Lens for 1400$

[john_b4]

Budget: 1400$

 

Current Canon Body : Ti

 

Current Lens : Canon 50mm f1.8 Mark II

 

Areas of interest: Candid portraits, Macro, Widelife (not in safari,

but in zoo and for birds)

 

 

Planning to buy any of these Lens :

 

 

Telephoto range

 

----------------

 

1) Canon 70-200 f4L (4.1 rating from photodo.com)

 

2) Bigma

 

3) Canon 100-400 L

 

5) 75-300mm (i know it is not a good choice in this list).Still

considering it.

 

 

Primes

 

------

 

1) Canon 50mm f1.8 Mark I/ Canon 50mm f1.4 (4.2/4.4)

 

2) Canon 200mm f/2.8L II USM ( +TC 1.4 &/ 2 - I have to pay price in

loosing the quality a bit..)

 

 

Macro range

 

-------------

 

1) Canon 50mm f2.5 macro (4.4 rating from photodo.com)

 

2) Sigma 105 mm f2.8 Macro (4.1)

 

3) Olympus 50mm f1.8 (plan to reverse it) for extreme macro with sigma

 

Scanner

 

-------

 

Canon series

 

 

Suggestions welcome for the best lens(es) combination.

 

 

Pls note : I have no idea to go into digital stream for some time.

 

 

Johny

[tri_tran3]

I would go for the Canon 100mm Macro Lense(I have one which could also use for portrait)and the 300f4. The 200f2.8 is excellent but if u plan on using it with a TC alot then perhaps 300mm works better for you. Also try to get a better camera like the new 7N or the old 7E. You might want to get the 300f4 used if you want to stay in budget. I cannot comment about a scanner. But perhaps a DSLR works better for you than a scanner somewhere down the line. Have fun balancing your budget and choices.

[beauh44]

Hi John, I'd vote for the 70-200 f4L in the zooms. I have its more expensive cousin, the 70-200 f2.8L IS and it's the best zoom I've ever used. I love this lens. I suspect the two are very close optically. I also love the Canon 50mm f2.5 macro. It's not as refined as some of Canon's lenses in terms of build and autofocus, but it's so sharp it'll crack your eyeballs. No experience with the Sigmas or reveresed Oly lens here. Good luck!

[john_nastelin1]

Your current 50mm f/1.8 is perfect for candid portraits. I've heard that the 100mm-400mm is the ultimate zoo lens. Grab that one and you will have enough left for the 50mm f/2.5 macro.

 

Only concern is that then you would have two 50mm lenses so you might want to grab the 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and sell the 50mm f/1.8 but now you're a little over budget.

 

The 70-200mm won't give you enough reach for wildlife. I think you need at least 400mm on the long end. I don't know much about Bigma but it could be a substitute for the 100-400.

[jbq]

Don't go for any less than 300mm (on film) even for a zoo. I found that my best zoo shots were with my 400/5.6 on a 10D (the same angle of view as you'd get with a 640mm on 35mm film).

 

For macro, there's no substitute for a real macro lens. Don't pay attention to photodo ratings for macro lenses, infinity focus isn't what you buy a macro lens for.

 

Getting any 50mm sounds overkill if you already have one, except if you really want to do macro with a 50mm (warning, very little working distance).

 

100-400L is one option that just fits in the budget, but is probably too slow for portrait work and won't really fit the bill for macro work.

 

I'd honestly go for a 75-300 to take care of the zoo part. Depending on how much light you expect to have and whether shooting fast film is OK with you or not, you need to decide whether the IS is worth $250 to you or not.

 

Assuming that you go for the non-IS version, you have over $1200 left. A 100/2.8 macro (or off-brand equivalents) probably comes next, and is also a decent option for portraits.

 

Do you need any other lenses after that? I'm not sure. It's up to you. A 85/1.8 might make sense, even though it's very close to 100/2.8. How about a wider angle, like a 35/2? How about a better body (Elan 7?). How about a shoe flash, a macro flash, a tripod, a macro focusing rail? How about just getting 2 lenses, seeing how you like them, and keeping money for future investments, good film or processing, etc...

[the_macman]

Are you a telegraphist on a transatlantic ship or what?

 

24-70.

[John Crowe]

Keep the 50/1.8 II. The version I and the 1.4 are not worth blowing your budget on. Stay away from the big 100-400 zoom, you will be trying to use it for more than you will be willing to carry it around for. Your current camera is just fine, it will get you through for 4-6 more years until DSLR's are reasonable. A new higher end film camera will be traded in for next to nothing but a lens of that value will be good for 20+ years or sold at a small depreciation.

 

Since you are open to the idea of primes I will reinforce that thought. 50/1.8 II, 200/2.8 and 2x. Find the macro that will fit the rest of your budget. I suggest the Canon 100mm or the Tamron 90mm if it saves you enough (I have not checked the pricing). Both of these macros are reported to be exceptional, some even give the Tamron the nod. If you need budget space do not hesitate to buy any of them used. For portraits the 90 or 100 macro will be fine. For candid portraits the 200/2.8 will be ideal. It allows you to isolate a subject without them knowing, it is lightweight and not a bother to carry around, extremely sharp even with converters. In the zoo you will want 400mm and the combination will autofocus, be portable, flexible and reasonably sharp. There are a number of recent threads on this lens where I have listed a website where it shows tests with and without both converters, and compared to the L zooms. The only lens you may eventually like to have is the 28/2.8 or 24/2.8 for indoor family gatherings or travel/scenic shots. Good luck and have fun!

[vincent_j_m]

Depends on how mugh weight you're willing to carry. I'd avoid the bigma and get the 100-400L instead, since it has IS and the bigma doesn't. Also, you can be sure that your 100-400L will work with a new canon SLR 5 years down the line, whereas the bigma may not.

<p>

Unless you like carrying heavy weights I'd avoid big lenses. The 70-200/4L is very good and I use it all the time for event photography. Forget about the 50/1.4 or the mk-1. Your 50/1.8 is a great lens. Mine is, and I love it.

<p>

Take a good look at the tamron 90/2.8 or the 180/3.5 macros. They are some of the best macro lenses in this range, even compared to the canon's own offerings. Both the canon and tamron are reported to be far better than the sigmas. Take a look at this website here:

<A HREF="http://iapf.physik.tu-berlin.de/jbohs/HKO/TUBerlin/dforum/macro/Macro100.html">http://iapf.physik.tu-berlin.de/jbohs/HKO/TUBerlin/dforum/macro/Macro100.html</A>

[ike k]

John,

 

For macro I'd suggest the 100 macro USM (used around $350), portrait could be from 85/1.8 to 100/2 to 135/2, tele photo could be 200/2.8 or 300/4 IS. This could left you much money (85, 100, 200) than the 100-400 IS alone. I just purchased these lenses 50/1.4,85/1.8,100/2.8 USM Macro, 135/2 L and 200/2.8 L MKII. I almsot pick up the 70-200 IS but the desire to get 135/2 EF L lens has left me with this route of primes. Good luck with your choice!.

 

Ike

[yakim_peled1]

1. Economic and sensible option: 100/2.8 USM for portraits and macro. 300/4 IS (+ 1.4 TC) for wildlife.

 

2. Best (and most expensive) option: 85/1.8 for portraits. Tamron 180/3.5 for macro. 300/4 IS (+ 1.4 TC) for wildlife.

 

Reasons: 85 is much faster than the 100/2.8 and enables you to get shallower DoF and the use in lower EV. The Tamron is larger and heavier than the Canon macro but enables you longer working distance. Both advantages may prove themselves invaluable but you pay for them both in money and in weight. 300/4 IS + 1.4 TC is better than the 100-400, lighter and you avoid the push-pull design.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[troll_underbridge]

I had the 70-200 2.8L and it was a baddass hunk of glass but very heavy and moving that much glass eats a lot of battery power. My 1N w booster and that lens would eat 8 AA in a week, faster if I did heavy shooting. If I were going to put together another Canon film system and had $1400 I would go for the 100mm Macro, a 200mm 2.8L with a TC and a 50mm 1.4 If I had any left over I would try hitting ebay and find another 1N. In fact if I had $1400 I could definetly get all that on ebay by playing the bids right...I've done it before.

 

Then I would save for more glass. I would try for a 300 2.8L if at all possible but I might try and save for that at a later date. I push the 1N becasue they can be had for cheap nowadays and they focus frigging right then and lock on like a pitbull. The autofocus is fast and the meters are damn near fool proof. I nearly cried when I had to sell mine. A lot of peopel will say that all a camera really does is hold film, but a good camear is worth its weight in gold and can unlock the potential of a many a hunks of glass.

[jim_larson1]

Obvious choices:

 

1) 17-40/4L.

 

2) 70-200/4L.

 

3) Both! (together, about $1300)

 

4) 24/2.8 and 85/1.8 (together, $650ish)