Super-Wide, Super-Telephoto, or Macro?

[auer1816]

I'd like to run a little poll to see what the favored type of lens is between:

1. Super-Wide (10-20mm range -- or something similar)
2. Super-Telephoto (200-500mm range -- or something similar)
3. Macro (1:1 prime)

I'm covered from 18-200mm, and I'm looking to get some new glass. The only problem is that I can't decide which type of lens to get -- I'd like to have all 3, but I'm not made of money. So cast your vote based on what you like to use or what you want to use. I'm not asking for specific lenses (I've got that covered), just what type. Also, I don't want to hear the "you should get whatever YOU think is best" answer -- I think all 3 are best.

Let's hear it -- 1, 2, or 3.

[TPF Sponsor]

[Steph]

I personally would go for the super wide lens. I shoot mainly landscapes and in terms of 35mm cameras never use or feel the need to use anything above 135mm focal length. I don't do macro much and I use a 50mm with extension tubes for that, so no need for a dedicated macro lens.

[Don Simon]

Tough choice. You might not want to hear the "you decide" answer but it's probably the right one. I guess one thing to do would be to think of how many times you've really thought "Damn if only I had a super-wide", ditto the macro and the long tele. Though obviously if your photographic interests are very diverse then it's hard to know which you would use most. Personally I consider the current wide-angles for dSLRs too expensive for what they do; I can't justify the cost when I could simply use my existing wide-angle lens with 35mm film instead so I do that. So for me it would be between the tele and the macro. That's just me though.

A couple of things: It's possible to do macro work with cheaper solutions than a dedicated lens (extension tubes etc), not so the long tele. Having said that, I believe that as a rule, a macro prime will be much better optically than a super-wide or long tele of the same price. In other words you can get a nice macro lens for relatively little - say the Tamron 90mm - while a super-wide or tele zoom that costs the same will be fairly average (anyone feel free to correct me there, just my opinion).

[auer1816]

I hear ya on the macro option. I do have an extension tube, and it's nice for close-ups, but I would like to have a dedicated lens (if that's the route I go) that can also focus out to infinity.

For cost comparisons, I'm looking at macros in the $400 range, super-wides in the $600 range, and super-telephotos in the $900 range. The cost isn't a huge factor (but I'd like to stay under $1000), so if I went with a macro I might also pick up the super-wide.

On a side note, most of my shots are in the 150-200mm range. So if I go telephoto, I'll definitely find use for it. But if I go wide, I might expand my portfolio in a different direction.

Decisions, decisions...

[astrostu]

I'd go for a macro first, then the super-wide.

[Torus34]

None of the above.

For 'macro' work [greater than 1:1 ratio at the film plane], I use a lens reversing ring and extension tubes.

[auer1816]

There's always at least one nonconformist in every group.

[EOS_JD]

18mm is reasonably wide and 200mm is pretty long.

What do you miss from the shots you take just now?

[JIP]

Only you can decide what you need the most.

[sothoth]

I'd like to run a little poll to see what the favored type of lens is between...

I got a 10-20 and LOVE it. I use it more often than any other lens. I'd buy that next.

[auer1816]

I got a 10-20 and LOVE it.

I've got my eye on one of those -- the Sigma. 10mm sounds like a lot of fun and I gather that it's pretty good quality at those shorter focal lengths.

I haven't seen anybody here suggesting the super-telephoto yet. I'm starting to lean away from that one myself. Too much money for just one lens that can't be used most of the time. A 200-500 zoom isn't exactly an all-around lens.

[auer1816]

Alright, so I bit the bullet and spent some money.

I ended up getting a Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 EX DC HSM and a Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG. The total cost came to about the same as I was expecting to pay for the super-telephoto (Tamron SP AF 200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)). So I feel good about that anyway.

So instead of one big heavy lens that I have to use with a tripod 90% of the time, I opted to get two more reasonably sized lenses that I can use anywhere. It should be fun when I receive them next week!

[midget patrol]

Alright, so I bit the bullet and spent some money.

I ended up getting a Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 EX DC HSM and a Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG. The total cost came to about the same as I was expecting to pay for the super-telephoto (Tamron SP AF 200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)). So I feel good about that anyway.

So instead of one big heavy lens that I have to use with a tripod 90% of the time, I opted to get two more reasonably sized lenses that I can use anywhere. It should be fun when I receive them next week!

Good choices. I've been eying the super-wides for a while.


Personally (had i a larger budget), I would have gone for a super telephoto, considering that I do a lot of wildlife photography and 300 mm doesn't cut it a lot of the time. Something like, say, the sigma 300-800 f/5.6? (http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_...08&navigator=3)

[avcabob]

If you count fish eye's in the super-wide category, that would probably be my favorite. I don't have one for my still camera, but do for my video, and I've found they can almost always lead to good picturing times.

But with that said, the next lens on my shopping list is somewhere in the 500mm range for wild life shooting. I've been using a 200mm, but birds especially seem to be a challenge for it. Or maybe the birds just don't like me.

[northcoastcamera]

I vote for the 10-20. I bought a Sigma and am very happy with it.