Two Lens EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I plan on a purchase of these two lens in the next month. I want to be able to photograph in both worlds, but cost is a factor. I use a C T2i. Am I way off on this? Should I hold out or just purchase one better lens. As I said I would like to dabble in both worlds.

Bob

I don't see any conflict on the 2 lens. One is a macro that you can definitely use for portraiture shots and one zoom for sports and nature photography. If you're not really much into Macro shots, I'd say buy the 70-300mm first. Good luck. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jiro

I don't see any conflict on the 2 lens. One is a macro that you can definitely use for portraiture shots and one zoom for sports and nature photography. If you're not really much into Macro shots, I'd say buy the 70-300mm first. Good luck. :)

---

But jiro, my wife just put a down on a new pup, a Chocolate Labradoodle, the deal was I get two lens, :) I'm getting both those above so far, unless I find I'm making the wrong decision.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpiderBob

But jiro, my wife just put a down on a new pup, a Chocolate Labradoodle, the deal was I get two lens, :) I'm getting both those above so far, unless I find I'm making the wrong decision.:D

---

In that case, you got a pretty good deal! :D

They are both good mid price lenses, Bob. Obviously the 70-300 is not quite in the 'L' lens range but is at least half the price and takes a reasonable photo.

The only other item that I would question is whether these are your best choices or 'budget inspired' substitutes.

You don't say exactly what you wish to photograph which may have a bearing on the best choice. For example, the 70-300 is a good general use longish lens but I would consider it to be a bit small for some bird photography.

The same goes for the macro lens. It is excellent for flowers or anything else where you can get really close but for small live insects 'in the field' which are likely to fly or scurry away as you approach, I would advise a 150 mm lens instead. A little bit more expensive but it will at least double your success rate with those nervous little critters.

Hi Bob,

Better 70-300 IS USM and a set of extension tubes for macro :)

Leo

Bob,

I know all I'm going to do here is muddy the waters further, but...

First, I'm a little confused by what you mean by wanting to shoot "both worlds". Also, we might be able to provide more detailed advice is we knew what lenses you had already (ie: could potentially suggest a combination that works better with what you already have). Also, some budget numbers are nice too - for example, you say you're interested in the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM ($599), but if budget allows, I'd recommend the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM ($1050).

Additionally, if there are budget constraints, you could look into 3rd party lenses - Sigma, Tamron, Tokina (generally I personally consider them in that order) - which will give competitive (though almost always lower quality) lenses at usually up to half the price! Like I said, this definitely muddies the water, but just trying to show all the options.

Everything everyone has said up to this point is very valid too, but the bottom line is more detail about what you want to shoot is very helpful.

- Bill

Another "muddy the waters" thought... why not a 70-200 2.8 L USM plus a 1.4x converter more reach and you can use the 70-200 for macro shots.

David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidGee

Another "muddy the waters" thought... why not a 70-200 2.8 L USM plus a 1.4x converter more reach and you can use the 70-200 for macro shots.

---

An option. Although you can maybe get in close, the 70-200 isn't a true macro that's let's you get up close and personal with all those little creepy, crawly things!

Whoa... a 70-200 2.8 L? That's a huge jump in the budget for sure. If only buying these things was as easy as typing the suggestions to buy them... :)

Additionally, a 200mm with a 1.4x teleconverter is not more reach than a 300mm (200 x 1.4 = 280).

Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely take a 70-200 2.8 L over a 70-300 4-5.6 any day of the week!

- Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoLeo

Hi Bob,

Better 70-300 IS USM and a set of extension tubes for macro :)

Leo

---

I have used this option quite successfully; but from my experience just a 25 mm tube is sufficient.

The downside is that you do lose a bit of light; although flash and ISO increase can overcome this restriction.

However, this is really just an acceptable alternative and isn't quite as good as a 'proper' macro lens if you take a lot of macro under difficult conditions.

Currently, I use a Sigma 180 mm macro lens which is excellent but a bit cumbersome and rather expensive. The Sigma 150 is very popular amongst amateur entomologists and as Bill said, the best of the third party lenses are perfectly acceptable and a bit cheaper.

But on this site, we really do enjoy spending other people's money; so get the best that you can afford even if it means saving up for a few extra weeks before purchase.

OK, I try to answer, "both worlds" I like to shoot macro, I shoot primarily "clock works" the inner workings of antique clocks. That entails on the average a 2" DOF and that would be from plate to plate. On the other side of that I like to shoot lizards and snakes, bees, flowers, but not necessarily small insects (yet). on the far end I like to shoot landscapes and buildings. Is there a lens in the 1500 dollar range for both "worlds" (my world that is) not really. So I was trying to divide my pleasure up with a budget of tops, 2000. Perhaps after reading all the replays (thank you very much) I should go to a better quality lens and stay within my budget and just forget for now, the macro. I can use with a lot of success my existing lens 18-55mm with a magnifying lens in front of that for the clock shooting, it actually works quite well.

Geoff, your concept interests me a lot.

Ok - here goes...

For the macro portion, you actually have the entire basis covered there. I can just about recommend any macro lens and make it fit one of those pieces. Canon's EF-S 60mm macro would work nicely for the clockwork macro where you can get right in on top of the subject (I assume) without spooking it. But if you're looking to shoot lizards, snakes, and bugs, you'll want a longer telephoto, so something in the range of 150-180 lets you get the magnification without having to get too close. The compromise? As you already pointed out is the 100mm macro. Plenty of people love the 100mm f/2.8 USM, but if you can afford it right now, I'd bump up to the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM. You'll definitely appreciate the IS when working on those macro shots with that magnification if you ever shoot handheld. And remember, there is no true substitute for a true 1:1 macro lens. Extension tubes will approximate it in some situations, but at a cost - not only of light, but of the ability to focus to infinity (and sometimes much closer depending on the length of tubes used).

The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM will certainly work nice for keeping a bit more distance from those lizards and snakes. It is definitely a capable lens, and having the IS there is almost necessary at the 300mm end if you're planning on shooting hand held.

At $1050 (100mm F2.8L IS) and $550 (70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM), you're still in that $1500-$2000 range, and it certainly leaves room to pick up a set of extension tubes $175 (tops) or a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter ($300-$500, with cheaper options available, but I'd stick with Canon brand on this one... I bought a Kenko one and regret it, probably will sell it and get the Canon eventually).

As for the landscape work, you'll probably find you'll want that 18-55mm most times. The wider end at 18mm is going to allow you to capture much more of the scene (assuming you're on an APS-C sensor that has a 1.6x crop factor, that's actually a 28.8mm on the low end... meaning that 70mm is actually 112mm which is a bit long for a lot of landscape work). But coupled with those two lenses you have listed, I think you'd have a pretty decent kit pulled together.

There are plenty of arguments to go with plenty of other lenses (70-200 f/2.8 or even f/4, or something longer like a 100-400 or 150-500, or a more dedicated wide-angle like 10-22mm, the list is pretty much endless!), but that all changes your budget situation. To hit that budget, I think you've got a good lens selection in mind!

See - Geoff was right... we certainly like spending other people's money on this site!

Let us know what you pick!

- Bill

I thank you very much for your impute I have about two weeks to really make that decision, and with the additional info you gave me, I'm going to look for prices now. I say two weeks as I have a mandatory withdrawal from my annuity I had to take and am just waiting for the cash. My wife got her pup, and I'm getting my lens. I got the better end of the deal. :)

I will change the 100mm USM to a 100mm F2.8L IS, that is a given, and I will probably stay with the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, it's now about finding the best deals.

Again,
Thank you

And time to play devil's advocate...

Bob, you do realize that the total cost of ownership for a dog is way more than $2000, right? ;)

HAHAH! Just kidding, I don't want to be responsible for any marital strife! Besides, you'll get some enjoyment from the dog too, I'm sure. Even if only as a subject/model! Except for nose prints on the lens. :)

Glad we could help. I'm sure the lenses will work out great for you. Happy shooting!

- Bill

Oh yes, how well I know:D, I have the yard duty, this is an addition, oh boy,:rolleyes: great dogs for sure.

Again, thank you all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpiderBob

I thank you very much for your impute I have about two weeks to really make that decision, and with the additional info you gave me, I'm going to look for prices now. I say two weeks as I have a mandatory withdrawal from my annuity I had to take and am just waiting for the cash. My wife got her pup, and I'm getting my lens. I got the better end of the deal. :)

I will change the 100mm USM to a 100mm F2.8L IS, that is a given, and I will probably stay with the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, it's now about finding the best deals.

Again,
Thank you

---

Bob,
I have the 70-300 and it works well, in my opinion. (see below a picture @300mm f/5.6)
Just want to underline the performance of this other lens: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD it could be an option for you. see
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/59...0f456vceosapsc

good shopping!
:)
http://i56.tinypic.com/i5oos1.jpg

thank you, I will consider it of course. I assume the picture you are showing is from the Canon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpiderBob

thank you, I will consider it of course. I assume the picture you are showing is from the Canon?

---

yes :)
Canon lens...
sorry...

If you're considering a longer lens. I just put up for sale yesterday an EF 100-400mm F4/5.6 L IS. I have had it for only 6 months. Let me know if you're interested.