Next lens purchase suggestion.....

[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

[Colin]

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.