Lens choices

greedy123

greedy123

greedy123

Associate
Joined
29 Feb 2008
Posts
1,173
Location
Nottingham
Hi, I decided to look at getting one or two more lenses for my 400d as i've been getting plenty of use out of it and feel like treating myself. Currently got:
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Kit Lens (EF-S)
50mm f/1.8 II
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
60mm f/2.8 macro (EF-S)

Wanting some better quality ones for when i do more professional shooting in studio and at events. Trying to decide between:

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM or EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
to replace the kit lens in my bag (other recommendations for this range welcome)

and between...

EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM or EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
as a more powerful zoom lens when needed over my 28-135mm

I am aware about price differences so please consider value for money in any recommendations. Cheers
 
Oh and before anyone mentions EF-S lens compatability, i'm not looking to upgrade the body for another year or two at which time I will probably get a 50D anyway which can use the EF-S mount.
 
greedy123 said:
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM or EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Click to expand...

I've got the Nikon equivilent to these (both Tamron). There's no competition between them at all. You'll barely notice the 100mm loss in range of the 200 but having the extra speed give you so much more potential with yours shots. More than worth the extra cash imo.
 
the 2.8 on the telephoto is a very nice thing to have, I have just got one and being able to pick a face out of a crowd is lovely.
The 70-300 has got range but is not that fast for low light conditions.

as for the wide angle side of things the L lens maybe to wide for general use however the 17-55 is no slouch and if not intending on moving to FF anytime soon then may suit you better.

The best question ti ask is what are your current lenses stopping you from doing. If its just looks then i wouldnt bother, if you get the shots thats what should count.
 
greedy123 said:
Hi, I decided to look at getting one or two more lenses for my 400d as i've been getting plenty of use out of it and feel like treating myself. Currently got:
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Kit Lens (EF-S)
50mm f/1.8 II
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
60mm f/2.8 macro (EF-S)

Wanting some better quality ones for when i do more professional shooting in studio and at events. Trying to decide between:

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM or EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
to replace the kit lens in my bag (other recommendations for this range welcome)

and between...

EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM or EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
as a more powerful zoom lens when needed over my 28-135mm

I am aware about price differences so please consider value for money in any recommendations. Cheers
Click to expand...

Sell the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Kit Lens (EF-S) and 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

and get the 17-55 2.8 IS.
You wont need the 18-55 with the 17-55, and the 28-135 is a not very useful being 45mm on the wide end.

The 70-300 and 70-200 are very different lenses designed for different purposes and so it often makes sense to own both. One immediate difference is the weight, you wont be hiking a 70-200 2.8 up a mountain too often, as the 70-300 can follow you anywhere. Once the 70-200 is put to your eye you will know why you have paid the money .

Also consider the 70-200 2.8 non IS to save money. Depending on your shooting style IS is either marginally useful sometimes to absolutely useless. A tripod works out much better, as does raising ISO. IF you just walk around with a camera and lens snapping away then IS can be useful for static targets
 
Well the quality of the kit lens is poor, its terrible in low light and has next to no sharpness even with a tripod. I need a wide angle good quality lens for site visits and taking photos of buildings. I had looked at the 10-22mm one but its way too wide for what i need and has no versatility where as the 17-55mm 2.8 i can use generally out and about. As for zoom, i like to do a fair bit of macro photography and wildlife shooting and although my 60mm is awesome for indoor shooting you have to get damn close to things outside and if your taking photos of animals they move so think a good zoom would suit me for that.

What I worry about the 70-200mm one is the weight, its about twice the weight of the other one lol! I think the canon website said it was 1.3kg. That's more than my tripod!
 
greedy123 said:
I disagree, it has been a very good lens for general walking around use. I use this lens the most of my 4 by far.
Click to expand...

In which case you would like the 70-200 even more.

45mm is no where near wide enough for general walkabout photography by the common definition. IF it works for then you would probably really like a high quality 70-200 lens.
 
It generally depends on where I am, it i'm in a park or museum then I use my 28-135. Recently if I've been around cities or small sites however I've been using my kit lens and not been happy with the results though hence looking at the 2.8 IS version.
I really want the 70-200mm now lol! I've been looking into getting a second hand one due to the cost and you get about 30% off rrp for as new quality. I've never bought a second hand lens before but my friends have reccomended it as lenses keep their quality for a long time.
 
Lens came, mint condition and with hoya UV filter attached. Well pleased! Took this close up of my Gibson, not as crisp as my 60mm macro but still impressed.

IMG_5009.jpg


Will take it outside this week once my lens hood/cir-pol filter show up.
 
greedy123 said:
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM or EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
to replace the kit lens in my bag (other recommendations for this range welcome)

and between...

EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM or EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
as a more powerful zoom lens when needed over my 28-135mm
Click to expand...

If you are happy with EFs, I'd probably choose the 17-55, the extra range makes it a bit more versatile.

Between the two telephoto's i'm not sure. You don't often see them up against each other. The 70-300 is a very compact lens, and would make an excellent travelling companion, but the out and out quality of the 70-200 would probably sway me.
 
aztechnology said:
If you are happy with EFs, I'd probably choose the 17-55, the extra range makes it a bit more versatile.

Between the two telephoto's i'm not sure. You don't often see them up against each other. The 70-300 is a very compact lens, and would make an excellent travelling companion, but the out and out quality of the 70-200 would probably sway me.
Click to expand...

yeh i bought the 17-55 if you read my last post. gonna go out in a bit and test it out once I've eaten.

as for the telephoto i decided on the 70-200mm after reading not so positive reviews on the quality of the 70-300mmDO.... once i can afford it (stupid price increases).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom