f. monteiro Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I'm using the EF-S 18-55mm and the old and cheap 75-300mm II (no IS, no USM, no nothing) on a Canon 300D. I've been taking some aceptable shots with this equipment. Feel free to check it up... :-) Now I'm some minutes away from clicking the button and order a brand new package. That is, the 17-40L, the 70-200L 4, the Canon 2X extender and the 100mm macro. Sort of a financial suicide (total 2300 euros / 2760 USD). Can you please comment on this choices and price (I'm planing to order it from Germany) while I can still change my mind. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Well you'll have the focal length of the 100mm macro duplicated with the 70-200mm. Now the 100mm macro is a fine lens, but if it was me, I'd go for the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro myself. It's a *very* sharp lens. No, it won't do 1:1 but it's still a great closeup lens and you won't be duplicating focal lengths. Other than that, you've made some good choices! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btmuir Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 When you compare the 17-40L to the stuff you've shot with the kit lens the first time you'll go WHOA! Highly recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil vaughan - yorkshire u Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I'd sooner have the 1.4x converter than the 2x. No personal experience, but everything I've read points to the 1.4x being almost as sharp as the unmodified lens, whereas the 2x shows marked deterioration. Then there's the 2 stops of light to lose, will the 300d focus with an f8 lens, and if it won't can you? Whereas 5.6 is quite comfortable for focussing (as you have seen with the 75-300). As for the lenses, definitely a great selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 "Sort of a financial suicide" If that is true; then don't do it. Financial solvency (or financial independence) is worth far more than a few pieces of overpriced photography equipment. BUT.. .if you make money from the equipment OR this is an expensive hobby that you want to spend money upon . . .then you will not regret buying these lenses. They are substantially better than what you have now. Note that this is digital. There is no middle ground here. Either you are making money with this stuff (ie, enough to fully pay for the lenses) or you are not making money. Either you recognize that this is an expensive hobby and can afford the costs. . .or you are committing financial suicide. WARNING: The 70-200/4L and the 2x teleconverter will not allow AF on a 300D. This is a F8 combination, beyond the F5.6 aparture limit of this camera. The 1.4x teleconverter is a good F5.6 combo; will work fine and is actually sharper than the 2.0x teleconverter. BTW: You don't have to order this all at once. I suggest starting with the 17-40/4L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I agree with Beau: 50mm prime (any of them, but I have the compact macro, also, and it's great) over the 100mm macro. I would recommend you NOT buy the 2X extender until you've used the 70-200 for awhile, to see if you really need it. And then, see if the 1.4x won't server your purposes: you'll save a stop, still have AF, and will retain better optical quality. My 70-200 is my least-used lens (everything else I have is shorter), and I use it with my 1.4x extender even less. I'm glad I have them when I need them, but (in my opinion) you shouldn't commit "financial suicide" to get them. And what Bruce Muir said about the 17-40L vs. the kit lens also goes for the 70-200/4 vs. the 75-300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Phil's advice about TCs is good. If you really want to go longer, then perhaps you should consider the 300 f/4L IS (with 1.4x) instead - or the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX. So far as your choice of macro lens is concerned, if macro is your intention, then working distance suitable for your subjects and lighting is more important than filling a gap between 40 and 70 with a faster lens. You might want to consider the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di macro - usefully cheaper than the Canon in Europe, and optically better. What you save will buy you a 50mm f/1.8 to use as a portrait lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f. monteiro Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 You are all already helping a lot! Some decisions: cancel the 100mm macro and consider the 50mm; replace the 2x converter for the 1.4x (that about the 300d could not be used in AF with F8 was a crucial piece of information). That about the "financial suicide" was just to had a bit of drama :-). Thank you all very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 F.Monteiro,<br> <br> If you like macro shots then get the 100mm f/2.8 macro (its worth it).<br> A 50mm in my opinion is too small for macro.<br> If your going to use the 2X extender you might as well get the <br> 100-400L (the 2x will degrade shots, and with f/4 lens you will loose AF).<br> The 17-40L is excellent choice.<br> I have the 100mm macro, 17-40L and 100-400L they are all worth it (to me).<br> <br> Good luck with the bill :+) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witold_grabiec Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I'm with "GET the 100 macro". It is a special lens in every dimension. A 50 (macro or not)is NOT a replacement for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 It is *so* much easier spending big bucks on QUALITY lenses (anything "L") because you know they have a lasting value -- at least a decade. Press that [order] button! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I have the 17-40 and the 70-200/4, and the 100 macro. Love them all. However, unless you're convinced you REALLY want to do a lot of macro work, you might consider getting some extension tubes and/or a close-up lens for the 70-200, at least initially. If you also go for the 1.4X instead of the 2X (and I second those who suggested this), you can use the 70-200 + 1.4X + extension tubes to get well into the typical macro range. It will not quite be of the same superb optical quality as the 100 macro, and it will be somewhat less convenient, but it does work remarkably well (as <A HREF="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/ MACphotos/mammals/ deermouse.html">here</a>).<P> You would be spending money for extension tubes, but that would come to a lot less than a 100 macro costs. And if you DO eventually decide to get the 100 macro, the tubes can be used with it to get to greater than 1:1 reproduction ratios, either with the 'plain' lens or with the 1.4x (you need to put a tube between the converter and the lens to get this combination to work, but it gives good results, as <A HREF="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/ arthropods/neonskimmer.html">here</a>). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 In reference to the suggestion for the 100-400 (instead of the 70-200/4 + 2X): I have that lens also and am very pleased with it. If you really want 400 mm, it's a better solution than the 70-200/4 + 2X (it retains autofocus at 400, and its stabilized). But it's MUCH more expensive, and MUCH bigger -- a completely different animal in terms of portability and handling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_andrew Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 The 50mm/1.8 is a truly amazing lens. For those who question whether it can be used as a macro, I'm attaching a grab shot during a walk in the rain forest of San Juan.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolver Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 If you are serious about macro I wouldn't waste my money on the 50mm macro or extention tubes. <br>The working distance is shallow with a 50mm macro and it is not 1:1<br> With extension tubes you have limited focus range (near to far) compared to a true macro lens.<br> In my opion you would be much happier with a Tamron 90 macro, Sigma 105 macro or a Canon 100 macro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 I agree with what was said about the 1.4x instead of the 2x. On the macro side, the 100/2.8 truly is amazing. I'd go for that one, but then I'd really really consider adding a 50/1.8 to the package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f. monteiro Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 I've just pressed the button. I'm glad that I decided to post my new package idea here. You really helped me on the final decision. That is, the 17-40L and the 70-200L/4. The 2x converter and the 100mm macro were canceled. The fact that the 2x converter with the 70-200 on a Canon 300D only can be used on MF mode made me forget about it. And it's wise to try the 70-200 and see if I need to go longer in the future. In fact, my photography tends to be more panoramic than close up. I was thinking about the 2x converter having in mind street shots, get into the scene without being noticed. And I have a thing about very sharp bird shots too... My old 75-300mm with the 1.6 plus of the 300d sensor was perfect except for the average sharpness quality of most shots. The 100mm macro is going to wait but it's on my list of future buys. I just have to check further that Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di macro and the 50mm macro. Thank you all for your very helpful comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 <I>And I have a thing about very sharp bird shots too...</i><P> ... in which case you are going to want a MUCH longer lens than 200 mm (at least for wild birds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 "I was thinking about the 2x converter having in mind street shots, get into the scene without being noticed." Hard to do this with the 70-200 F4. It is hardly a subtle looking lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now