sake of less mass when you don't need the speed. There's just that money thing.
For telephoto use I use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 400 f/5.6. The 300 f/4 IS looked really attractive, but I figured that between 200-400, I'd just either use the crop camera or crop the image. Having a 300 f/4 IS would be nice, but again, that money thing...
I really like the 180 f/3.5 macro. It's telephoto, though it's main use is for... Macro... It does take some excellent pictures used simply as a 180mm lens, but so would some other lenses that would be faster for the money spent.
I don't know if the 85 f/1.2is considered telephoto, but aside from having to be relatively far away to get the thing to focus (like I can't take a picture of somebody sitting even close to next to me), I REALLY love that lens, particularly for indoor or other low light use.
The 24-105 f/4 may also qualify as getting into telephoto range. I was originally considering the 24-70 f/2.8over the 24-105 f/4 (yeah, again, I'd like both, but money...) However, with the IS included, it actually makes the 24-105 more handholdable in low light. The only thing it can't do over the 24-70 f/2.8 is stop motion and narrow the depth of field. However, if I want to do that, I'm better served with the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, or the 85 f/1.2. If I need to go wider, the 16-35 f/2.8 can handle that.
I sometimes use the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders, but only with the 180 f/3.5 or 400 f/5.6 when I'm simply out of options. With a lens that is just really clean to start with, the results aren't THAT atrocious, and they do get you closer. But, it always makes me wonder what would have been possible with native glass. I originally got the extenders for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but the results were poor, to put it nicely.
On the wish list, aside from an eventual 5D II, is the a 100-400 4.X-5.6 IS, and possibly a 135 f/2.0, and the '60mm' whacky 1x-5x macro look like a lot of fun, but entirely useless when not delving near the microscopic. 300 f/4 IS would be way cool too. But all of that is WAY down the pipeline. Things like a 300 f/2.8 IS, or an 800 f/5.6, are just about in the range of never. Right now what i've got serves what I want to do well enough. When I actually start paying some bills directly with this stuff, I can have that conversation in my head.
Originally Posted by mark
Wow... I guess this is the lens of our dreams. Where did you get it? We all want a copy of this lens too! ... just kidding of course [:P]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote