Don't Know what to get.

Spavo

Spavo

Messages
52
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
I've not long started with photography. And enjoy just taking Photo's at this moment in time I have settled on anything particular, I've enjoyed taking photos of Insects mainly butterflies, and a few attempts at dragonflies etc. I've also attempted taking Photo's of birds and seemed to have failed as my 300mm lens just isn't up to the job. I aslo feel that I want to get better results from and so looking at upgrading lenses or Camera.

My dilemma is I've a bit of money coming to me and I'm not sure what to do best I'm considering the following

Sigma 150-500m F5-6.3

Canon 100mm F2.8L Macro

I understand that they are two completely different lenses but I'm really not sure which one to get. or is a third option of getting a new camera a 70D etc.

I'm also of to Russia in late September and assume I would be taking a lot of pictures of buildings, would I be better of looking a completely different lens entirely which would cover the above. I'm really confused and haven't got a clue what to do next.

Any advise would be great fully received
 
Pretty good advice by Dan :) If you rush into buying something you're not definitely sure about, chances are it's not right and you'll end up wanting something else...

You don't say what your 300 mm lens is (70-300, 300 prime etc)

Another possible option is to upgrade this lens to a better quality one - e.g. the 70-200F4, the 70-300L for a few possibilities.
 
It's is a canon 70 - 300mm the standard kit lens I got with the camera.
 
The 70-200F4 is approx £100-150 more and is a belter gf a lens and one I would certainly think about, then you have the 70-300L which is approx twice the price, but gets very good reviews.

Incidentally, the 70-200F4 takes the Canon 1.4TC well...

The Canon 100mm Macro lens is a good lens, but I wouldn't say it's really a replacement for your 70-300

Hope it's of some help
 
andyred said:
The 70-200F4 is approx £100-150 more and is a belter gf a lens and one I would certainly think about, then you have the 70-300L which is approx twice the price, but gets very good reviews.

Incidentally, the 70-200F4 takes the Canon 1.4TC well...

The Canon 100mm Macro lens is a good lens, but I wouldn't say it's really a replacement for your 70-300

Hope it's of some help
Click to expand...

replacement or not - the 100mm macro is an amazing all-round short tele. I only wish it was f/2 or f/1.8 to stop me wanting the 135/2 or 85/1.4
 
Hi Phil, I've got both of the lenses you've listed and they are both excellent, but in real opposite ends of the focal spectrum. If you are interested in macro shots you could get a set of extension tubes that will go with your 50 f1.8 to start with and will leave you able to buy the 150-500. There really isn't an alternative the other way around though, you can add a converter to your 300 but the IQ and AF speed will probably take more than an acceptable hit specially if you already think your 300 isn't really up to the mark now. Have a sit down and a long think of which way you really want to go before parting with your cash. The 150-500 has been my main lens for my wildlife and aviation shots for the past two years and is an excellent lens, the 100mm f2.8L macro is a lens that constantly amazes me with the details it can produce in macro shots and it also doubles as a great mid-long length portrait lens as well.

As for the Russia trip, maybe changing your 18-55 kit lens for something like a Tamron 17-50 (VC or non VC) or a Sigma 17-50, which are both a f2.8 constant aperture and both are sharp, would give you a great all round lens that wont break the bank. If I had a crop body only I'd certainly be looking into one of them for low light shooting but I have a full frame body as well so I only get EF lenses instead of limiting my kit with EF-S lenses too, and that's financially limiting rather than photographically limiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top