Need advice on next lens

[MuddyRiver]

Hi . Currently I have a Canon 60d and a t1i as a back up body. My lenses include a Canon 18-55 kit lens, 50 1.8 and a 17-35L. I realize the kit lens and the L lens are a little redundant but I use the L lens for professional sessions and I use the kit lens for dirty jobs, like photos at the animal shelter. My uv filter always has a nice coat of slobber when I'm done. I really need to add a zoom lens. I recently sold my 75-300 that I got with my first camera years ago, because it was pretty much useless. I am on a budget and need to stay under $1000. What would be a better investment, getting another good L lens like the 70-200 2.8 or 4L IS or getting two non L lenses such as the 70-300 IS and the 100 2.8 IS (just because I love it)? My shooting style is what I would call pro hobby. It's not my full time job, just something I love. Now and then I do a paid job, portraits and weddings mostly, but I also just like to go outside and take pictures of birds and flowers. My website is muddyriverphoto.com if you need a better idea of what I shoot. I'm def not as good as some of the amazing artists around here, but I have fun. Just looking for lens help here, not photo or website critiques. That's in a diff thread. thanks!!

 

[TCampbell]

"zoom" just means you can vary the focal length -- your 18-55 kit lens is a "zoom" (and at that range we'd refer to it as a "standard" zoom because it has a little wide-angle and a little telephoto in the range).

It sounds like what you're asking for is advance on a "telephoto zoom" (where the entire range lives up in the long telephoto focal lengths.)

Which lens is best really depends on what you shoot, the lighting (and how that translates to available shutter speeds or ISO settings). Do you need the f/2.8 focal lengths or is f/4 adequate (which come in IS and non-IS versions) ... or would the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM do the trick? Lower focal ratio lenses are always more expensive. The two lenses that fit your price range and are decent are the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (without the "IS").

 

[play18now]

If you're willing to go third-party, Tamron makes a 70-200 f/2.8 that doesn't have any image stabilization that retails for less than $1000, or you might be able to find a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with image stabilization for around $1000. I think if you do weddings and portraits, particularly with a crop-sensor body, a 70-200 2.8 is probably the way to go. There's a reason every full-time pro has one in their system.

 

[MuddyRiver]

Thanks guys. Yes I'm aware that the 18-55 is a zoom. I did mean telephoto zoom, I just assumed you guys would get what I meant from the fact that I didn't have one in my equipment list. I shoot about 3 weddings a year and in those cases, the low light can be a problem. However, the real reason I need the reach is for trips to the zoo etc. My fifty and L lenses typically get the job done at weddings. It would be nice to add a good telephoto to the mix, but I can't justify buying a really expensive lens just for weddings when I do so few of them right now. That's why I'm having problems choosing. I know which is the better lens, I just can't decide if its worth the investment. I know it's worth the money, just don't know if its worth the money for ME. I get me lenses off of eBay and Craigslist, so the price will be just a bit lower than retail- keep that in mind. I could actually get two decent lenses for under $1000, if you consider the 70-300 and the 100 2.8 prime decent. However, I would only be able to get one L lens and it actually wouldn't even be the "good" one. I feel like I need IS. Maybe I'm disillusioned there, but I feel like that is part of the reason the 75-300 sucked so bad.

 

[play18now]

Maybe go to two lenses then. Canon makes an IS version of the 70-300. I've never used my myself but having the Image Stabilization will certainly help. Then maybe to 100 f/2 like you mentioned above. I know that's a little redundant but the aperture of the 100 sets it apart. Supposedly a fabulous lens too. I do think that the 70-200 is a more useful range for most shooting, but if the greater reach of the telephoto is more important to you then go with the 70-300. I would probably want to go to a camera store and shoot with one a bit before I bought it.

 

[raventepes]

Get one of these Amazon.com: Buying Choices: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras

And one of these Amazon.com: Buying Choices: Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

 

[grafxman]

I've used the Sigma 18-250mm macro for thousands of images on my 7D. It's a terrific lens and I'm very happy with it. It's got generally great reviews at Amazon and BHphoto. Some folks complain about the weight. It weighs a pound! Nearly everyone agrees it's a GREAT walk around lens. BTW, it's a paltry $400.

 

[Gavjenks]

There is a sigma 70-200 2.8 with image stabilization (they call it "OS") that you can get used for under $1000

Amazon.com: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD Large Aperture Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital DSLR Camera: Electronics
I don't own one, but I've been toying with getting one for awhile, and it would certainly be my choice if/when I do pull the trigger on a 70-200 2.8

 

[MuddyRiver]

Wow! Thanks for all of the great recommendations! So do you think the canon 85 2.8 is better than the 100 2.8?

I have never had a 3rd party lens but with all the recommendations I may consider it.

With my smaller budget, these just seem like huge decisions to me lol. So I appreciate the help!

 

[play18now]

I believe that the 85mm is f/1.8 and the 100mm is f/2, and both are excellent lenses, with the 85mm probably being the better of the two. The prime lenses will generally be sharper than they're zoom counterparts, but the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are getting so good that the advantage of having a zoom range is becoming a more attractive option. I've never used the Sigma 70-200 personally, but I have handled both the Canon and Tamron versions, and although the Canon is a spectacular optic, the Tamron is quite good as well. I do think that with photography equipment, you get what you pay for. But with the Canon lens, part of what you get that you're paying for is the red ring around the front. The Canon is a better lens than the Tamron IMO, but it's also close to twice the price, and it's not twice as good as the Tamron. Third party lenses are a great option for someone who is looking for the best value in lenses that they can afford.