[Reactor]

Any suggestions for a canon macro and/or low telephoto zoom lens?

Totally blank page here, I opened my mailbox and found out I should be getting several thousand dollars in the next couple of weeks. I can't spend it all on camera stuff, but I could spend a about a grand, maybe a little more. I currently have a digital rebel xt, and a nice 70-200mm f/4L is USM.

Any other suggestions?

 

[maxyedor]

For the macro lens check out the 100mm f2.8 macro, or the 50mm macro and life-size converter. Not sure what you meen by "low telephoto zoom lens" but if your looking for a wide angle zoom the 17-40 or 16-35 are great, for a hair more reach check out the 24-70.

 

[Reactor]

I'm looking for something good for general photography, with macro for flower and plant photography/ That 17-40 f2.8L is looking pretty good as a wide angle. The 24-70 f2.8l looks sweet, but a pretty pricey.


How do you feel about the ef-s 60mm f2.8 macro?

 

[PatBranch]

What does the life-size converter do? I read about it, but I don't get it.

 

[narlus]

I'm looking for something good for general photography, with macro for flower and plant photography/ That 17-40 f2.8L is looking pretty good as a wide angle. The 24-70 f2.8l looks sweet, but a pretty pricey.


How do you feel about the ef-s 60mm f2.8 macro?

reactor:

the 17-40L is f/4, not 2.8. the 24-70L is a sweet lens by all accounts, but as you mention it's pricey (1100 or so). i am torn between getting that one, or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 w/ IS. they are about the same cost, and i have no plans to get a full-frame camera body anytime soon; i already have three lenses which are not compatible anyway (my sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC; tokina DX Pro 12-24 f/4; canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.5 kit lens).

i am looking for a good replacement for the kit lens, as i usually just use my primes for shooting live music; having a good walkaround lens is fairly high on my list.

the macro lens you listed sounds like a winner, but i have no exp w/ macros (further down on my list of stuff to get).

 

[jimbo_the_biker]

I've got the 100mm F2.8 canon macro lens. Its great. It does great macro work, portrait shots, and I've even used it for sports on occassion. I'd also reccommend looking into the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR-DI-iF. ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG&addedTroughType=search )
Its a great lens. Sure its not L glass, but its also 1/4 of the cost. Its a good inexpensive alternative to the 24-70 F2.8L.

-James.

 

[Reactor]

reactor:

the 17-40L is f/4, not 2.8. the 24-70L is a sweet lens by all accounts, but as you mention it's pricey (1100 or so). i am torn between getting that one, or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 w/ IS. they are about the same cost, and i have no plans to get a full-frame camera body anytime soon; i already have three lenses which are not compatible anyway (my sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC; tokina DX Pro 12-24 f/4; canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.5 kit lens).

i am looking for a good replacement for the kit lens, as i usually just use my primes for shooting live music; having a good walkaround lens is fairly high on my list.

the macro lens you listed sounds like a winner, but i have no exp w/ macros (further down on my list of stuff to get).

I do a lot of varied stuff. I like to take event pictures at mountain bike events. I like to hike and take nature photos, both landscape and flowers, but haven't been doing a lot of it lately. I'm just getting restarted after about 15 years off from photography, so I need almost everything. I've also got a fair amount of hand shake, which makes the IS lenses attractive, although the IS feature is generally costing about as much as a upgrade from f/4 to f2.8.

I've got a good outdoor zoom lens, but I need a general purpose zoom lens. Right now I'm starting to think of getting the 24-105 f/4L IS USM and/or the 17-40 F4/L USM ultra wide. If I get them both, I can come in at about $1500 after rebates. I like the internally focusing lenses, I'm in dust a fair amount (Arizona). The 24-70 f2.8/l still looks good. Very good, and I need an indoor capable lens.

The thing I don't like about the ef-s 17-55 f2.8 is that it's an extending lens, the front group moves 27mm, and I've heard this increases the chance of dust getting into the lens. I don't have any experience with this happening, but it scares me a little. On the plus side canon claims the image quality is on par with the L series lenses, and the weight is fairly low, and the f2.8 is great. If I were less worried about dust it would be a shoe-in.

I don't do a lot of indoor photography, and I think the 17-40 or 24-70 would probably be just fine for that. I'm also planning a grand canyon rim to rim trip next year and want some good lenses for the trip. oh well, that's my ramble.


Edit: I'm really confused now. Canon says the ef-s 17-55 is usm is an internal focus lens.

 

[narlus]

i've heard the 17-55 is a dust magnet as well, so you may be better off getting a sealed L lens.

if you don't do a lot of indoor photography, f/4 is probably sufficient for yr needs. the twin combo of 17-40 and 25-105 sounds like a great one for you.

ps - just curious as to the thumbs down icon in yr post header? you don't wanna hear my advice?

 

[Reactor]

ps - just curious as to the thumbs down icon in yr post header? you don't wanna hear my advice?

Sorry, that was an accident. I love to hear good advice.

Seriously, the photo-monkies here are top notch, and I need all the help I can get.

 

[Reactor]

I just placed my order, a 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, and a speedlite 580 flash. This means I'll have a decent indoor lens(speed wise) and cover a range from 24-200mm with two lenses. I think the 24-70 will end up being the walking around lens.

 

[maxyedor]

Nice choice, as an added plus the 24-70 has a "macro" focus, it's not true macro, but for flowers and such it works well.

 

[Reactor]

Nice choice, as an added plus the 24-70 has a "macro" focus, it's not true macro, but for flowers and such it works well.

Thanks. At this point flowers is about as macro as I need. Eventually I want to get a couple of nice primes and a true macro, and a nicer body. The way I see it nice bodies are going to be coming down in price, while lenses don't lose a lot of value. Having a decent bbody and good lenses will let me enjoy photography as I advance, but a great body and crappy lenses would really limit what I could do. So I'm getting the nice lenses first.