Expanding an Existing Kit

[joel_turner]

I have been reading through a ton of posts regarding equipment

choices that my head is beginning to spin from all the info. I

currently have an Canon Elan 7E with a 24mm/2.8, 50 Mark II 1.8 and a

28-135mm IS lens. This combo has served me well for travel purposes

and for landscape photography. I am now looking to expand my kit to

include some macro and wildlife capability. Let me state up front

that I am not a professional, have no aspirations of becoming one but

am somebody who enjoys photography. My image goals are the

occasional blow-up to 8X10 & 11X14. My wildlife goals are mainly

larger critters such as Elk, Bison, hopefully a bear (but not too

close). Macro goals are flower and insect shots.

 

My main question is based on that criteria how would you go about

adding additional lenses to this kit? Things that are influencing my

decision.

 

I will always use a tripod for telephoto work.

Have purchased many filters for use at 72mm such as circular

polarizers and warming filters. I use a step down filter for the

other lens sizes.

Size and weight

Elan 7E compatibility - Conflicting reports on Sigma and Tokina Models

 

I have narrowed it down to 5 combinations and am looking for some

feedback and to see if there is something that I may have missed:

 

1. Purchase consumer level zoom such as Canon 100-300 (non L),

75-300 IS, Sigma 75-300 APO Marco. Optically all in the same class.

Can not use a teleconverter. Sigma offers Macro capability but only

at 300mm and from what I've read is kind of chunky.

 

2. Same as above but drop the Sigma lens and purchase a Vivitar

100mm 3.5 macro lens in addition to one of the Canon lenses. Yeah

build quality is not that great but I've read really good things

about the optics. If I get serious about macro work would upgrade to

a Canon 100/2.8 at a later date.

 

3. Same as 1 but add a Canon close up diopter to the telephoto

zoom or the 28-135. Cost is not that much less than the Vivitar lens.

 

4. Purchase a used Tokina 100-300 ATX zoom and a 1.4 X Kenko

teleconverter or the Sigma 100-300 EX HSM with a teleconverter.

Significantly more expensive and the weight and filter factor enters

into the equation here.

 

5. Forgo a zoom, buy a fixed 300 with a teleconverter. Either a

used Canon L or a used Sigma or Tokina model. Same issues as 4 and

since I'm not a pro, hard to justify the cost of the Canon equipment.

Concerned about compatibility with the Sigma and Tokina lens with the

7E.

 

Sorry for the length of the post but if this was your outfit, how

would you proceed?

 

Thanks in advance for any responses.

 

--Joel

[mike f]

Try the Canon 17-35 and the 35-350. Two lenses and you have it all covered. Now if you go with the 100-400 IS then you need the 28-135 IS. Again only two lenses. If you get a second body for the second lens you then have a back up in case one fails plus if you load them both up you are ready for everything.

[joel_turner]

Mike- Appreciate the response. I guess I should have mentioned that my overall budget is less than a $1,000 which would preclude me from purchasing either of those lenses let alone both. I think as I get more experienced and begin to shoot more than I might be able to justify those types of purchases.

[ShunCheung]

Joel, first of all this is photo.net and naturally there are a lot of conflicting opinions. I have no doubt that a lot of people will disagree with my suggestions, but eventually it is your own decision. Second of all I don't use Canon equipment and am not as familiar with it.

 

IMO you are fine on the wide angle side with the 24mm/f2.8, so I would focus on the long end. (1) For a more general lens, try the 70-200mm/f4 well within $1000. (2) If you want a long lens for wildlife, get the 100-400 IS (or 300 or 400mm prime w/ TC). (3) If you are very serious about macro, get the 180mm/f3.5 macro. I have stated a few times recently why I prefer a 200mm (or 180mm) macro over a shorter 100 or 50mm macro. (4) I would try to avoid any 3rd-party lens if possible, as there are quality and compatibility issues. (5) I would also avoid a zoom with a very long range, such as the 10x 35-350mm. A zoom with such a long range (wide angle to tele) involves too many optical compromises, and a large part of that range is already covered by your other lenses.

 

Just my suggestions. Your mileage may vary.

[bob stewart jacksonville]

Joel,

I would get a used Canon 300 f/4 L (non IS) By forgoing the IS you should be well within your $1000 budget (and maybe have a little extra to spend on another lens, a teleconverter, or extension tubes.) The 300 f/4 is a very good sharp lens. It will work well with a Canon 1.4tc, and ok with the 2x. The 300 should be sufficient, particularly with a teleconverter to do large animal wildlife. IMO the 300 f/4 L is about the cheapest option to get into a good lens for wildlife photography. If you care to take a look, several of the pics in my portfolio were done with the 300 f/4 L IS. If anything the non IS 300 is sharper.

[wildpicture]

Joel, maybe there are too many readers on this forum who are used to spending too much money on equipment. I see this often when people ask about lenses or other equipment and clearly state that they are amateurs and have limited budgets. Still they are often recommended to buy L-series lenses. Which are way beyond their budget, so not really a practical advise.

 

As Shun mentioned too, I would look for the longer focal lengths since you are pretty well covered in the wide angle area. A zoom in the 100-300 range (or 70-300) would probably do very well. Canon offers very good quality, but so does Sigma. I have used Sigma lenses for many many years before I was able to buy some Canon lenses, and they performed very well. With the print sizes you mention, it might be hard to see any differences. For example the Sigma 180/3.5 macro is a very sharp lens and rivals the Canon 180/3.5, although it will cost you about $1000 less.

 

The Sigma 100-300/4 is also a very good lens from what I have heard from users. And it can be combined with a Sigma 1.4x converter. You won't have IS as in the Canon 100-400L, but that is beyond the budget anyway. A prime 300/4 may be sharper but for occaisional use and reasonable sized prints, you may not see a difference.

 

Think of which focal lengths you will use most. I know it can be tempting to buy the longest focal length, but how often will you use it? Once a year or less? Buy the lens that you will be using most.

 

I also agree with Shun that with most macro (flowers, butterflies etc) a focal length of 180mm (or 200 for Nikon) is more practical than 100mm, because of the larger working distance. If you get too close, you'll scare any insect away and might block sunlight. So a Sigma 180/3.5 (with a Sigma 1.4x converter) might also be a good option. Although you won't have the versatility of a zoom then.

 

If macro is something you just occaisionally do, a zoom with makro will be your best choice. That way you can find out whether you like makro enough to justify the expense of a dedicated lens.

[craig_bridge]

A true macro lens in the 90mm to 105mm range that will go 1:1 on its own, even a third party lens, beats any zoom for ease of use for macro work.

 

In the telephoto for wildlife department, I'd save up for a 300mm f/4 so you can add a 1.4x TC and get to 420mm f/5.6 and it won't overlap your existing equipment. Zooms are nice, but they aren't very quality/weight/cost effective beyond about 200mm.

[kferris575]

Joel,

 

You might want to consider extension tubes for some close up photography. They are relatively inexpensive (compared to a macro lens), and will allow for some close up work by reducing the minimun focusing distance of your lenses. This could also work well with some of the suggestions above. My website (www.ozarkimages.com) has a summary of the uses for extension tubes in the "Hints & Tips" section.

 

Good luck

Kevin

[bob stewart jacksonville]

Joel specifically raised the issue of a used Canon L lens, and said his budget was under $1,000. A new 300mm f/4L IS sells on B&H for $1199. I know you can find a good non IS used 300mm f/4 for well under $1000. If you want to do wildlife well, good glass is very helpful ,and the 300 f/4 is about the cheapest serious lens suitable for wildlife photography. I also am an amateur with a limited budget. By often purchasing used, and stretching purchases out over time, I've accumulated some very good Canon L glass. I've also purchased some lenses I'd rather forget. The $250 I spent on a Canon 75-300, was much more costly than the $600 I spent on a used Canon 80-200L 2.8, given that the 75-300 sits on the shelf gathering dust and the 80-200 gets used. Joel, if you buy a good used Canon L lens, it will likely hold its value, and you will use it for years. In my experience, buying cheaper Canon lenses, and a couple of Sigma lenses, they didn't meet my expectations and didn't hold up over the long haul.

[ed_mcguirk1]

Joel if there is one lesson that I've learned the hard and expensive way, don't spend your money on Sigma, invest your money in Canon. If you are serious about improving your photography, your investment in good Canon glass will pay off over the long run. As some other posters have mentioned, used Canon L glass is a good investment. For example a used 70-200 2.8 can probably be picked up now at a good price since many people who can afford it are switching to the new IS version of this lens. You do seem adequately covered at the wide angle end of the range. I'd go for either a used 70-200 or spend a little more towards the 100-400 IS. Dont forget that a lens like the 100-400 is good for more than just wildlife. It is also great for landscape work if you like to do telephoto extractions pulling in parts of the scene. It is a little more expensive, it is heavy, and it is a push pull zoom. With all that said, its a lens with a lot of versatility, and one that I rely on heavily.

[greg_mason]

joel:

 

since you are already getting enough information on lenses i wont go there. my suggestion is to check out keh (keh.com) they have a wonderful selection of used lenses at decent prices. i have purchased from them several times and have not been disapointed. you can get both some long glass and a 90 or 100mm macro and come out under $1000. i would try to stay with canon for the long glass, but for the 90/100 macro a third party lens would be fine.

 

greg

[andrey_mikhaylov]

You have already a very good general purpose kit, so I don't see any reason to buy a consumer zoom.

<p> For wildlife, to stay in the mentioned price range, you need a 300/4.0 or 400/5.6 mm fixed, used, with TC(s). Anything below 300 mm is pretty useless for wildlife except a couple of situation in tame places, at least this is the situation in Europe. The difference between the primes and the zooms is not only in the optical quality. The good primes as 300/4.0L have internal focusing with a real USM, what means faster autofocus and a full-time manual focusing. The latter is important for improving your wildlife techniques later. Finally, there are situations where the autofocus does not work well, for example in dense vegetation, and the convenience to focus manually decides about the photos you get.

<p>For macro, a macro lens is a logical answer, though a 300 mm prime with an extension tube set can be useful in some situations (e.g. bigger creatures like dragonflies), and the 50 mm with the same extension tube set in some other cases (smaller, less shy creatures requiring 1:1 magnification).

<p>You can get both a 300/4.0 or 400/5.6 mm and a 100 mm macro for less than $1000 on the used market.

[lee_shively]

I agree that you have the wide end covered and you probably should concentrate on the long end. Close-ups can be handled with the 28-135 if you add a Canon or Nikon two element close-up diopter. These little "filters" are handy and not too expensive--much better than the single element models.

 

A used 300/4L is certainly a good idea. Since you only reach to 135mm, a 300 will be a good jump. The 300 is said to perform very well with the 1.4x Canon extender. I personally prefer the Canon 400/5.6L because of the 100mm extra reach. It's an excellent lens and currently is only slightly over $1000 new for the import model at B&H.

 

You indicated you use a tripod for all telephoto work. That's good. It also means you can live without the IS feature found in the more expensive 300/4 and the 100-400 zoom. While the super lenses have IS that will work on a tripod, these two do not and the IS would not be as beneficial to you.

 

I also would look at Canon lenses over the third party lenses. They would be worth the extra outlay.

[richard_tynan2]

Your option 5 looks the best. Forget the zooms at the longer end and go for some kind of prime lens. Generally speaking a prime will be a little better than a zoom lens at its longest focal length, especially when wide open. And for a lot of wildlife and nature work you will be using it at the long end, wide open anyway.

 

The 300/4 is a very nice lens for nature work, it's one of my favourite focal lengths. It's just long enough for some birds and animals and can be used for many other subjects like insects, flowers and landscapes. Together with a matching TC you have a nice set of medium-long focal lengths.

 

If you planned to take a lot of large animals and maybe bird pictures as well, a 400/5.6 might be a better choice.

 

On the macro side the Vivitar 100mm macro is sharper than it should be for the price. The Tamrom 90mm macro is also a very nice lens and has better build qualilty. My only real complaint with the Vivitar macro is that it only goes to half life-size on its own. It comes with a supplementary lens to take it to life-size, but its a bit of a pain to keep having to screw and unscrew it. The Tamron and the Canon macros go to life-size on their own.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the filters fitting the larger lenses. The EF300/4 has a 77mm filter but the only one I occasionally use is a grey-grad for landscapes.

[todd_west]

Or, should you need yet another option, think about the 70-200 f/4.0, a close up diopter, and a 2x teleconverter. I have this setup with Nikon's 70-210 f/4.0, 5T, and TC-200 and am quite happy with the results---it's around $350 total, so you ought to be able to cram a much newer Canon equivalent in under $1000.

 

Granted, it's not as good as primes or macro lenses, but you're not looking for that level of performance. f/8 is a little slow for fast moving wildlife, but I shot small birds from blinds all through last winter at 1/30 and 1/60 on ISO 200 and regularly got decent to quite good results.

[ShunCheung]

As expected, we are giving a lot of different opinions. While there is no consensus, the opinions do seem to be converging.

 

Hopefully Joel can provide us some feedback on what he feels about these opinions. If he is already moving towards one direction, perhaps we can fine turn the suggestions a bit. Otherwise, so many different opinions may be overwhelming and confusing.

 

Again, I never like 3rd-party lenses, but some people such as Hans have good experience with them. There is merely different opinions and experiences. I sure hope that nobody is offended.

[joel_turner]

Yes I know, my silence is deafening. :) Actually I've been sitting back and enjoying the dialogue. Here are my thoughts to this point.

 

I'm becoming more convinced about the fixed focal length approach. I think a 300/4 with a teleconverter may be the way to go. I'm still torn between a Canon lens or a Sigma or Tokina. I know there are some compatibility issues with my Elan 7E that I need to investigate. KEH has a Canon listed at $725 and a Sigma 300 at $325 and a Sigma 400 5.6 HSM Macro at $499.00. I have no idea what the going rate is for a clean Canon 300/4. Couldn't care less what it looks like as the long as the glass is clean. I also have no idea what the going rate is for a used Canon 300/4L.

 

On the macro front, I'm inclined to go with a new Vivitar. For $149.00 I think it's worth it. If I can use the manual verison on my EOS it's even cheaper. I imagine I'll be manually focusing in macro mode most of the time anyway so AF may not be such an issue. I can not use a Canon 250D on my 28-135 zoom (filter size too small) and the 500D is $134.00 which would go on the 300/4. I could use a 250D on my 50 but I'm not sure I want that to be my only option.

 

So there you have it. Let the fine tuning begin Shun!

[lee_shively]

BOTH Canon 300mm f/4 lenses are "L-series". The non-IS has been said by some to have better optics than the IS model. Both are said to be excellent, however. I looked on KEH and the $725 is a used price for the non-IS model in "excellent +" condition. Like you, I'm not sure if this is a good price for the used lens or not. I don't even remember what it sold for new. But, value-wise, I would choose it over the other brands mentioned if you can swing it.

 

Since you said you intend to use any telephoto lens you buy with an extender, you should be aware that the optical quality of the lens is going to be compromised by the extender. It's a fact of life. If you start with an outstanding lens and add an outstanding extender, you will get less loss of quality than you will if you start out with a "good" lens and add a "good" extender. While third party lenses and extenders may be "good", Canon's are in the "outstanding" range.

[richard_tynan2]

I saw a couple of used EF300/4L 's (non-IS) in the UK recently, for 700 GBP (in mint condition). Prices in the US tend to be a similar amount (in dollars). And a new Sigma 300/4 goes for around 300 GBP at the moment.

 

Thats quite a difference, but I would still seriously consider the Canon. You are guaranteed it will work with any body (current and future) and I would guess it would perform a little better than the Sigma with a TC attached.

 

You should also think of it as an investment. A good lens can last you many years, and if you use it often you can usually say you've gotten your monies worth from it. Even though I only get to shoot at weekends and in the evenings, I can say I've used my 300/4 enough to justify its cost.

 

Maybe someone who has compared a Canon 300/4 with a Sigma can say what the optical difference is. My EF300/4 is noticably better than the long end of a Sigma 75-300 APO, thats to be expected given the price difference. The Sigma is not bad, in fact its quite qood really, but you can see much more detail in a birds plumage for example, with the Canon 300. I would expect the Sigma 300/4 to lie somewhere in between, hopefully nearer the quality of the Canon prime.

[ShunCheung]

When I was living near New York City, I used to visit B&H every month and picked up their catalog. I had a few old copies around just for checking "historic" prices. Unfortunately, I moved a couple of times in the last two years and those catalogs were lost.

 

The current Nikon 300mm/f4 AF-S is about $1000 (USA after rebate) or $880 (grey). That is probably the closest comparison to the non-IS Canon 300mm/f4 EF, which should be well below $1000 used in Ex to mint condition, like somewhere between $700 to $800, depending on condition and whether you are getting it from a camera store that gives you some sort of warranty or from an individual.

 

As far as macro goes, unless you are very serious about macro, I would start with a diopter or extension tubes. When it reaches the point that it deserves a dedicated lens, again, I would get the 180mm/f3.5 if you can afford it.

 

One point we repeat over and over here is that "you get what you pay for." Typically, a product is cheap (in terms of price) mainly because it is cheap (in terms of optical and build quality); there is no free lunch. Especially in these days, used prices are well published on various web sites and E-Bay. Information flows quickly.

[jay_horton]

And now for something completely different:

 

Dump the 28-135IS. You have too much $$ tied up in it, and you are only using it at the long end anyways. That will net you about $ 325. Use that towards either the Sigma 100 macro HSM or the Canon 70-200 f4 L. YOur decision on which of these to get should be guided by your true macro requirements, e.g. are you looking to get down to 1:1 or are you looking for the ability to shoot portraits of things like flowers and butterflies at 1:4? If your goal is the latter, get the L zoom and a two-element Canon diopter and or Kenko extension tubes.

 

With your remaining budget, buy a used Canon 300 f4L, preferably IS. IS is a non issue if you always shoot from a tripod, but an often overlooked advantage of the IS version is the close focusing distance of 1.5 meters. This is a great lens in every respect. An added benefit of the close focus distance is the ability to take very nice pictures of flowers and butterflies at the closest focusing distance of something like 1:4 or 1:5, ( I forget the exact spec.)

 

I have seen used 300's in the range of $ 5-600 for the old version, and $ 650-800 for the IS. Either of these might just leave you enough $$ to add a used Canon TC 1.4, which are going in the range of $ 150-225.

 

Personally, I think a basic outdoor/nature kit for pro or amateur, is 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, 300mm, plus some sort of macro capability. Your existing short lenses, plus the 70-200 and 300 would give you a reasonably complete starter kit. If you get really serious about macro, add a dedicated macro lens later.

 

My own kit is 20 f1.8, 50 f2.5 compact macro, 70-200 f2.8L, 300 f4L IS, plus TC f1.4. I have a gap to fill at 24, but would rather get a 14mm & 500mm first along with TC 2X II, but I am still waiting for my lottery winnings to come in....

[joel_turner]

In looking over the specs for 28-135IS I noted that the lens can already focus down to 1.5ft which already makes it a "close up" lens. Would a diopter increase magnification or is that primarily the function of extension tubes? I would also think that the IS would come in handy shooting in this mode. While I appreciate the advice about dumping the lens, I happen to like it a lot and I use it extensively for travel and situations where a tripod is not welcome.

[lee_shively]

I don't think extension tubes or diopters increase magnification. They do cut the minimum focusing distance which, in turn, will make the subject larger on the film. As for magnification, a neat trick is to use an extender, which does increase magnification. I often use a 70-200 with a 2x and a 400 with a 1.4x to get a bigger image. I also like to use a Nikon 5T diopter with an old 100-300 Canon zoom to get closer to the subject. Although I have some Kenko tubes, I seldom use them because the supplementary lens and the extenders are more convenient (at least to me).

[cliffcalhoun]

The Canon 300/f4 (non IS) + 1.4x + 500D would be a great combination, for the money. Top quality glass, versatile, and good working distance (macro) using the 500D.

 

Finally, I echo the concerns about buying 3rd party lenses. The glass may be good quality, but it will be very frustrating if you upgrade your Canon body and the lens does not function. Plus, any Canon gear will hold its value over time, especially if you buy used.

 

Good luck.

[john_karsten]

here's another vote for a 300mm f4..

if you have enough money I urge you to buy a 1.4X TC (check compatablility) which would give you a 420mm 5.6.. I'd also then add an extension tube for close up photography.

 

Check out John Shaws close up photo book at your local megabookstore (if you have one).. get a drink at the cafe, sit in one of those nice big compfy chairs, and have a read. He shoots alot of macro with a 300mm f4 and extension, and you get plenty of working room to boot.

 

good luck,

JKM