Advice - Buying New Glass!

[hdn177]

Howdy all.

About to hit the pruchase button for 2 new lenses. I have about $3000 I can spend. The below are the 2 I think will suit me the most for my money.
I currently have the 60D (current lens are below in the signature). I mostly like to photograph motor sports (4wd events, airshows, and excel racing). I also have a need to photograph Jewellery plus I think they will be mostly versatile lens after reading many reviews.

Looking at the -

• Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
• Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Is there any other suggestions to try and keep in budget?

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM - but without the "IS" im not sure I can keep still
or the Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS USM.

Thanks again!

[camerasnoop]

You could save yourself some money on the 100 macro by buying the non-L version. It is tack-sharp and is fit for purpose. The savings might help you put the EF70-200F2.8L USM back on your list. It's still a great lens.

[Gemini2261]

I think you hit the nail on the head. I have #1 it's a bewdy, birds, portraits, cars, speed boats, you name it, I am very happy with it. One thing I have noticed tho is that this lens performed very well with my old 500D, it focused very quickly even on black subjects. I have noticed however since changing camera now to a 1Ds Mark III that it is not so quick to focus, more difficult in lower light and training it on black subjects and I have no idea why this would be happening . Maybe someone reading this can tell us why (minor adjustments to me made?)

I don't have #2 only because I am not that interested ATM in macro (but like it) from what I have seen on here and read I don't think you could go wrong with that one either .

[Gemini2261]

You could save yourself some money on the 100 macro by buying the non-L version. It is tack-sharp and is fit for purpose. The savings might help you put the EF70-200F2.8L USM back on your list. It's still a great lens.

That's a good tip...after all I would think it would be used in this case mainly on a tripod?

[dredi1975]

Hi,
I've got #2 and it is superb lens!!very sharp (probably too sharp for portraits - shows too many ''ugly'' details ) beautiful bokeh, superb build and image quality.
As for the #1 I can't say much, but I know that canon 70-200 f/4 L IS(half the price of f/2.8 L IS!!) is a lens worth looking at if you do not need f/2.8, it works brilliantly with extenders, very fast and accurate auto focus, lighter than 70-200 f/2.8 and you can get it for about 1100-1300 $ at the moment.
the macro one's price is around 1000$ so you could save some for sth else (for example 1.4 extender??).
Good luck!!
Maciek

[fabian628]

I think you hit the nail on the head. I have #1 it's a bewdy, birds, portraits, cars, speed boats, you name it, I am very happy with it. One thing I have noticed tho is that this lens performed very well with my old 500D, it focused very quickly even on black subjects. I have noticed however since changing camera now to a 1Ds Mark III that it is not so quick to focus, more difficult in lower light and training it on black subjects and I have no idea why this would be happening . Maybe someone reading this can tell us why (minor adjustments to me made?)

I don't have #2 only because I am not that interested ATM in macro (but like it) from what I have seen on here and read I don't think you could go wrong with that one either .

i found the 100-400 to increase in AF capability with body upgrades 50D-7D-1dmk3.

With the 1ds3, how are the af custom functions set up? It might be on super slow AF locking (ie. when focused on one subject it will take a long time to switch focus targets to allw for easier tracking).


At OP, i doubt those two lenses will disaapoint you they are quality.

[Gemini2261]

Thanks Fabian...I will look at that...I too expected the thing to work better...like you say must be a custom function I need to look at thanks

[Pine]

If I started over I would only buy the following:
15-85 IS
100 mm 2.8 none IS
70-200 f4 none IS

The 100 and 70-200 lenses are much cheaper than the latest versions and just as good.
Believe me IS is not essential.
No doubt the 100-400 is a great lens but I hardly use it.

Regards

[davearnold]

Having used both the 100 macro's, I would go the L, IS does have it uses, and it is a marginally better lens

I would look at the 70-300 L also as a option, newer IS system, and on a crop body equates to 112-480mm, shorter and lighter then the 100-400 (160-640mm on crop), probably more useable handheld at the longer focal length also unless you intend to use monopod/tripod, but does not work with Canon teleconvertors (can use Kenko one).

[fabian628]

If I started over I would only buy the following:
15-85 IS
100 mm 2.8 none IS
70-200 f4 none IS

The 100 and 70-200 lenses are much cheaper than the latest versions and just as good.
Believe me IS is not essential.No doubt the 100-400 is a great lens but I hardly use it.

Regards

unless you are in sunlight f/4 is a pretty slow lens. Unless you like hauling around tripods 4 stop IS is a great addition to any lens.

[fess67]

unless you are in sunlight f/4 is a pretty slow lens. Unless you like hauling around tripods 4 stop IS is a great addition to any lens.

I have the 100-400L and it is a great lens but as fabian has said, f4 is not quick. I found myself really struggling in anyhting but bright daylight (and that brings harsh shadows) so I got the 70-200L f2.8 IS and use that with a 1.4x teleconvertor over the 100-400 most of the time.

[Bennymiata]

I've found the 100-400L works really well on my 60D, even in not-so-perfect lighting conditions.
The focus is fast and accurate and even using it hand held at full zoom, I can get clear details of subjects some kilometres away at dusk!

Mind you, I wouldn't want to try and hold it up to my eye all day long without some support, but it is handholdable for short periods.

I've tried both of the 100mm macros, and if choosing between them, I'd go the for the IS everytime.
I have the Canon 60mm macro, and it's and excellent lens, but when I wanted a longer macro, I went for the new Sigma 150mm F2.8 macro with OS.
It's unbelievable how sharp it is and how well and fast the autofocus works, and the IS allows you take shots handheld, that you could only get on a tripod if the lens did not have IS. Which is great if you like chasing bugs.

[Pine]

unless you are in sunlight f/4 is a pretty slow lens. Unless you like hauling around tripods 4 stop IS is a great addition to any lens.

I mainly use the 70-200 for photographing animals in the Kruger Park so the F4 is great in the sunlight.
It is also lighter and smaller than the latest versions so its easy to hand hold.
As the Kruger shots are mainly taken from the car there is plenty of ways to take dead rest with the camera.

Lets face it if you move the camera too much no IS is going to safe you.
The trick is to use a tripod, which is another thing to carry, or take care to steady the camera.
Similar to shooting with a rifle I lock the camera strap behind my arm and by tensioning the strap I get a pretty steady shot whilst standing or kneeling.
If you photograph animals you need to be quick to get the shot.

Regards

[Pine]

I have the 100-400L and it is a great lens but as fabian has said, f4 is not quick. I found myself really struggling in anyhting but bright daylight (and that brings harsh shadows) so I got the 70-200L f2.8 IS and use that with a 1.4x teleconvertor over the 100-400 most of the time.

Surely with the converter you loose at least one stop?

Regards

[Pine]

I've found the 100-400L works really well on my 60D, even in not-so-perfect lighting conditions.
The focus is fast and accurate and even using it hand held at full zoom, I can get clear details of subjects some kilometres away at dusk!

Mind you, I wouldn't want to try and hold it up to my eye all day long without some support, but it is handholdable for short periods.

I've tried both of the 100mm macros, and if choosing between them, I'd go the for the IS everytime.
I have the Canon 60mm macro, and it's and excellent lens, but when I wanted a longer macro, I went for the new Sigma 150mm F2.8 macro with OS.
It's unbelievable how sharp it is and how well and fast the autofocus works, and the IS allows you take shots handheld, that you could only get on a tripod if the lens did not have IS. Which is great if you like chasing bugs.

I think there is a lot of nice to haves with lenses and yes with all the bells and wistles the lens should be better.
The question is just is it worth paying +- double for the same glass?

I have come to the conclusion no as the optical performance is not really better.
In some cases they are worse check the reviews

What really matters is the person standing behind the camera

Regards

[fabian628]

in my opinion it is worth the extra especally on a light lens like the f/4 70-200. Its is hard to keep a long lens like that steady especially when it is so light (I can shoot the 400 f/2.8 with IS handheld with the same success rate as the 135mm at the same shutter speed eg. 1/100s). Most likely if you are shooting in low light you will not have the shutter speed to freeze motion of wildlife anyway so IS would be really handy if they are stationary for a small time.

I honestly did not find the IS on the 100-400 THAT effecive since it is also a fairly light lens and also very very long at 400mm, but even leaning against something the IS will eliminate any small vibrations to get a crisp image

[Pine]

Fabian its all a matter of choice but driving all day with a 100-400 stuck between your legs becomes tiring.
The 70-200 being much smaller and lighter is that much easier to handle

The animals are relatively close to the road in the Kruger and as such the 70-200 reaches easily.
Also the 70-200 is sharper than the 100-400 so there is no competition at 200 mm.

When the sun starts going down you need to be back at the camp so the f4 suffices.
IS is nice to have and yes it can make some difference if that much.

When we do have a night drive, with the Rangers, then I use the 100 mm 2.8, which is tack sharp and fast.
Using lights the animals are closer to the vechile

However in Botswane Kuthse Park the animals are further and then I simply love my 100-400 irrespective of its size.
In fact I give it a loving pat now and then .... ha ha.
Its reach is fenomenal and for such a large lens takes great photos.
I agree holding this lens steady is quiet easy specially in the car with dead rest

So I basically agree with you its simply a matter of application.

Nice talking to you

[Pine]

Fabian going on a bit you should come to South Africa and visit the Kruger Park its a great experience.
We go at least two times a year.

Regards

[fabian628]

i agree it is a matter of application, however specifically to the OPs application IS would be handy, especially panning IS mode on the 100-400 (if shootin motorsports etc.)

[larrywen]

I will goto 70-200 2.8L II and 100 IS L. Because if possible, always try to buy the best quality in the affordable range. Otherwise, you may continuously think you may need to upgrade your glass in order to get better pictures

The two lens from DWI only slightly more than $3000