Next lens purchase suggestion.....

[piiooo]

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.[]

[sirhc_1]

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 & purchase a 135 F2 L (for its legendary sharpness) or the 100mm macro L IS (I can use it for portraiture, macro photography, & 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![]

[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).

[Mark Elberson]

Posts 1,000

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

[sirhc_1]

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?

[Mark Elberson]

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.

[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?

[Brendan7]

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