Canon lens recommendations

J

jrf23

Messages
143
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, I'm sure this comes up a lot, but I need some advice. I currently have both kit lenses 18-55 and 55-250. I'm looking to upgrade and splash some cash on the glass now and in the next few months.

The first lens I want is the 100-400L which will replace the 55-250. Good plan?

Then, I want to replace the 18-55 but dont really know what with? I was looking at 17-85 or 28-135. Any good? This will be my 'all purpose' lens.

At some point (whenever the need arises) I'm looking to get a fifty, but which one do people suggest? I doubt i'll use it that much so is the 1.8 the way to go?

Finally, macro lens. This will get a lot of use, so I'm toying with the idea of the 100mm L but does it really add much over the 100mm? The IS will be helpful as I'm likely to want to just whip it out in a field somewhere but what else does the L offer me? Any example pics people have of these lenses would be appreciated!

Well, that's it for now. These are my musings but I'm very open to suggestions. I'm probably looking to get everything second hand to cut back the costs a little which may influence your advice.

Cheers all.
 
100-400 is good. Also consider 70-200mm variants if you don't strictly need 400mm for birds / motosport or something else.

Considering the cost of 100-400, the midrange should be more decent. 17-85 or 28-135 are barely OK. You may want 24-105mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L or 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or similar lens from Tokina or Tamron.

100mm on crop is very nice macro lens. If you plan to take macros, go get one. L is simply slightly sharper and has the IS. IF you are going to use it A LOT, get the L, otherwise get the normal one. 100mm can be also really nice for portraits, and events so IS can help there.

Perhaps get them one by one instead of all in one go. At least it will take more time till you want 300mm f/2.8 L IS.
 
Yeah, the 100-400 was going to be mainly for wildlife and birds, so I figured I needed the 400 end of things. Hopefully going on safari next year too so it'll play into my hands nicely!

I think the 24-70 f2.8 is more what I'm looking for in this department with. I envisage this lens being used in most situations where I'm not using the macro or zoom. Sounds like a good fit?

I think I'm sold on the L macro then! I thought I would be, but I was hoping to restrain myself...

I think my plan is to buy the 100-400 asap (well, at the end of the month). Then the macro and finally the other. At some point I'll pick up the fifty whenever the cash is good for me. It's only £60ish used.

Sounds like a good plan?

Thanks for your help!
 
If your happy to go 2nd hand, your'll save abit of money with your lens purchases. (happy with my canon 300mm) Firms to use with good reps are Ffordes, Camtech, Park Camera's, MPB, Mifsuds or Digital Depot, all have good a good selection of 2nd hand equipment.

As for upgrades. The 100-400mm is a very good lens, tad soft wide open at 400m and the push pull system takes some getting used to, but a good lens to have in your camera bag.

For your walkaround lens, I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or canon 17-55mm f2.8

The 24-70mm or 24-105mm lenses are more suited to Full Frame camera's (awaiting TP discussion :lol:)

As for a macro lens, the Tamron 90mm f2.8 is a gem, the canon 100mm and sigma 105mm ain't bad, depends on your budget. Another way, is buy you 50mm and use extension tubes from Kenko which is a cheaper option. Avoid the canon 180mm macro lens, over priced and not great.
 
James - having been in a similar position to you, I have ended up with the Canon 24-105L f/4 as a walkabout/general purpose lens, the 70-200L f/4 and the 100-400L

Whilst some might say that the 24-70 and 24-105 are better suited to FF cameras, they also work really really well on crop cameras (I've got a 7D and had a 450D before that). I think that this comment is mainly because 24mm isn't considered to be that wide on a crop (equiv to 38mm on FF). I bought a Tokina 12-24mm to overcome this, so not a problem for me.

TBH I probably take 80%+ of my photos with the 24-105L - really is a cracker of a lens. Very little difference in sharpness compared to the 24-70L but a fair bit more 'versatile' given the extra reach and the fact that it's lighter (cue TP discussion!)

As for a Macro lens, up to you really, but the non-L 100mm is supposed to be an absolute scorcher (going on what I've read only - I've never had one, use Kenko Extension Tubes with my 70-200 instead). As far as I'm concerned the IS on the L probably won't really come into play that much as you'll be more concerned around DOF and keeping the right things in focus, so a tripod really will be a must the vast majority of the time.
 
This thread has my first ever go with a proper macro lens.

I invested in the L as I always find invest once, invest right saves you money.

thread

It was windy, the light wasn't great and I did these all hand held..

Quite pleased :-)
 
pete.rush said:
If your happy to go 2nd hand.

The 100-400mm is a very good lens, tad soft wide open at 400m.

For your walkaround lens, I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or canon 17-55mm f2.8

The 24-70mm or 24-105mm lenses are more suited to Full Frame camera's (awaiting TP discussion :lol:)
Click to expand...

I more than likely will go second hand from somewhere. The difference on the 100-400 is about £300, so worth the saving! I figured it would be, but nothing will compare to a prime lens! :P

The 17-55 is not a bad shout but it leaves a good gap in my ranges. I do like the 24-105 though...

dentedshed said:
Great plan especially if you sell me the 55-250mm :)
Click to expand...

It will 'probably' be for sale towards the end of the month. I'll pm you and give you first dibs if you'd want it around then?

danski said:
James - having been in a similar position to you, I have ended up with the Canon 24-105L f/4 as a walkabout/general purpose lens, the 70-200L f/4 and the 100-400L

Whilst some might say that the 24-105 is better suited to FF cameras, they also work really really well on crop cameras (I've got a 7D and had a 450D before that). I think that this comment is mainly because 24mm isn't considered to be that wide on a crop (equiv to 38mm on FF). I bought a Tokina 12-24mm to overcome this, so not a problem for me.
Click to expand...

I don't really fancy buying another lens to fill the wide end gap which does give me some concern about starting at 24 on a 450D. I will upgrade the body in the future, but I doubt it'll be any time soon! Roughly speaking, 17mm is considered as the equivalent to eye sight right?

mipevo6 said:
This thread has my first ever go with a proper macro lens.
Click to expand...

They look really nice for a first attempt. How easy is it to shoot handheld? I feel the majority of my macro shooting will be very off the cuff and I doubt I'll have a tripod with me all the time. This is the main reason why the L is appealing to me! Plus, I am much of the same disposition as you. Buy the best and it'll last you.
 
For a general walkabout lens I'd definitely recommend the 28-135mm IS USM lens.

It's very sharp and an all round great lens.

You might even be able to get it on here S/H as I did - in which case it's a great bargain as well!

.
 
I was in the same predicament as you. I have a 17-85 and 70-300 kit lenses. I decided to upgrade and went for the 100-400 L for motorsport stuff and Ive just got the 24-70 L 2.8 for gig/low light and walkround stuff.
Ive decided to sell the 17-85 but keep the 70-300 as the 100-400 is a big lens to drag around if I need a zoom lens for general stuff.

Ice also got a lovely MK1 50mm 1.8 which get lots of use.

All of these are used on a 50D (small sensor).

Simon
 
Yeah, the 100-400 is a bit of a beast! Hoping to get my hands on one this weekend to have a bit of a play and see what it's like! I don't think I'll have a need for the 55-250 when I get it though.

Then just need to see where I go from there! The fifty might be pretty high on my list!

I think the 24-105 is tickling my fancy the most!
 
James - you really won't regret buying the 24-105. I only really use my Tokina 12-24 for landscape shots and even then I often take the 'same' shot again with the 24-105.

If I'm brutally honest with myself, 24mm isn't really that wide on my 7D, but I find it works for 90+% of the wide shots I want - Tokina gets little use in reality.

jrf23 said:
Yeah, the 100-400 is a bit of a beast! Hoping to get my hands on one this weekend to have a bit of a play and see what it's like! I don't think I'll have a need for the 55-250 when I get it though.

Then just need to see where I go from there! The fifty might be pretty high on my list!

I think the 24-105 is tickling my fancy the most!
Click to expand...
 
Well, went and had a little play today with the lenses (well, the macro and 100-400 at least). The 100-400 was as i expected to be honest, big, but functional. The macro on the other hand! WOW! That blew me away! I was tempted to buy it there and then! Definitely going to get it ordered ASAP!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top