Lens

  • SpooF
  • ٩๏̯͡๏۶
  • Bronze Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3422
  • Loc: Richland, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Okay so I'm looking at getting another lens. I currently have a Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. My grand parents are giving me $500 or so and I'm willing to spend up to around $1000 out of my own pocket. So I can get a wide range of lens.

I was looking at a wide angle lens before, but I decided that I wont have a lot of time to really get anything out of it.

I'm looking at replacing my 28-135mm with two lenses in the long run, however I'm not sure which to get first, a larger focal length or a lower end one. If I get a lens with a longer focal length I will most likely be getting and L series lens.

Lower:
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens

Longer:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens

I really Like the 100-400mm (nature galore), however I would love to have a 2.8 lens for when ever I'm inside or for night time action shots, well more of field lighting.
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • Ishii
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Ishii
  • Posts: 355
  • Loc: Gilbert, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

You can't go wrong with either of the long lenses that you have listed. They are both outstanding. I would not waste time with the 17-85. You already have something of comparable quality in your current lens. If you're going to upgrade, upgrade, don't crossgrade. The 24-105 is an excellent lens, although if you go with the 70-200 I would recommend pairing it with a 24-70 F2.8 instead.
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

Although I'd take the 17-85 over the 28-135, I wouldn't want to own both. If you're seriously considering picking up another EF-S lens, check out the 17-55 2.8
  • UNFLUX
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6376
  • Loc: twitter.com/unflux

Post 3+ Months Ago

ugh - 4.5? anything 2.8 or under, I say go for it.
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

SpooF, have you considered the 24-70 f4 L?
  • SpooF
  • ٩๏̯͡๏۶
  • Bronze Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3422
  • Loc: Richland, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

UNFLUX wrote:
ugh - 4.5? anything 2.8 or under, I say go for it.


Ya, I would really like to have a 2.8, but you cant really beat that zoom on the 100-400. I would only use it outside during the day. Mostly to get picture of animals.

neksus wrote:
SpooF, have you considered the 24-70 f4 L?


I've looked at 24-70, but only the 2.8. If I get something to replace my focal length of my current lens I would want it to have the lowest f stop I could get.
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

I think I put f4 because I was reading over your lens choices - I meant the 2.8 :)
  • Ishii
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Ishii
  • Posts: 355
  • Loc: Gilbert, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Honestly unless you shoot in low light the 2.8 isn't going to matter much. I have the 24-70 F 2.8 and typically shoot it at 5.6. I leave the really low light work to my 50 F1.4
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

I guess it depends on what you're shooting.

Also, a lens that is stopping down to 5.6 is going to produce sharper images then one wide open at 5.6.
  • Ishii
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Ishii
  • Posts: 355
  • Loc: Gilbert, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

neksus wrote:
I guess it depends on what you're shooting.

Also, a lens that is stopping down to 5.6 is going to produce sharper images then one wide open at 5.6.


Exactly why I stop down to f5.6. I leave the wider aperture stuff to my primes because they are way better at it.
  • mtg131g
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • mtg131g
  • Posts: 238

Post 3+ Months Ago

I just got the 50mm f1.4 and love the lens and I also have the 70-200mm f 2.8 lens and have had some great success with both lenses. I have shot with the 100-400mm f4.0 lens and it is a great lens for nature. I can tell you that i had better luck with my 70-200 mm f2.8 lens for some nature shots of black bears on carcuses. This was very early morning and I did notice that I got better shots due to the lower f stop. With today's cameras I was still tack sharp with my 70-200 lens due to it being L seris glass and standing a bit farther from the subject than that of the 100-400 lens. I was still able to crop fairly close and get good images.

Most of the time when I shoot nature it is either early int he morning or late in the evening due to the harsh sun during the heat of the day. That is why I choose the 70-200 over the 100-400 lens since i can capture a good half hour earlier than i can with the 100-400 lens. now with the 70-200 lens is a great protraite lens as well with the f2.8. I also have the IS lens so that added to the value of that lens. Since I use o shoot high school football that lens was great for those dingy stadium lights and it was also great for the the inside basketball but i had to stand at half court for that lens.

I also own the 10-22 f3.5 and the 18-135 f3.5 lenses as well the 10-22 lens is nice for those panaramic nature views. I also have half way great luck with that lens inside since it is 77mm front end glass that I normally have to step it down when I change from the 18-135 lens. the 10-22 lens is also great for close up shots I have gotten some great shots with it.

The things that I look for when buying lenses are several things.

1. the f value
2. the type of glass EF vs. L glass
3. the focal distance
4. the price

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 11 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.