Jump to content

Lens for Canon 5D

pauloriskas

By pauloriskas
in Canon EOS Mount

 Share

Recommended Posts

pauloriskas

pauloriskas

Posted
Posted

<p>Hello,<br>

I need some advise. I bought a second hand Canon 5D for my 24-105 L, and i would like to know what should i get to upgrade my old and not so good 75-500. The 70-300 IS, 100-300 or a third part lens (which one?)? I know that 70-200 L is good but it covers almost what i have with 24-105. What do you advise me to do in a 70-300 IS price range?<br>

Thanks for the help,<br>

Paulo.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JDMvW

JDMvW

Posted
Posted

<p>75-500? typo for 75-300mm? The 70-300mm IS has got pretty decent reviews at places like Photozone.de. That's the most obvious place to go, I think, for cost-benefit. If your old 75-300? is the IS version, then I'd just hang onto it for the time being. It's not too bad stopped down and in lower two-thirds of its range.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the obvious L glass replacement is not the 70-200 stuff, nice as it is, but the 100-400mm IS L lens. However, while I know nothing and have heard nothing, the rate at which Canon is plowing through upgrades of old classics and bringing them into the 21st c., could mean a new version of this lens next year or so. Of course, as with the others, expect a 50% increase in price. If I didn't have a daughter in college, the 100-400mm would be very high on my personal want list.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DickArnold

DickArnold

Posted
Posted
<p>I have a 100-400 4.5-5.6L. It is a very useful lens but is not fast enough for me in low light action. It has decent IS. For that I have a 70-200 2.8L that I have had for twelve years. I works and looks as if it were new after thousands of frames and hard use. That's the advantage of L lenses. You don't have to buy another one for some long period of time of if Canon changes lens mounts. I use the 70-200 more than I do the 100-400 but the latter is really great for wildlife and sports when the light is good. Long ago I had the first 75-300 IS lens. It was ok but it is slow for action. I remember getting a decent picture at about 1/15. IS doesn't work with sports, however, which is what I use my current L lenses for. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JDMvW

JDMvW

Posted
Posted
<p>No. The 24-105 is a much better all-around lens than the combination of two other, heavy lenses. Keep it, its utility as a one-lens carry-around town lens is unsurpassed for 35mm sensor cameras. Nathan's solution is too heavy and too many lens swaps, IMHO.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mark_pierlot

mark_pierlot

Posted
Posted

<p>Paulo, I agree competely that you should keep your 24-105. It's my most used EF zoom.</p>

<p>If I were you, I would get a 17-40 for the short end and a 70-200/4 IS (which is reported to be the best of the 70-200's) for the long end. That way, you'll have a whopping 17-200mm covered with three superb zooms. And as for your concern that the 70-200 overlaps the range of the 24-105, I consider the difference between 105mm and 200mm to be huge in compositional terms.</p>

<p>But then again, how often do you shoot 200-300mm? If it's often, then perhaps the 100-400 would better serve you than the 70-200. You could also consider the quite affordable 300/4 L IS.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
r_smith2

r_smith2

Posted
Posted

<p>What type of photography are you doing Paulo? General everyday family and friends stuff.....or are you into portraiture and wedding.....or wildlife and landscape....or street and vacation style.... or sports? Give us some more info please along with your budget!<br>

You have a good base lens in the 24-105L IS. What you are planning to do with your photography and how much money you have to spend is the key components we are missing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pauloriskas

pauloriskas

Posted
  • Author
Posted
<p>Well i'm an amateur and a all-terrain photo shooter,as you may see at my portfolio. The 24-105 cover almost all my kind of photos, but sometimes, not very often, i like to enjoy something above 105 mm. So i want spend not more than $700/$750. And as i saw this review.......http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-is.htm</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
r_smith2

r_smith2

Posted
Posted
<p>I have never had the IS version of Canons 70-300 but I did have the non IS version and thought it was a great lens. I sold it to buy Canons 70-300 DO IS lens when they came out but was highly disappointed in that lens for many reasons. I ended up selling it and buying the Tamron 70-300 DI lens because of its 1:2 macro feature which is really nice when out and about. It was dirt cheap and very comparable to the 70-300 Canon I had previously owned. If you are wanting to stay with a Canon lens and have IS then you are probably on the right track in buying the EF 70-300 IS. It looks like you have done your homework already and it is right there in your price range. I would say go for it and you can always sell it on Ebay if you don't like it. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bob_king2

bob_king2

Posted
Posted

<p>I have the 70-300IS along with the 70-200 f/2.8LIS, 17-40L and the 24-105L which I use on my 40D and 5D2. The build quality and focusing speed is not as good as the L's but its IQ is quite decent when used on both bodies. For a similar price to the 70-300, though, you could get a 70-200 f/4 non IS and mate it with a 1.4x teleconverter (at extra cost of course). I use one on my 70-200 with good results. For me personally, though, I wouldn't buy a tele zoom without IS.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steven_f1

steven_f1

Posted
Posted

<blockquote>

<p>So i want spend not more than $700/$750.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For sure IS is an useful improve. No more tele zoom with no IS!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you want IS and your budget is limited to $700 you don't have many choices. </p>

<ul>

<li>Canon 70-300 F4/5.6 IS, $550</li>

</ul>

<p>Sigma is the only other lens maker with IS lenses, 120-400 and 150-500, but both are $900 to $1000. Well over your budget. I didn't see anything else in the B&H catalog with IS and under $750. Dropping IS would improve your choices but personally wouldn't do that. Either get the 70-300 or save up your money to increase your choices. I also would keep your 24-105. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mendel_leisk

mendel_leisk

Posted
Posted

<p>I had a work colleague who chose the above 70-300 as part of his rebel xt package. His other lens choices were also similarly priced, and he seemed to have a plan. He turned out some very nice work. It is a compromise lens but a decent choice.</p>

<p>Here's The-Digital-Picture's review:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>(A good site for info and comparison of Canon equipment)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steve_crist

steve_crist

Posted
Posted
<p>Is your 24-105 the non IS version? If yes I'd recommend selling it and getting the 24-70L and the 70-200LIS lenses. Thus with just 2 lenses you have 24-200 coverage both with constant 2.8 aperture for low light capability. 24mm is usually plenty wide on a full frame body. Also if you ever need more reach you can add the Canon 1.4 tele-converter to extend the length of the 70-200 to 98-280 at f4. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...