Some more comments if you'd like. As always, the choice comes down to what
you shoot. I tend to shoot outdoors, wildlife when I can, scenics & macro
when I can't. I generally shoot on short to medium hikes, so how much gear
I'm packing is often an issue.
50mm 1.4
I own this lens and its great, but I never use it. The cases where I'd want
it are covered by the other gear so its one less lens to carry - small tho
it may be.
100mm f2.8 Macro
A great lens I understand. I use the Tamron 90mm SP 2.8 Macro and find it
to be excellent. It's very well rated. Either way, the 2.8 makes it a
useful lowlight lens, and 90 or 100 is nice for portrature. The advantage
of Canon's new 100mm Macro is the tripod ring, which is a significant
benefit if you're doing serious macro. I generally only take this lens with
when I'm out by myself. When you're in the field with non-photographers,
however, serious macro work is generally too time-consuming to do properly.
You can still do decent, casual macro work with the 28-135 IS or 100-400 IS
and extension tubes, with much less setup time.
17-35mm
Absolutely essential for dramatic scenics. 24mm just doesn't do it, and
once you've used this even a 20-35 will seem limited. Also good for any
strong, close, foreground object where you still want to include plenty of
background - flowers, little critters, etc.
100-400 IS
For me, this is my default lens when in the field. Flowers, wildlife small
& large, birds in flight, telephoto scenics, - it's a great all 'round lens.
I use it with extension often, with negligible impact. Add extension tubes
for butterflies, nearby birds, flower macros, & such. The teleconvertors
have a much bigger impact. The 1.4 is still pretty sharp, although you pay
a price in AF speed. The 2.x teleconvertor gets pretty dark at f11, costs
more in sharpness, and requires manual focus. I still do that sometimes if
necessary, and get an occasional keeper. Bear in mind, though, that if
you're seriously into birds, especially small song birds, 400 is still
pretty short. If you're serious about birds you need to look at a 500 or
600 f4 or f4.5 for reach and brightness. On a serious bird outing the long
lens is on the tripod and the 100-400 is handy for flight shots & such.
For what I shoot, the 70-200 is just too short.
28-135 IS
You didn't mention this lens, but it covers a lot of bases. If I need to
consider low light, I've got the 17-35 and macro lens at 2.8, and with IS on
this lens, you really do get an extra stop or two for hand-holding as long
as subject movement is not an issue. This is a great 'walking around' lens
for travelling light. For macro work, it has its own macro mode, and you
can add extension tubes to get really close. IS for quick macro work is
really nice. For serious macro work tho, there are still advantages to a
real macro lens in terms of sharpness, and greater depth of field control @
f2.8.
Used Lenses
I've had really good luck buying used lenses. You should be able to pick up
the 17-35 for 900-1100, for example. Ebay is not a great choice, as used
stuff usually goes for too much there. Do try the classified ads at
www.photo.net, however.
Paul Wasserman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Helen Doane wrote:
Subject: Re: EOS Lens kit plans
Ken Durling wrote:
> OK, indulge me here. ;-) I think we all like to think about lens
> kits. So, since I've had my Elan 7 w/28-90 and 75-300 lenses for
> about 2-3 months now and have shot 20-30 rolls, I'm starting to get an
> idea of what my patterns are and what I want my lens kit to be when
> I'm "done." In probable order of purchase:
>
> 50mm f/1.4 - GP and low-light use
I have this lens, and it's a pleasure to use and a great performer. If I
hadn't got a good price on it used, I would still be happy with the
50/1.8, which is also a great performer, but somewhat less pleasurable to
use.
> 100mm f/2.8 macro - Macro and portraiture
Macro's not really my bag, so I can't comment.
> zoom 100-400mm f.4.5-5.6 IS - wildlife, especially birds
I was lucky to find a used 200/2.8L, which is a great performer. The
previous owner had traded it in on a 70-200/2.8L. It is very sharp, and
will blow out backgrounds beautifully when used at f2.8. I recently got a
Canon 2X converter to go with it, and am favorably impressed. There's no
IS, but it cost a lot less than the 100-400, and gives me the f2.8 if I
want it.
> zoom 17-35mm f/2.8L - people and scenery
The widest I have is a 24/2.8, but I don't use it all that much. Maybe a
wide-angle fan can add some more meaningful comments.
> Couple of questions: for those of you that frequent such venues - do
> any of these show up on the second hand market much? The lenses I
> have probably don't have much resale, right?
As noted above, I found 2 lenses in excellent condition used. Unless
you're in a large urban area (I'm not), you probably have to be patient
for something to show up. I have heard of several other people finding
used 200/2.8L's, so they may be more common. The 50/1.4 came from someone
who traded in all his EOS gear for a Hassey.
I traded in the two cheap zooms I had, when I went to primes, and the shop
gave me about half what I paid for them. I think that's pretty reasonable
considering the used lenses I bought from them were about 60-70% of new
cost.
> I understand that the 100-400 IS is probably too slow to use with an
> extender, but that it IS tripod compatible. Plus you can put a
> close-up lens on it. I'd love to have more "reach" - but I don't
> think I can afford a lens fast enough to use with a TC effectively, or
> one of the super zooms. Comments?
Again, the 200/2.8L is fast, and works fine with converters. But you may
find it a bit short for birds, unless they're really tame!
Geoff Doane, Halifax, N.S.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
