| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2005 06:19:11 PM · #1 |
which 3 lenses would you buy. I want 2 "L" lenses and a macro.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:25:52 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
which 3 lenses would you buy. I want 2 "L" lenses and a macro. |
well, that's about all you can afford with $2500, 2 L lenses. Better make one of them macro.
Alternately you could go for some Sigma APO DG series, or Tamron SP lenses, and get close to what you get in the L series... just don't drop em I guess.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:29:22 PM · #3 |
100mm macro - $400
70-200L IS - $1500
17-40L F4 - $580
50mm 1.8 - $70 |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:30:36 PM · #4 |
oh and with that said, i also highly recommend...
tamron 17-35mm
tamron 28-75mm
sigma 105mm macro |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:34:24 PM · #5 |
I would go for this lens
Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:34:31 PM · #6 |
canon 24-70 2.8 L
canon 70-200 2.8 L nonIS
sigma 105 macro.
get the canons used, fits the 2500 budget.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:43:42 PM · #7 |
24-70L
70-200 L no IS
105mm canon macro
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:44:39 PM · #8 |
hmm, why doesn't anyon ever suggest the 100-400L?
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:46:34 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
hmm, why doesn't anyon ever suggest the 100-400L? |
Cuz if you're going to spend $1300, wait a week, spend $1600 and get the 70-200 2.8 IS L
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:51:10 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
hmm, why doesn't anyon ever suggest the 100-400L? |
Coz it's SLOW
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:54:11 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 07:02:04 PM · #12 |
why the 105mm and not the 100mm? any particular reason?
and should they be 2.8
Message edited by author 2005-12-23 19:04:20.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 07:08:31 PM · #13 |
One of the new Zeiss primes for my Nikon. :)
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 07:16:14 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
why the 105mm and not the 100mm? any particular reason?
and should they be 2.8 |
The 105mm sigma is quite a bit cheaper than the 100mm canon - and from what I hear just as good. You could also look at the 90mm tamron macro - I have that lens and am really happy with it - at least in Australia its significantly cheaper than not only the canon but the sigma too (and gets just as good reviews). |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 07:25:11 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by lowonenergy:
I would go for this lens
Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro |
this is the most specialized canon lens there is. Unless you're a pro shooting macros, or have a lot of experience shooting them, you probably want to avoid this lens. You're going to need a ring flash, or some sort of macro flash system to go with it. Also don't think that you can get away with handholding this lens, you can't. A tripod with a boom arm is pretty much manditory. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 07:28:04 PM · #16 |
I can learn & try like everyone else.. :)
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 07:35:38 PM · #17 |
which Sigma? There are 2.
105mm f/2.8 ex dg macro $379
105mm f/2.8 ex apo macro ex dg hsm $579
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 07:37:08 PM · #18 |
| oh by the way the 65mm canon macro lens also has a maximum focus distance of about 5 inches to 1 inch. Any other macro lens you'll find can focus to infinity and usually they do a pretty darn good job doubling for a portrait lens. The MP-E can't do that. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 07:37:56 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
which Sigma? There are 2.
105mm f/2.8 ex dg macro $379
105mm f/2.8 ex apo macro ex dg hsm $579 |
should be the first one. Also look at the 150mm macro by sigma. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 07:56:19 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by wavelength:
hmm, why doesn't anyon ever suggest the 100-400L? |
Cuz if you're going to spend $1300, wait a week, spend $1600 and get the 70-200 2.8 IS L |
Yeah cos it makes sense to pay $300 more for 200mm less reach, doesn't it. Top notch logic. And go on, i dare you to suggest the teleconverter way :P
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 08:14:02 PM · #21 |
| I don't have any options on buying lenses, so I'd probably just pay off my van loan. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 08:22:04 PM · #22 |
I'd make do with what I have and donate the money to charity.
Either that or hit the casino ;)
bazz. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 08:32:16 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
I'd make do with what I have and donate the money to charity.
Either that or hit the casino ;)
bazz. |
seeing as you alread have a host of lenses at your disposal, I suppose you would ;O)
This is also assuming that the OP has not given to charity already, he could have saved this hard earned money on top of their generosity.
ed- clarity
Message edited by author 2005-12-23 20:48:38.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 08:35:46 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by wavelength:
hmm, why doesn't anyon ever suggest the 100-400L? |
Cuz if you're going to spend $1300, wait a week, spend $1600 and get the 70-200 2.8 IS L |
Yeah cos it makes sense to pay $300 more for 200mm less reach, doesn't it. Top notch logic. And go on, i dare you to suggest the teleconverter way :P |
an F2.8 lens can be used in a lot of places the 100-400 can't. I'm sure the 100-400L is great outdoors, but if you're gonna be going inside, the fast glass rules. Also i saw a 100-400L for sale for $1050 this week, i had thought about trying to trade, and then realized... i wouldn't be able to get rid of my 2.8 lens! They're not really competing lenses. Now if you said the 70-200L/4 you might get a vote for the other, at more than twice the price. But then again, that sigma 80-400 has even more reach, and is $1000 new ;-)
Another lens that's worth looking at is the 120-300 2.8 but it's big, heavy, expensive, and without image stabilization. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 08:38:38 PM · #25 |
| 16-35 2.8 L 24-70 2.8 L canon 100 2.8 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 07:12:46 PM EDT.
