Options
What is best value for $700 canon lens
startingjourney
Registered Users Posts: 25 Big grins
What's the best lens to buy if you've got a spare $700? Canon,sigma, etc for canon?
0
startingjourney
Registered Users Posts: 25 Big grins
Comments
What do you currently own and what are your needs?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 may fall into the price range as well.
EF 135 f/2.8 (325 at B&H) Should be passable for indoors and if you can get close to field sports. Reach is severely limited though. For example my 70-200 is only useable for a bout a quarter of a soccer field with decent results. 135 would be shorter than that.
EF 50 f/1.4 (400 at B&H) have this lens and I love it fr shooting the kids. Use it whenever I need larger aperture then 2.8 and always kick myself in the butt for not using it more.
But for outdoor use in good lighting and for getting the kiddy sports and being in your price range you might want to look at the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ($550 B&H). Not the greatest lens in the world but it is still sounding like a nice lens with a great focal length range.
Again personal opinion but I think you would be best served with the 70-200 f/4L IS USM ($1100 B&H). I know it is above your current budget. I personally would be wanting that IS too often to go without. It may be in your best interest to wait and save for that.
Best of luck in a difficult decision.
Although it seems not to get talked about that much, there is a Canon L telephoto bargain out there: I just picked up a used copy of the 200L 2.8 for ~$500 and new it runs just over your budget at ~$750. That is a LOT of classy glass for the money. There's a learning curve with it (at 200mm handholding without IS takes some care and at that length wide open you have to be SO accurate with the focusing point!), but it's a beautiful lens - it gets the same kind of rave reveiews as the 135L and now I've got it in my hands I can see why - when *I* get it right, the results are spectacular. It's much lighter than the telezooms, if that's something that matters to you.
If you want a cheaper long zoom to play with, you can do worse than the 55-250is. I just sold my copy to fund the prime above because I need fast glass for the shooting I do, but if I hadn't needed the wider aperture I'd have gladly continued to use the "nifty two fifty" - it's SHARP as anything, the IS simply works, and for the $200 or so it costs, it's a steal.
Don't be in a hurry...you may regret it latter. I know, I have.
Canon 17-40mm f/4L
A friend of mine has one, and he likes it over his 16-35 mk1 due to less barrel distortion/pincushioning. I think they can be had for around $700 new. Also it sounds like you want two different things. Do you want something to replace the focal range of the kit lens, or a longer zoom 70-200 range? They are two different things. If you need reach, go with a longer lens (70-200). But I could never just get rid of the 16-50 focal range zoom. Landscapers like me need than range. But it is all relative to your needs.
If you've got the bug to buy something now though, may I recommend using the Bill Me Later option if your buying from B&H. I've been using it for the last 2+ years and out of all that time I think there were only three months I didn't have a balance. It'll allow you to buy the IS version now and keep your money/CC freed up in case something unexpected comes up and I find it much more palatable to pay for larger purchases a little chunk at a time.
I've managed to acquire a a fair amount of gear I otherwise probably wouldn't have picked up given I like to keep my money available and I really dislike paying interest to the same banks we just bailed out.
5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.