Thinking about trading lenses...
Jeremy Winterberg
Registered Users Posts: 1,233 Major grins
I currently have a Canon 80-200f/2.8L and I love it, but its a bit too much for my tastes. I like being up close and personal most of the time. I have really only used it once or twice and it was alright. I always bring it with on my shoots, but always end up using my 17-50mm f/2.8.
I guess what I'm asking is, what would be a good replacement for this lens? It doesn't have to be a telephoto lens, it can be a prime or a wide angle lens.
This is what I have currently:
Canon EF 80-200mm 2.8L "Magic Drainpipe"
Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
ProMaster 17-50mm f/2.8
I would like a Macro lens, like the MP-65 1-5x (I think thats what its called)
Or possibly the 50 f/1.2L, 135 f/2L, 17-55mm f/2.8IS (would be nice to have a cannon version, I would sell my offbrand version if I got this lens)
Anything fast really..
I guess what I'm asking is, what would be a good replacement for this lens? It doesn't have to be a telephoto lens, it can be a prime or a wide angle lens.
This is what I have currently:
Canon EF 80-200mm 2.8L "Magic Drainpipe"
Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
ProMaster 17-50mm f/2.8
I would like a Macro lens, like the MP-65 1-5x (I think thats what its called)
Or possibly the 50 f/1.2L, 135 f/2L, 17-55mm f/2.8IS (would be nice to have a cannon version, I would sell my offbrand version if I got this lens)
Anything fast really..
Jer
0
Comments
What do you want to shoot? That's a pretty disparate list of lenses to replace a telephoto zoom...
The 135L has some kind of magic dust sprinkled into the glass - it has a unique and very particular look which I personally love. It's not cheap, though, and used copies seem to have gone UP in price recently in response to a shortage of new copies around. You can get lucky, however (I did
For something around that focal length, the 85 1.8 and 100 f2 are also wonderful lenses and well worth the relatively low investment (~325 used). If you want a portrait lens, one of those would be an excellent investment.
Most of the reviews of the 50 1.2 that I've read seem to say that unless you NEED f1.2, then stick with the 1.4... at less than 1/5 the price. I picked up my 50 1.4 for $299 from KEH - the 1.2 is around $1600 new!
The 65mm MPE Lens is a great but, totally specialized lens which will provide only a 1:1 to 5:1 image ratio. It cannot be used as a normal lens because it cannot focus at any distance fro 1:1 image ratio to infinity.
Think about the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro or the 100mm f/2 lenses both of these lenses are great short telephotos.
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is the best IMO general purpose mid-range zoom lenses for 1.6x cameras.
The reason for the MPE-65 (Thanks for clarifying that for me), is because I would like to get into macro photography. I wouldn't be using it for other things, just wanted to get into macro stuff.
Diva, I was just reading your post over in the wedding section for your engagement session, very nice! I'm looking forward to seeing more from the session. Was that taken with the 135L?
Well, I've figured out over time that I don't go to my telephoto lens that often, I always end up going to my wide angle lens.
The 85 f/1.8 is nice, I forgot about that lens.. might have to check that out.
I really just want a nice prime for portraits...
Nice prime for portraits:
I'd say go for the 85 1.8 or 50 1.4. Both are afforable and will do the job you want.
I shot that e-session with the 50 1.4 and 135L, most of them with the 135. THanks for the kind words!
ack... between those two lenses which one would you say? 135L is amazing but is out of the question right now...
I guess you're going to say, why get the canon one when you already have the same lens pretty much... you don't 'NEED' it. I like my lens, but its not as sharp as I would like it to be. I've tried fixing it with the micro-adjustments in the 50D settings, which helped a tad, but didn't make a significant difference.
I think I'm gonna go with the 85... but not sure.. I might not even be able to sell my lens (I'm sure it will sell though because... well tis a magic drainpipe and everyone wants one)
so many decisions to make...
I don't think you said what you are shooting, which makes a big difference--the effective length of a given lens on an APS-C is 1.6 times that on a FF.
If you want to get into macro, don't start with an MP-65. It is a highly specialized lens useful for people who want to get a lot closer than 1:1. In contrast, the standard Canon lenses are very flexible and can be used, for example, for portraits, although macro lenses do focus a little more slowly. The EF-S 60 /2.8 and the EF 100 /2.8 (non-L) are both very good lenses and are reasonably priced. The 60 on a crop sensor would of course function much like the 100 on a full frame. I use the 60 a lot on a 50D, and I have been very pleased. The new 100mm L is has hybrid IS but costs about $500 more.
My suggestion is to use the 60mm or 100mm while you are getting into macro. If you get to the point where you want more than 1:1 magnification, get a set of Kenko extension tubes.
Dan
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF 135mm f/2L
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro
I own these three and they are all very good, especially the 135mm and 50mm. From what I've heard, the 50mm f/1.2L is better than the 1.4, but not enough to justify its price tag. So unless you need the absolute best, I would go with the 50mm f/1.4.
Not to sound disrespectful, but if you would have read the posts you would've read that I shoot people and use a 50D...
The reason why I wanted the MPE-65 was because I've seen what it can do in macro photography, and I don't really want to have to buy another lens.
I'm going back and forth between the 17-55 2.8 is, the 85 2.8 and the 50 1.4... probably going to get either the 85 or the 50 since I already have a 17-50 2.8... I also may look into a fisheye or a 35mm (not sure how much those are... haven't done research yet)... but whatever I get... it needs to be around $800.