What lens?

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm thinking about getting another lens this year. I currently have a 17-40mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 28-135mm f/5.6, and 50mm f/1.8. Here are the ones interesting me and what I'm thinking about them:

100mm Macro ($435) - I enjoy macro shooting, which I currently do with my 70-200mm and a closeup filter. Having this lens would give me a much greater focus range rather than having to fiddle with putting the filter and and taking it off.

15mm Fisheye ($560) - I had no interest in a fisheye until seeing some of the interesting shots here. It looks like it would be a lot of fun to play with. My concern is that I'll get bored with it. I find that I shoot more on the long end of my lenses than the wide end.

24mm t/s ($1,100) - This is about twice the price as the prior two lenses. It allows the photographer to do perspective correction and to adjust the angle of the focal plane. I'd love to have this lens because I think it would help me see photography in new and different ways. My concern is that it takes a while to set up a shot and most of my shooting is done while out with the family. As much as I'd love this, I sometimes think that it would be better to wait a few years until the boys are more independent.

400mm f/2.8 ($6,500) - It's ridiculously costly. It's ridiculously large and heavy. On the other hand, I love shooting on the long end. I'm also a huge fan of fast lenses. For now, this is the fastest long lens Canon makes. But would I really lug something this big and heavy around and shoot with it? Would I really be happier with this than having several other lenses combined? I don't care for the Canon 100-400mm or the 400mm f/5.6, so I'm not likely to get either.

Any inspirational thoughts? Cautionary concerns?

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

I have the 100mm 2.8 macro and love it! IMO this is one of Canons sharpest lens. You can get really close with this lens. One warning....you will get addicted to shooting macros when you get this lens, mine was stuck on my camera for months after the purchase. Heres a link to my gallery of shots with this lens...http://www.pbase.com/catson/canon_100mm_f28_macro

 

[jann1033]

I have the 100mm 2.8 macro and love it! IMO this is one of Canons sharpest lens. You can get really close with this lens. One warning....you will get addicted to shooting macros when you get this lens, mine was stuck on my camera for months after the purchase. Heres a link to my gallery of shots with this lens...http://www.pbase.com/catson/canon_100mm_f28_macro

i second this...while i enjoy using my fish eye, i use it very occasionally. ( partly just cause i forget i have it, partly cause i need to practice with it more, partly cause it just is a specialized lens) i personally would use this one more and it is nice and sharp from what i've seen.i would use my 100mm 3rd party a lot if it was sharper.... of course you could buy all the others and not spend as much as the 400 so relatively speaking you would be saving money not spending it if you did that

 

[DueyDooDah]

I, too, would have to vote for the 100mm macro. The photographic options with this lense seem boundless. The beautiful macro images I've seen with this lens are incredible. And, you get a nice 100mm prime to boot.

Every person I know that has a fisheye seldom uses it so it would not be a candidate for me. And, to me, the look of the final image is so '80s. It's been overdone.

The 24mm is very intriquing. I would have loved to have this lens when I sold real estate, but unless I go into architectural phtography, this lens, too, would be used very seldom, especially due to the setup time. BTW: I'm suprised it's not faster.

Now, we come to the 400mm. Wow, what a lens. I love animal photography. This lens would really help, although I'd probably still need more "reach". But, it is getting hard to get out in the field as time goes on. It is bad enough carrying around a small 70-300mm. I can't imagine hauling around that monster, although I drool at the 600mm, which I'd have to hire someone to help carry. I'd opt out on this one, if it were me, for that reason alone. I'll have to stick with my "motor function zoom device" (legs).

All-in-all, you'll have to decide what it is you really want to capture. Each lens you've mentioned has a totally different function. Which one will give you the most satisfaction?

 

[AndrewWG]

Here is a vote for the 400mm 11lb monster lens! Yes it is expensive, but if you rented it out to some real special Canon shooters on the Dis , it could pay for itself, right? If you get it soon, I could even try it out for you in the Everglades next month. Whadda ya think of that idea, huh?

Seriously though, I don't think I would ever spend $6500 on a lens. That is so far above and beyond, it's in the range of just plain old silly. I'm sure it is great, but I think that for slightly less image quality, you can get one the 400mm range that is probably 1/6 the cost.

 

[BFL]

Mark,
I have had the 100mm Macro for a few months now and no complaints - it's sharp and a great prime lens as well. Good luck.
Barbara

 

[SharonLowe]

The 24mm is very intriquing. I would have loved to have this lens when I sold real estate, but unless I go into architectural phtography, this lens, too, would be used very seldom, especially due to the setup time. BTW: I'm suprised it's not faster.

Since you really need to use it on a tripod for its intended purpose, it doesn't need to be any faster than it is. It is also manual focus so yes, it requires you to take time to set it up. BTW, I love mine and frequently use it off tripod for "lensbaby" type shots - a very expensive one but it is so great for buildings and any other time you would normally be pointing the camera up to get the shot you want. I even use it for landscapes to get a better ROT shot without distortion. Great for panoramic shots too.

Mark - I think you need a good macro lens plus the 100 can come in handy for other shots too.

 

[DueyDooDah]

Since you really need to use it on a tripod for its intended purpose, it doesn't need to be any faster than it is. It is also manual focus so yes, it requires you to take time to set it up. BTW, ...

I noted this because the other Canon lenses in this category are f/2.8, although neither is an 'L' series. I thought it funny that the non-Ls were f/2.8 and the L was not.

 

[SharonLowe]

I noted this because the other Canon lenses in this category are f/2.8, although neither is an 'L' series. I thought it funny that the non-Ls were f/2.8 and the L was not.

I can't imagine how much Canon would charge for an f/2.8 version of this lens - maybe as much as that $99,999 lens for sale at B&H. It would also have to be huge!

 

[handicap18]

I vote for the 100mm Macro lens. I love my Sigma 90mm f/2.8 Macro. Its so sharp you have to be careful not to cut your eye. I've heard great things about the Canon 100mm macro. The focusing distance is insane. So is the shallow DOF. You can have a lot of fun with a macro.

 

[AndrewWG]

Mark,

Have you looked into the Sigma macros like Kyle has? I have heard GREAT things about them. I think there is a 70mm and 150mm that have both won awards. I am looking into the 70mm myself. Not sure if it is really what I am looking for right now though.

 

[alan]

Hi Mark,

You don't have any non-fisheye, ultra wide-angle lenses in your list. I had a play with a friend's Sigma 10-22mm, and really had lots of fun with it. And it's pocket change compared to the lenses you're considering.

I was able to show my DW's true character (JOKE!!!!)

And DS got in on the act, too...

And to show off the house, it made my kitchen look pretty huge!

So it might be worth considering...

regards,
/alan

 

[Gdad]

My first choice would be the 100mm macro- I have had two different versions of the Nikon 105 macro and love them both. I also enjoy the fisheye- lots of fun chasing your kids around the playground with one of those.

Curious on the 400mm- are you considering this lens for something specific?

Macro Fun...

Fisheye Fun...

Sorry- I can't do 400/2.8 fun yet...

 

[Groucho]

Unsurprisingly, I'd vote for a fisheye - but not that one. C'mon Mark! You dumped the stock, now try a non Canon lens for once. First off, you're still using (I think?) a cropped-sensor camera - so that is not going to be a "true" fisheye. If you want to try something like that, I'd say to save some bucks and give the Zenitar 16mm F2.8 a try - in fact, I'd bet that the Zenitar could give the Canon a heck of a run for its money in IQ. (A quick Google check indicates that those who have used both feel the same way.) The Zenitar is full manual, but focusing is not much of an issue with the large DoF that the lens offers, and it's got a nice charm to it and pretty good "old world" build quality.

Here's a shot from my Zenitar:

I love that lens!

Now, if you want real fish-eye action, you'll probably want the Tokina 10-17mm, which'll give you more flexibility as well as a more true fisheye shot. Lots of fun!

Second choice would be the 100mm... I've been playing with my new-to-me 105mm F2.8 1:1 macro recently, which is astonishingly sharp and a nice focal length, but a bit on the heavy side, and it takes a lot of turns to get the focus set - but the build quality just blows away most of today's cheap plastic AF lenses.

As for tilt-n-shift, again, the Russians have a few t-n-s lenses that you can pick up for far less than that OEM one, if you want to experiment with the use of one without dropping the big bucks, and you'll probably be able to resell for about what you paid if you're not happy.

Finally, I will say that I'm glad to see you considering some primes. Your collection is too zoom-heavy. (Actually, I'm surprised there's no 50mm F1.4 in your bag, I would expect you to choose that over the F1.8.)

 

[mabas9395]

What do you have against the 400mm f/5.6 or 100-400mm?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

OK, the 400 f/2.8 is almost certainly out. I just can't bring myself to spend that much money on a lens. Maybe if one of the boys gets seriously into sports.

The fisheye is also out. From talking to people, I find few people that have them and use them much. It's a bit much for a novelty item. As it is, I barely use my 17-40mm, so I don't think I'd use a fisheye much either.

I'm not interested in a 10-22mm either, because my main camera is a 1.3x that doesn't take EF-S lenses. I'll probably going to buy two more cameras in the next year or two (5D replacement and either a 40D or it's replacement). Even then, I'll use the 17-40mm on the 5D rather than an ultra-wide for a cropped camera. Same effect, but fewer lenses.

The 24mm T/S still tempts me. A lot. Maybe even more so now that Nikon will be offering similar ones and so it's more likely that I'll find more people to learn from. It's a maybe.

The macro is the most likely choice. Now I'm struggling with choosing between the Canon 100mm and the Tamron 180mm. I've read that the Tamron is optically as good as the Canon 180mm but not as well built. For the cost difference and the amount I think I'll use it, I can live with the build quality difference. the big question is which focal length will work better for me. For that matter, will I be satisfied with a single focal length or should I plan on eventually getting both? I'll put my closeup filter on my 70-200 and play around with it a bit. That might help me get a sense for the issue. If anyone has any comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the different focal lengths for a macro, I'd love to hear them.

As for the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400, I'm not trying to trash them. I've heard great things about both. I don't want the 400 f/5.6 because it doesn't have IS and it is rather slow. If I'm going to lug around a prime, I want more out of it. The 100-400mm frequently tempts me. I hear all the complaining about it, but then I also notice how often the people with lots of lenses to choose from chose it. The people that I know that have both it and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS always go on about how much better the latter is, but I notice that they shoot with the 100-400mm as much or more. I've also noticed that people hate it enough to sell if frequently and love it enough to buy them again. I've never seen a lens that so many people have owned more than once. I really, really, really wish Canon would replace it with a new model. I'd buy that today if it had improved IS and a twist zoom design. I'd pay big bucks if it was f/4. I know people whine about the rediculous cost of the Nikon 200-400mm f/4, but I think I'd pay it for a lens that good.

 

[MICKEY88]

OK, the 400 f/2.8 is almost certainly out. I just can't bring myself to spend that much money on a lens. Maybe if one of the boys gets seriously into sports.

.

just get yourself a press pass, and be right on the sidelines, then your 70-200 2.8 should be sufficient..

 

[Groucho]

If you're going to skip the fisheye based on how often it'll be used, shouldn't the t/s lens suffer the same fate? Surely, you won't be using a t/s lens very often in everyday shooting.

If you're curious about fisheye or TS, I'd still recommend a Zenitar and maybe a Lensbaby for t/s-style stuff. Combined cost for both is well under what you'd spend for the fisheye or the "real" t/s lens, and you have the opportunity to play and have some fun without the feelings of "having" to use an oddball lens because you invested in it.

As for macros... I'm far from a macro expert, but one thing I've picked up is that the longer the focal length, the shorter the DoF - so a 180mm macro is going to have a really, really tiny DoF. My 55mm 1:1 is pretty small, my 105mm 1:1 is even more so. To get much in focus with a 180mm, you'll probably need to stop down pretty far, which means you'll probably need a tripod to get a really steady shot... maybe not so good for shooting bugs and whatnot. (More experienced macro shooters are welcome to put me straight if I'll all wrong. )

One of the new lenses Pentax announced last week was a 35mm 1:1 macro, which has some folks scratching their heads while others are really excited. Such a lens is going to be ideal for shots of things that are can get close to (ie, that won't fly or crawl away), while the 180mm will be exactly the opposite. The 90-105mm range seems to be a nice compromise between the two. I'd also lean towards the 90-105mm range as it's not quite a large and heavy as a 180mm, so may be easier to handhold, increasing its usefulness.

Either way, macro lenses are really sharp!

 

[Gdad]

Here is a new one you may want to consider...

 

[AndrewWG]

Here is a new one you may want to consider...

WOW! That is cool! I wonder what the street price on that one will be?