Lens Help/Advice

[Zrabud]

I am relatively new to DSLR photography. I absolutely love it! I have a Canon 60D, with the 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 lens. I am very happy with this lens, but wanted to start saving and planning for my next lens. I particularly enjoy macro photography, but also hope to get into more nature (wildlife, landscape) and possibly some sports photography as well.

I know that I want my next lens to be an EF lens, hopefully an L series. I am considering several lenses right now, but wanted to get some opinions from other photographers with more experience.

First, I am debating between the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II vs the version I. Is their really enough difference to justify the $500 price difference? I think the f/2.8 will be nice for shooting in a darker environment, but is it really necessary over the f/4 70-200?

I have also been considering the 100-400L lens. It seems like it would be very convenient, but I have heard that it has some issues with image quality. What do you think?

As far as macro goes, I was looking at the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM. I have read this is an excellent lens. Is there reason to look into the 180 mm macro? I have also read that the difference from the other 100mm macro lens might not be worth the $600.

Please let me know what your recommendation would be, as I will only aim for one lens at a time. Also, if you have any other suggestions that I did not list, please feel free to post them here. Thank you very much!

[ashish]

Hi Don,

Referring to your query on the 70-200, please have a look at the following thread Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II USM v/s Canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM

I think the above link should help you decide.

Cheers,
Ashish

[Geoff F]

We really need a bit more information, Don.

What type of macro? For flowers and other static objects which aren't going to fly away as soon as you approach, a 100 mm lens would be fine. However, for smaller nervous insects I would recommend at least 150 mm.

The Sigma 150 mm is favoured by many insect enthusiasts. I use the Sigma 180 macro and sometimes attach a 1.4x converter. But once you get to this size/weight we are talking about tripod only use.

I'm not saying that Sigma is better than genuine Canon equipment but, depending on the lens, there isn't a lot of difference, except the price.

And once again, what wildlife creatures are you hoping to shoot? Obviously a humming bird in the wild would require a different lens to an elephant in the zoo.

That 100-400 lens is certainly popular amongst many wildlife photographers for a general purpose lens, although some say that the 'push/pull' action takes a bit of use before they feel comfortable with it.

A lot of bird specialists, however, tend to prefer a 400 mm prime and often attach a converter as well.

Again, I choose Sigma, with the 150-500 OS lens which works well in good light and is a little bit cheaper.

Those 70-200 Canon lenses are excellent quality for a general purpose mid length zoom but I think you may find them a bit short for most wildlife work. Because I don't do a lot of low light level work, at least not within that size range, I went for the F4 IS version.

[koolkat]

I also share your desire for a quality lens at a price I can afford. The Canon "L" series are just what you would espect from Canon, quality and good engineering design. I also shoot with a Tamron 18x270 and it has great reach and is nice to carry around. I also have the 28x135 Canon lens. I shoot a lot of wildlife, mainly at our local zoo and some wetlands in the area. For zoo work, the 18x270 is nice but for open fields like some of our wetlands area, a longer reach is really nice. I've rented 300mm / 400mm and the 100x400mm Canon lens to check them out. Believe me, once you've tried that quality, its hard to consider anything else. Suggest you try renting from a number on OnLine renters and see what you like.