danrobb Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Hi all. I've recently bought an EOS A2 and I've been scouring over lens selection for the past 3 weeks. I have (at long last) come to what I think to be a pretty solid line-up. These are the lenses I plan on buying in the near future: 17-40 4L50 1.870-200 2.8 IS Maybe upgrade the 50 to the 1.4 later on, but that's not really a priority. I'm comfortable with the focal length coverage. What do you guys think about this three lens setup? Any changes you think I should make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcpeters Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Excellent start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 My comment: Hubba Hubba!! Side thoughts: 1) Consider a teleconverter down the line for long reach. 2) The 2.8IS is said to be a great lens. Just it is a lot bigger and heavier (and more expensive) than its slower 4L cousin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry_szarek Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 I am headed that way except my 50 will be the 1.4 version. GS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_lambert1 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 two heavyweights and a bantam!! No huge advantage to the 1.4, except that it's easier to fit a lens hood. My only suggestion, and it's not because I don't like the 1.8, is to consider 50 2.5. There have been times when I really would have liked the 1.8 to focus closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 I have a 17-40mm f/4L, and it's a great wide-angle lens, although I own a 10D, so I really can't appreciate its full potential... I, too, recommend that you also consider the 50mm f/2.5 macro as a good compromise between the 50 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4. It's price is between these two, although a lot closer to the f/1.4, and it'll serve double duty as a close-up/macro lens. (Disclaimer: I went through this last month, and bought the f/2.5 macro.) On the long end, I decided on the 70-200 f/4L, because of its smaller size and weight vs. the 2.8's (OK, and the cost). I'm no pro, and I've never used the 70-200 f/2.8, with or without IS, so I don't know what I'm missing, but I don't miss it. (Does that make any sense?) My fourth and final lens is the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. Reputedly the most humble lens in this line-up, but it's my "walking around" lens of choice for outdoors. (For indoors, I keep the 17-40 mounted.) A great alternative for your new film body would be the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. When I don't want to lug my full kit around, I'll usually have one of these three zooms mounted, and carry the 50mm macro in my bag. Hope this helps. Good luck, and have fun shopping! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 They are all excellent lenses and you made very good choices. My only question is whether the 17-40 range is really needed for a film body ? If not, I'd go for 24/2.8, 35/2 and 70-200 IS. In fact, that's exactly the kit I was planning for myself when I scouted mint 85/1.8 and 200/2.8 at 60% of the IS price. Thus - for the wife's peace of mind - I bought them. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_ituarte3 Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 I second Yakin's choices. I think you may be a bit disappointed with the 17-40mm wide open after shooting with the 70-200mm as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_ituarte3 Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Sorry for the typo Yakim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 It's hard to say good or bad unless you tell us what you're planning to do with them. I'm sure the 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens (I have the non-IS) version, but it's a real boat anchor to carry around. So if you're not working professionally and are planning to travel a lot, for example, you'd probably be better off with the f/4 or a prime telephoto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chachi_arcola Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 I've been using a 70-200/4 for a while and rented the 70-200/2.8 non-IS to try out for the weekend. It's a monster. I have big hands and could barely reach around the lens. It weighs a ton and IMO, is just ludicrous to tote around unless you're getting paid for your work. The f/4 is just as good, half the weight and a quarter of the price. Spend the difference on a 135/2 or 85/1.8, they're faster than the 2.8 IS and (without igniting another debate) at least as sharp as the zoom. BTW, I've tried to buy 3 50/1.4s and found them all defective (focusing mechanism, scratched *internal* elements from the factory, etc. Build quality on these lenses as far as I'm concerned is not up to snuff, esp. for the price. I'm sticking with my mk 1 50/1.8. 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