Help - Canon Telephoto/Macro Lens

[ben_lockett]

<p>I am hoping someone can offer me some advice. I am an amateur photgrapher who loves to take photos at sporting events and of flowers/insects.<br>

I'm in the market for both a telephoto and a macro lens (separate lenses)<br>

Can someone help me make a selection from the vast canon range?<br>

I don't have a fortune to spend.<br>

Thanks</p>

[a._j._jacobs]

<p>Well I have the 85 f/1.8 and I used it to get shots of my mom running a marathon and they turned out great. I also use it for portrait work. I also use the 60 f/2.8 for macro work, and I like it, although I hear the 100mm is better.. I think both of the lenses I mentioned run in the $400 range.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>The 100 2.8 macro is excellent. </p>

[tommyinca]

<p>My 2 cents, Buy a 70-200/2.8, a bread and butter lens for sporting event IMHO. Get a 77mm 500D for it and use the combo for macro. Buy macro lens later after you have gain some macro mileage. You can also save a little cash buying non-IS version. "IS" is nice to have but is not a must for both sport and macro.</p>

[everheul]

<p>I think Tommy Lee has given the best advise so far. I like my fast primes, once in a while I do wish I had a zoom though. If I were starting over on a tight budget Tommy's suggestion would fit he bill.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I own both. Both serve different purposes. The one thing with the 70-200 2.8 is you cannot focus close to a subject. The min. distance is like 4.4 feet so not sure how that would work for macro.</p>

<p> </p>

[everheul]

<blockquote>I own both. Both serve different purposes. The one thing with the 70-200 2.8 is you cannot focus close to a subject. The min. distance is like 4.4 feet so not sure how that would work for macro.</blockquote>

<p>the 500d filter allows close focus...kind of quasi-macro I guess.</p>

[charles_s]

Get the 85mm 1.8 or 70-200 F4 and macro rings

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p>100/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS. I have both and like them <strong>a lot</strong>.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>You don't say whether you are using a 1.6-factor body or a FF body. For a first macro lens the 60/2.8 may be generally preferable to the 100/2.8 on a 1.6-factor body, although the 100/2.8 is better for insects. The old 50/2.5 is a wonderful lens optically, but needs the LSC to go to x1 and is a bit clunky in operation. It is still the preferred lens for copying work such as photographing artwork. The 180/3.5 is definitely not the way to get into macro.</p>

<p>The choice of medium-telephoto zoom depends on whether you want to work under low-light conditions. If not, the 70~200/4L IS may be preferable to the f/2.8 version.</p>

[everheul]

<p>If you are hot and heavy for a macro lens on a tight budget...I may get laughed off this forum....get the 100mm f3.5 vivitar. This is the most chincy a$$ piece of rattling plastic that has the sharpest optics and cheapest price I've ever had. It's also the only non-Canon lens in my bag.</p>