Initial Lens Lineup - Good Enough?

[kyle_long2]

Thanks again for the assistance. You've given me quite a bit to think about, and I'm mulling it all over.

 

I know from prior experience that I enjoy close-up nature photography. I enjoyed it so much, a fair number of years ago, that I had to give up photography as I couldn't afford my $150-per-outing film habit. :) But as I read more about the subject, I'm learning that I may not need a macro lens after all, at least not right away. Not for close-ups of things that won't run away from me.

 

At least, that's the case if it's true that a telephoto lens and a +3 supplementary lens will give much the same effect. Will the 70-200 f/4L and a supplementary make the ice-on-branches / lichen-on-rocks sort of photographer happy? I might be able to stretch as far as the f/2.8L version of that lens, if that would work better. I'd dearly love to be able to buy the 100-400mm f/4-5.6L, but that would mean blowing my entire budget on one lens. And I'm rather counting on the tripled rebate; combined with the rebate for my camera, that $400+ back is the only thing enabling me to consider spending $1500 on lenses.

 

I'm still considering the 17-85mm, but that fisheye-like distortion is off-putting. I'm a bit annoyed that Canon isn't providing a good walk-around lens with a decent range that doesn't include weird distortion effects.

[andy_van_eynde]

Hi Kyle,

 

This pic is taken a couple of months ago.

It is a 20d + EF-s 17-85 at 17mm (Tv 1/250 AV at f22.0 iso 800)

[andy_van_eynde]

ps taken on a small boat.

[jon_austin]

"As for the 17-85... the ridiculous amount of distortion at the low end bothers me."

 

I'm no fan of the EF-S lenses personally, but if distortion is the only thing putting you off the 17-85, it's relatively easy to compensate for this kind of distortion in post processing.

[robert_potts1]

I am a nature photographer and I could not get by without a telephoto and a macro. I could get along without wide angle and normal lens. Buying three different macro lenses would not be a bad idea.

[mike_broderick]

For ice on branches, mushrooms, etc., the 70-200 of your choice plus a diopter will work fine. Putting on the diopter takes a moment, and it's another d@rn thing to carry, but it works well. It's hard to find closeup diopters that will fit the 70-200/4 directly. 77mm diopters that fit on the f/2.8 zooms are easily available, but are expensive and rather bulky.

 

The Canon 50mm macro is affordable, ultra-sharp, and very good for these kind of shots also. The Sigma 50mm macro also has good reports, and goes to 1:1 on it's own (at a VERY short distance) but I haven't used it. Not that you need MORE options introduced now!

 

If you go with a diopter, I can testify that the Canon 500D (the "D" is important) and the Nikon diopters are very sharp. Conventional wisdom is that other brands of closeup diopters aren't as good. I tried some borrowed Tiffen closeup diopters and they were not good quality--Totally unsatisfactory to me. I've used Tiffen UV filters when I needed a UV filter and been quite content with them, so this isn't mere brand snobbery on my part. Conceivably diopters from B&W or some other "classier" company are good (I have no experience), but if you choose anything but Canon or Nikon diopters, I'd try it before you buy.

[theoldmoose]

If the biggest objection you have to the 17-85mm IS lens is distortion and vignetting at the wide end, that is easily fixed with a program like DxO Optics Pro.

 

Their most recent will even output a DNG file, letting you complete the RAW conversion in Photoshop's ACR, so if DxO Labs would only put out a plug-in version of DxO, then my happiness would be complete. Otherwise, it's a bit annoying (but very effective) to haul out the DxO program to process the few shots where the distortion and/or vignetting are even noticeable, and then feed the results into ACR.

 

In a lot of situations, you won't even notice it, depending on the subject matter.

[chris_jose]

I have read this thread with interest. I have an EOS 20D with the 17-85 IS which I am really enjoying (despite the concerns some have expressed about its performance). This represents a return to SLRs for me after a few years absence.

 

I have been digging into the telephoto options. Clearly the one Kyle identifies 70-200 f/4L has a number of attractions in terms of quality and focal range without the heaviness (but with some of the bulkiness) of the 70-200 f/2.8L lenses. I was very close to going the f/2.8 for the flexibility the faster lens provides. But for my purposes (which include photographs during hikes as well as other opportunities that demand a more discrete lens) the size and weight is a bit overwhelming.

 

My preference is for IS, having had some experience with it now on the 17-85. On my admittedly limited experience, I think it a real boon for handheld photography, particularly with a slower lens. This combined with the conspicuous size and colour of the 70-200 f4L leads me to explore other alternatives before I decide. I am not a professional but enjoy quality images - but only if I can take the equipment to where I need to go. Sometimes I could handle the 70-200 L size and weight, in most cases I could not.

 

I am considering carefully the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS due to its combination of compact size, (relatively) low weight, larger focal range, IS and higher quality. I am conscious of the softer image quality identified in many reviews and the concerns about bokeh and flare with the DO technology. But I have also seen a number of reviews that suggset while not L quality this lens provides a higher quality image (at an admittedly high price) than is available, for example in the 70-300 f4 IS or the older 75-300.

 

Any comments?