Gear to grow on?

[SHaller]

First off, I did a lot of research before making this post. I have been photographing with my t1i for a little over a year now, and I am starting to feel a little held back with the kit lenses (18-55mm and 55-250mm). I can't say that i have completely mastered my camera, but i know enough that i feel that i am ready to start doing some upgrading. I have found my self most entertained by nature and wildlife and would like to eventually get into street, people, sports, and athletic event photography. Here is a list of gear I was looking into in descending order of importance to me.

1) Canon 100mm 2.8 macro

2) Canon 100-400mm f/ 4-5.6 or Sigma 100-300 f/4 with 1.4x tc (wildlife and bird lenses)

3) Canon 50mm 1.4 or Sigma 50mm 1.4 (want to do more low light photography and indoor shooting)

4) Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 ( sports shots, people shooting, maybe some portraits)

5) Canon 400mm f/5.6 ( Birds in flight...This will probably more of a luxury for me because i will probably have something with a 400mm+ reach, but I hear such great things about this lens, I dont think i could turn it down if i had the extra $)

6) Standard Zoom lens with wide capabilities ( Too many to even come close to narrowing it down. I am decently happy with the lens i have now so thats why this is last)


Please give me your feedback and tell me if I am making the right choice with this gear. I am trying to chose things that have the most bang for my buck, but are also good quality. Any other suggestions on glass are welcome. And make sure to let me know if you think that any other photo gear will help me out. Thanks!

 

[SHaller]

I also forgot to mention that I will hopefully get an underwater set up of some kind before july, but thats a whole different monster.

 

[PatrickCheung]

It seems as if you want more reach... so the 50/1.4 seems out of the question to me. It also seems that you might want zoom... unless you're a paid professional, or allowed to go wherever you want, it's hard to get good spots at sporting events, a zoom might prove to be better/more useful than a prime. I'd say go for the 70-200.

With the 70-200 you get a nice idea of whether or not you need more reach. If you spend all your money on a 400mm prime, you might find that it's too long. If you spend the money on a 50/1.4, you might find it too short (actually, I think you WILL) for sports, wildlife, or street photography.

BUT. another thing to consider is that you're working with long minimum focus distances with these telephotos. Probably not the best as an everyday walkaround lens. If you want an everyday lens (unless you shoot birds, street candids and sports everyday), the 50/1.4 might be a good choice. I personally shoot with a Nikon 35/2 everyday. :] Hope this helps!

 

[SHaller]

It seems as if you want more reach... so the 50/1.4 seems out of the question to me. It also seems that you might want zoom... unless you're a paid professional, or allowed to go wherever you want, it's hard to get good spots at sporting events, a zoom might prove to be better/more useful than a prime. I'd say go for the 70-200.

With the 70-200 you get a nice idea of whether or not you need more reach. If you spend all your money on a 400mm prime, you might find that it's too long. If you spend the money on a 50/1.4, you might find it too short (actually, I think you WILL) for sports, wildlife, or street photography.

BUT. another thing to consider is that you're working with long minimum focus distances with these telephotos. Probably not the best as an everyday walkaround lens. If you want an everyday lens (unless you shoot birds, street candids and sports everyday), the 50/1.4 might be a good choice. I personally shoot with a Nikon 35/2 everyday. :] Hope this helps!

Thanks for the reply! I can see now that i may have worded the post a little funny. I forgot to mention that this is gear that I would like to own over the next year or two, so I'm not going to be blowing all my money at once. I see what you are saying about the 50mm, but I hear fast 50's are tons of fun to play around with, and they are pretty cheap used so they wouldn't be putting a huge dent in my bank account. Also, I really want the extra reach to do bird photography.

 

[PatrickCheung]

No problem! I had a long struggle with my first lens, and I eventually picked the wrong one. You've got a good set of lenses on your list. Most people pick those crappy 18-200 all in one lenses, and regret it later. Also, I see that all your stuff is Canon! While I do own some third party lenses and some of them are pretty good, I've never owned a Sigma or Tamron that's better than my Nikons. Of course, I've heard that the Sigma 50/1.4 is amazing, better than Canon's or Nikon's even... as long as you get a good copy that doesnt backfocus or frontfocus.

That brings another issue to the plate... focusing. I've owned A sigma 17-70 and Tamron 28-75... both had horribly slow focusing and kept hunting (couldn't find focus, incase you dont know what that means). I've heard that this is because Tamron and Sigma "backwards engineer" their lenses to the specific mount... because Canon and Nikon aren't gonna give away their plans/designs/blueprints! I don't have the facts to back that up, but my experiences with 3rd party lenses are that they dont focus very well. That's not to say all Nikons focus perfectly!

Another thing about focusing. I'd take that 100/2.8 MACRO off your list. While 100mm and f2.8 sound good, it's a MACRO lens. It means it focuses best at CLOSE UP distances. The focus throw might jump from 3meters to infinity in a very short distance. If you've got lenses with focus scales on them, it would help you understand this concept more. Telephoto's... or most non-macro lenses (cept wide angles) have a more even focus throw. It might go from a minimum focus distance of say .8meters --> 1.2m --> 1.8m-->2.5m---> 3m --> 5m --> 7m --> 10m---> infinity, instead of 0.8-->1-->1.2--->1.4--->1.8-->2--->2.3-->2.8--> 3--->3.5--->4-->inifinty like a macro lens will. Usually, the distance between the last focus distance and infinity is extremely short. This makes anything between those two distances hard to focus on. You might end up getting alot of misfocused shots with that macro lens if you want to use it as a telephoto. But of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Some people have used Tamron's 90mm macro as a nice telephoto portrait lens with no problems at all.

Lastly, I've played with a few 50mms, never owned one, but man I wish I did. Even with my fast telephotos, wide angle, and 35/2... I wish I had myself a 50/1.8 or better, that sigma 50/1.4 :]
Again, I hope all these bits of info help!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

.

BUT. another thing to consider is that you're working with long minimum focus distances with these telephotos. Probably not the best as an everyday walkaround lens.

Just to be contrary, my 100-400mm is my walk around lens.

Example:

 

[reznap]

Just to be contrary, my 100-400mm is my walk around lens.

Creepo...

J/k.

Also, holy crap those are sharp

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I was only 10 or so feet away. I was hanging out with the artist (in the second image). He was quite a character.

 

[SHaller]

I have also heard great things about the sigma 50mm 1.4. I hear that its a much newer design than the canon 1.4. I did take into account focusing when i was looking over the lenses and that is one big reason they 400mm 5.6 is on the list. I hear the the af is lighting fast which is great for capturing moving animals and birds in flight.

Also, im sorry if it came off that i wanted the 100mm marco as just a standard use telephoto. I really need something to replace my 18-55 for close ups. In some cases it is impossible to get the shot i want due to the focusing distance of that lens.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The 100mm 2.8 is a pretty good lens for the price. Slow to focus though.

 

[SHaller]

The 100mm 2.8 is a pretty good lens for the price. Slow to focus though.

I've heard that, but I dont think that will be too big of a problem. Flowers and bugs dont move too fast :lmao:

 

[edwardconde]

I am using 3rd party glass (Tamron) its a 28mm - 300mm f 3.5 for my Pentax. I don't use my kit lens anymore and I also had the 50mm to 200mm that I sold once I got my Tamron. Look at the 3rd party if you are not wanting to spend an arm and a leg for MFG glass.

 

[SHaller]

I am using 3rd party glass (Tamron) its a 28mm - 300mm f 3.5 for my Pentax. I don't use my kit lens anymore and I also had the 50mm to 200mm that I sold once I got my Tamron. Look at the 3rd party if you are not wanting to spend an arm and a leg for MFG glass.

I have looked at a lot of 3rd party glass, but for a lot of what i want to do the mfg glass outperforms by a good margin. I actually have been looking into 3rd party macros and some 3rd party 70-200 2.8s

 

[Overread]

My advice is take the 100-400mm off your list and instead put more money into a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 and a 2*Teleconverter M3 (the newest ones). That will net you image quality equal to the 100-400mm when using the TC (actually the 2*TC M2 already equals the image quality) whilst the M3TCs come with improved AF performance. The 100-400mm might still have the slight edge, but overall its a solution that lets you have both lenses whilst only having to carry the one.

From there you can consider something like the 400mm f5.6 as a pure long range lens and then always use the 70-200mm for a closer up generalist lens to support it.


On the macro front 3rd party options are optically very similar to the canon 100mm macro in performance. The only edge that the canon macro lens has is that they tend to be a little faster in AF than the 3rd party options (however most macro work is done with manual focusing anyway).

 

[SHaller]

My advice is take the 100-400mm off your list and instead put more money into a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 and a 2*Teleconverter M3 (the newest ones). That will net you image quality equal to the 100-400mm when using the TC (actually the 2*TC M2 already equals the image quality) whilst the M3TCs come with improved AF performance. The 100-400mm might still have the slight edge, but overall its a solution that lets you have both lenses whilst only having to carry the one.

From there you can consider something like the 400mm f5.6 as a pure long range lens and then always use the 70-200mm for a closer up generalist lens to support it.


On the macro front 3rd party options are optically very similar to the canon 100mm macro in performance. The only edge that the canon macro lens has is that they tend to be a little faster in AF than the 3rd party options (however most macro work is done with manual focusing anyway).

I did actually consider doing that, but I do plan on doing a decent amount of bird shots so i would like to be able to put a 1.4x on the 100-400 when it is needed. I also heard that the there is a decent loss in iq with the 2x on the 70-200.

Also, are the tamron 90mm and the sigma 105mm at all comparable to the canon 100mm?