[Punnisher]

I'm going on a trip in exactly a month and need at least 2 nice lenses. I've been hearing lots of good info on this one:

Newegg.com - Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

Main shooting will be outdoor handheld, but from time to time I'll use my tripod.

People are also raving about how good this one is for the price:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens Review

I know they're in two totally different leagues, but I'm looking for the best possible price/performance here.

And lastly a macro lens is in order. If there are any lenses that double as a macro/walkaround lens that's even better. There's so much info out there and I don't have much time.

 

[Samgotit]

Those are both fantastic lenses. I've owned the 50mm and still have the 70-200 f/4. The 50mm is cheap, feels like crap, has a plastic mount, and won't win any focus speed contest, but it produces great images for the money. There is NO way to go wrong @ 80 bucks.

The 50mm 1.8 AND the 70-200mm can both double as a macro lens with extension tubes. You will have to be close with 50mm and depth of field will be Shallow, but it will work. The 70-200 works much better. Still, there is nothing like a true macro.

kenko extension tubes:
Kenko | Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Canon EOS | AEXTUBEDGC

The tubes are cheaper on Ebay, btw.


Here is a photo with the 70-200 f/4 and extension tubes:

MrVile also used this combo with great results.

 

[Punnisher]

Thanks a lot for the quick response.

Is the 50mm lens good as a walkaround, all rounder?

Those tubes are a good option, but I can afford to get a decent macro. I'd like to be able to take pictures like that dragonfly without breaking a sweat (or the bank for that matter).

Also what do you think about 200mm? Is this enough as a main telephoto lens?

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks a lot for the quick response. Is the 50mm lens good as a walkaround, all rounder? Those tubes are a good option, but I can afford to get a decent macro. I'd like to be able to take pictures like that dragonfly without breaking a sweat (or the bank for that matter). Also what do you think about 200mm? Is this enough as a main telephoto lens?

Personally, I find 200mm is more that enough for anything but wildlife, especially if you have a crop body camera.

50mm for walk around? Some will say yes because it forces you to "think" about your shots more. But, on vacation, screw that. I'd want Canon's 17-40mm f/4L or the cheaper Tamron 17-50 f/2.8:

tamron 17-50 canon | B&H Photo Video

What is your budget? These things are always easer if we know how much of your money we can spend.

 

[lan]

I'm going to cheer for the recommendations already made.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Canon 50 f/1.8
Canon 70-200 f4.

I could do most of my stuff with those 3 if I was on a medium budget.

If you have a little more $ I'd swap the Canon 50 with the Sigma 30 f/1.4.

 

[Punnisher]

I'd like to stick to under 1000 but I know I'll end up spending more.

I like the list so far, but is the 17-50 good only as a walkaround, or as a macro as well?

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd like to stick to under 1000 but I know I'll end up spending more. I like the list so far, but is the 17-50 good only as a walkaround, or as a macro as well?

I think you would be pretty amazed by what extension tubes and the 70-200mm can do. How much macro would you be shooting on the trip?

With the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 70-200 you're right at $1000. For $339 more you can have a true, excellent macro lens with the Sigma 105mm. I bought mine from here:
Sigma Telephoto 105mm f/2.8 EX Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS (256101)

Here's the thing: You still should have tubes, even for a dedicated macro lens. Why don't you order the tubes and the 70-200mm f/4 and see if it suits your needs for macro. If not, the tubes are not a waist as you will still use them with a dedicated macro like the Sigma 105mm.

 

[Punnisher]

I shoot as much macro as I do landscape/general scenery for sure.

Macro is really important for this trip, and even at home.

Here's what I'm thinking:

70-200
17-50
105 macro

Thats 1200-1300 roughly. About what I expected.

As for the tubes...What kind of improvements/differences will they make for a macro lens like the 105?

Again thanks for all the comments, this is helping me out big time.

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif I shoot as much macro as I do landscape/general scenery for sure. Macro is really important for this trip, and even at home. Here's what I'm thinking: 70-200 17-50 105 macro Thats 1200-1300 roughly. About what I expected. As for the tubes...What kind of improvements/differences will they make for a macro lens like the 105? Again thanks for all the comments, this is helping me out big time.

I think you would be set with that list. The tubes get you in closer... much closer if you need it for the smaller stuff. They have no optics in them so there is no image degradation or improvement. I you shoot lg/med flowers a lot, there is less of a need for tubes.

 

[Punnisher]

This is about as close as I'll be getting to my subject:

Those were all taken with my Kodak z740, which did macro extremely well apparently. My macro stuff taken with the kit lens on my Rebel Xti aren't even as good.


If the 105 can get at least that close, then I'm happy.

 

[Samgotit]

I should mention that you should compare the Canon 100mm macro to the Sigma for yourself. It is more expensive but it has a few points that many consider perks:

Amazon.com: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

Canon Pros
Barrel does not extend when focusing. The Sigma's barrel extends when you focus like a zoom lens would when you zoom.
Make a brilliant portrait lens (but so does the 70-200mm). I have now idea how the Sigma would be as a portrait lens; never tried it.
Focus is faster/better. Most macro shooters only use manual focus anyway, but if you want it to double a portrait lens, faster focus would be nice.

Canon Cons
Does not come with lens hood
Over $100 more expensive

Image quality is a wash between the two.

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is about as close as I'll be getting to my subject: If the 105 can get at least that close, then I'm happy.

Yep, I don't think you would need tubes based on that.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

As you are vacationing, have you considered the hassles associated with carrying multiple lenses? I mean, a grand or so might buy you 3 or possibly 4 nice lenses, but hauling a camera bag from place to place is more cumbersome than you might expect.

If I were you, I'd assess the range most used, and focus on 1 or maybe 2 lenses which cover that range nicely; something like a 17-50 Tamron and 50-150 Sigma might do the trick.

 

[Punnisher]

Good thinking. I have used my DSLR for nearly two years, and I find myself wanting to get closer to everything, whether it be macro or the ability to zoom in on far-away objects.

I'm fairly set on the 70-200, but I wonder if there is a lens that will satisfy my macro fever, as well as be good for all-around shooting?

I think this would be best for my wallet, and not having to switch lenses so often.

Any lenses that can do macro well, as well as mid range?

Edit: it seems people are indeed using that Canon 100mm lens even with general shooting. Maybe this is the ticket.

 

[Punnisher]

After doing lots of reading I just pulled the trigger on the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

I hope I did the right thing.

Thanks for all the comments, and I'll post some pictures after I get the lenses next week.