Lens Suggestions

ushiker · June 12, 2008

My wife and I purchased a Canon 40D this past winter which came with the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Zoon Lens. We've been very happy with the camera, but are looking to purchase a few more lenses. We have a budget of about $1000 and we're looking for a good macro lens and a good telephoto lens.

I've been looking at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Telphoto Zoom Lens but wanted to see if there was anything else out there. I mostly doing nature photography and need something that gets me a little closer to the subjects than my 28-135 will.

I haven't done much research on the macro lens TBH and just need suggestions. The macro lens will be for flowers, insects, etc...

We're relatively new to photography, so nothing too advanced. Thanks in advance.

Manfr3d · June 12, 2008

I suggest looking at the following (quality) lenses:

Canon EF-S 60mm/2.8 Macro 1:1
Canon EF 70-300mm/4-5.6 IS

this keeps you under 1000$.

A very popular and very good (albeit shorter) alternative to the 70-300mm lens is the

Canon 70-200mm/4.0 L

lens. It doesn't have an image stabiliser but has superior optics and build quality (all metal).

claudermilk · June 12, 2008

Is the 70-200/4L metal? I though it was composite. Not that it matters much, it's a fantastic lens--you just have to worry about contracting L-itis or L-coholism from it.

For macro, also check out the Sigma 150mm, 180mm, and Tamron 90mm and 180mm. All have stellar reputations. I plan to eventually get the Tamron 180mm myself.

Tee Why · June 16, 2008

For $1000 you have a lot of options for a telephoto zoom and macro photography.

I think the Canon 70-300mm IS will leave enough room to fund a dedicated macro lens. Most macros are optically excellent so consider making your purchase based more on the focal length you want and the features for the price you have to pay. Canon 60mm and 100mm f2.8 macros are certainly good. Sigma makes great macros in 50mm and 105mm range that should fit your budget. Tamron 90mm is also excellent and I think they have a rebate as well right now. Tokina's new 100mm f2.8 macro is nice and may fit your budget as well.

Probably the cheapest way to go would be to get a Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. For $200 you can get a decent consumer grade telephoto wtih a 1:2 magnification.

Good luck.

Scott_Quier · June 17, 2008

How about this combination:

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD for $350
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM for $580

The Tamron has a min focus distance of 13" over the entire focal length - not great macro capability but it is quite good. The optics are quite good and the lens is a very good (not great, but very good) performer, even in low-light situations.

Of course, the 70-200 is epic - enough said. All this for about $930, which leaves plenty of your $1,000 budget for s/h.

nightspidy · June 19, 2008

Macro suggestion

claudermilk wrote:

........For macro, also check out the Sigma 150mm, 180mm, and Tamron 90mm and 180mm. All have stellar reputations. I plan to eventually get the Tamron 180mm myself.

I would look into the Tokina 100mm - it was my first lens purchased outside of the kit lens' back in 2006 and it is tack-sharp. It is also great for portraits as well. Try B&H for ordering.

rpcrowe · June 19, 2008

I have fairly set ideas regarding these two types of lenses
Regarding macro lenses:

50mm Canon - I don't like this lens because it only provides 1:2 imagery without an adapter.

50mm Sigma and 60mm Canon - both are good lenses but, I much prefer a 90-100mm macro when using a 1.6x camera because of the increased lens to subject distance which avoids scaring crawly little critters and makes lighting easier

90mm Tamron and 100mm Canon - both of these lenses are excellent and if you are looking for a macro lens, I would recommend either one. I have the Tamron (which has a great rebate in effect at the present time - $359 after rebate) and I am very happy with it. The image quality of this lens is great - equal or surpassing my "L" lenses. The Canon 100mm macro is another superb lens. I have never read a bad comment against this lens (neither have I read any negative reports about the Tamron). Canon also has a rebate in effect which reduces the price of this lens to $455 (B&H prices).

150-180mm - These guys give you wonderful lens to image distance but can be heavier than many photographers like to hand-hold and they are relatively expensive.

Telephoto:

I personally like a telephoto lens that is equipped with image stabilization. I find that IS makes the lens a lot more versatile for me.

Actually, within your budget constraints; there is really only one lens to choose that is affordable and which has IS; the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. This is a very competent lens but gets some bad press because of the relatively slow aperture at 300mm and because the front element rotates. However, the 70-300mm IS lens at $549 would fit very well into your one grand budget along with either the Tammie 90mm or the Canon 100mm macro.

A real budget tele zoom would be the Canon 55-250mm lens. It is equipped with IS and the image quality is good but not spectacular but, it does have one great virtue: low cost at $279.

Here's another thought:

Have patience and look for a used Tamron 90mm SP macro. This non-Di model provides great imagery and can often be found used in minty condition well below the $200 mark. I purchased mine in mint condition for $125 including shipping. If you really are interested in wildlife - one of the primo wildlife lenses is the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens. With some careful and patient shopping, you can often locate one of these jewels for a sub $1,000 price. That would bring your total for two fantastic lenses to between $1,100 and $1,200.

You would have the best of both worlds, a super macro and a great wildlife and general purpose tele lens with IS.

rpcrowe · June 19, 2008

I have fairly set ideas regarding these two types of lenses
Regarding macro lenses:

50mm Canon - I don't like this lens because it only provides 1:2 imagery without an adapter.

50mm Sigma and 60mm Canon - both are good lenses but, I much prefer a 90-100mm macro when using a 1.6x camera because of the increased lens to subject distance which avoids scaring crawly little critters and makes lighting easier

90mm Tamron and 100mm Canon - both of these lenses are excellent and if you are looking for a macro lens, I would recommend either one. I have the Tamron (which has a great rebate in effect at the present time - $359 after rebate) and I am very happy with it. The image quality of this lens is great - equal or surpassing my "L" lenses. The Canon 100mm macro is another superb lens. I have never read a bad comment against this lens (neither have I read any negative reports about the Tamron). Canon also has a rebate in effect which reduces the price of this lens to $455 (B&H prices).

150-180mm - These guys give you wonderful lens to image distance but can be heavier than many photographers like to hand-hold and they are relatively expensive.

Telephoto:

I personally like a telephoto lens that is equipped with image stabilization. I find that IS makes the lens a lot more versatile for me.

Actually, within your budget constraints; there is really only one lens to choose that is affordable and which has IS; the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. This is a very competent lens but gets some bad press because of the relatively slow aperture at 300mm and because the front element rotates. However, the 70-300mm IS lens at $549 would fit very well into your one grand budget along with either the Tammie 90mm or the Canon 100mm macro.

A real budget tele zoom would be the Canon 55-250mm lens. It is equipped with IS and the image quality is good but not spectacular but, it does have one great virtue: low cost at $279.

Here's another thought:

Have patience and look for a used Tamron 90mm SP macro. This non-Di model provides great imagery and can often be found used in minty condition well below the $200 mark. I purchased mine in mint condition for $125 including shipping. If you really are interested in wildlife - one of the primo wildlife lenses is the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens. With some careful and patient shopping, you can often locate one of these jewels for a sub $1,000 price. That would bring your total for two fantastic lenses to between $1,100 and $1,200.

You would have the best of both worlds, a super macro and a great wildlife and general purpose tele lens with IS.

silverstangs · June 20, 2008

I am going to be different from everyone else, and give you the setup I did for my sister in law...

She has the same camera and lens that you have. She was happy with the 28-135 lenses, but wanted more reach and she wanted to do some macro work...

I had her get a refurbish lens from Adorama.com. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens - Refurbished By Canon USA which was $900. That is about $290 cheaper than buying it brand new. Also the front element does not rotate, so you can use polorizer filters without any issues.
I also had her pick up the Canon Auto Focus Extension Tube EF 25 II for Close-up and Macro Photography, which was $145. She spent $1045 but she has a lens that is VERY close in performance to the professional "L" glass. The Macro tube is usable between both lenses.
I am making the suggestion, because it is better to get one very good lens which the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is than to compromise and get a medicore lens the non DO 70-300mm lens a good macro the 100mm Macro. The extension tube will help you get those macro shots and you can use them with both of your lenses and get your feet wet into Macro Photgraphy. If you really like it alot, it will buy you time to save up for the 100mm macro or the 180mm Macro.
Also with the 40D you have a 1.6x crop factor, so your current 28-135mm lens is more like a 44-216mm lens. The 70-300mm lens will be more like 112-480mm.

BTW, I do have the Macro tubes myself, and I use them with the majority of my lenses quite often.

Lens Suggestions

Comments