New lenses ($6800 budget)

GoldeneyeJB · Jan 3, 2014

Hello fellow Canon-owners,

After holding all Canon bodies in my hands at the store, I have settled for a Canon 70D. The fullframe ones were just too large for my small hands.
Now Im looking to invest in some quality glass, and I could really use some help.

My budget is around 5000,- ($6800) for 5 lenses in total. Even though with this amount of money I could go FF, I still dont like the body size! Lens discussion only please

Lens 1:
A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
I can work with the 50mm, but also the 85 and so on, so I just need 1 that is the best.

Lens 2:
A mid-range zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
Everything below 20mm to above 40mm is fine.

Lens 3:
A decent lens for macro between 85 and 100mm. I dont have a preference for the aperture here.

Lens 4:
I have the 18-135, but I dont find that sharp enough. I do like the zoom range though. Is there anything that comes close to the range, but sharper?

Lens 5:
A zoom that goes beyond 250/300mm. If that is achieved by a teleconverter that is fine by me, if that gives me better results.

Just a few notes:
- I dont mind used lenses. If a great piece of glass is discontinued Im more than happy to search the internet.
- Stabilized lenses dont matter to me, I have steady hands.
- Autofocus is nice, but manual focus lenses are also welcome.
- Im not a brand-whore. So I dont care if the lenses are from Canon or a third party like Carl Zeiss. As long as the quality is good.

JacaRanda · Jan 3, 2014

Here is a nice macro / prime Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Overread · Jan 3, 2014

A few suggestions:

1) Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII - this is an outstanding lens through its whole focal range and a very strong lens for any type of photography.
You can also combine it with teleconverters for:
1.4TC = 98-280mm f4 IS lens with very high image quality through the whole focal and aperture range.
2*TC = 140-400mm f5.6 IS lens of comparable image quality and performance to the 100-400mm L (note on both ideally you stop down to around f7.1 or f8 when shooting at the 400mm end for best sharpness performance).

It's not a cheap lens but can do a lot especially when combined with teleconverters.

2) Canon 300mm f4, 400mm f5.6, 100-400mm, all three are good options to consider for longer reach; the primes offer superior image quality (and the 300mm works well with a 1.4TC also) at the cost of no zoom feature. If you're looking to do more wildlife/sports or general long range shooting you might consider the primes as an alternative option - you could also get them alongside the 70-200mm mentioned above.

3) Macro wise any prime lens with macro in the title on the current market is good - Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Canon they are all great choices. Sigma has a great little 70mm macro as well as a 105mm OS (OS is sigma talk for IS). Tamron's 90mm macro is a popular choice for many whilst Canon offers the 100mm IS L which has a hybrid IS to help hand holding at close ranges for macro work (only lens on the market with that specific type of stabilization).

4) The 17-40m L and the 24-70mm f2.8 L (MI or MII) would suit you well for those ranges.

GoldeneyeJB · Jan 3, 2014

Some other info:

With my current lenses I do this:

50mm 1.8: portraits, but also some macro. However I find that for macro it's too short in focal length.

18-135: I use this pretty much all of the time. But with the 70D the quality is bad to be honest.

70-300: I use this at festivals and at the zoo. I'm often at 250/300mm.

Before this I had a Canon 550D, so I already know how to work with them. With the new ones I just like to improve the sharpness of my shots and make use off all the 20 megapixels in the camera. So it is not like I just want to burn some cash, I think I really need those 5 lenses.

Overread · Jan 3, 2014

If weight isn't a concern the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS might be worth considering. Heavier than a straight 300mm f2.8 but half the cost of canons current offering (and about similar to second hand copies of the previous prime version from canon). It can take up to a 2*Tc provided you stop down a bit from wide open at the long end.

runnah · Jan 3, 2014

17-24mm f2.8
24-70mm f2.8
70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII
85mm f1.8

Can't go wrong with that setup.

ronlane · Jan 3, 2014

Lens 1: I would look at the 85mm or the 50mm. For me the 85 would be my choice for portrait work.

Lens 2: For this range I would get the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24-70mm f/2.8 mk II. From the reveiws the Mk II is incredible.

Lens 3: I don't have a macro lens yet but from everything I am understanding the 100mm is a good choice.

Lens 4: See the 24-70mm f/2.8 or mk II.

Lens 5: For this I would pick the 70-200mm f/2.8 mk II and get a 1.4 TC to go with it.

That was fun to spend that much money for you, even if it were only in my mind.

lambertpix · Jan 3, 2014

GoldeneyeJB said:
Hello fellow Canon-owners,

After holding all Canon bodies in my hands at the store, I have settled for a Canon 70D. The fullframe ones were just too large for my small hands.
Now I’m looking to invest in some quality glass, and I could really use some help.

I'll bite -- I *love* spending other people's money. :wink:

Lens 1:
Get the 50 f/1.4 -- the 100mm macro (#3) is also suitable as a general-purpose prime.

Lens 2:
Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 is tough to beat in this range. With a crop-sensor body, you might want to go wider yet (ex: 10-22), but the 17-55 is Canon's best in this range.

Lens 3:
Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro. If budget allows, the L version of this lens is even better, and adds IS but I've been very happy with the non-L version.

Lens 4:
This one is a little tougher -- the traditional route would be to cover this range with two lenses -- 24-70 and 70-200, but the 24-105 f/4 might be worth a look, too. I think with your budget, I'd get a 70-200 (one of the four variations, depending on how much you want to spend), and then just keep the 18-135 as a walkaround lens for a bit. If it turns out you don't reach for it very often, then sell it. Alternate plan: Get the 135L because it's so good you won't mind using your feet a little.

Lens 5:
I'd get Canon's 100-400 L for casual work, or look at Sigma's 120-300 f/2.8 if there's still room left in the budget -- that looks like a killer lens.

Without knowing a little more about intended usage in each of those ranges, of course, this is just a shot in the dark, but it's a fun game to play!

EOSfotografie · Jan 3, 2014

I covered this with the following Canon lenses on FF
* 16-35 f/2.8 II (collecting dust)
* 24-70 f/2.8 II (my default lens - really like it)
* 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (really like this one)
* Extender III 2x (for the 70-200 when I go to the zoo)
* 100 f/2.8 Macro IS (for Macro a nice lens to use)

For a crop sized sensor I would use a
Canon 10-22
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS or a the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS II - other option the Canon 100-400
Canon 100 Macro f/2.8 IS
Optional a Canon Extender III 2x

Robin Usagani · Jan 3, 2014

I never understand people's reasoning not buying a full frame because it is too big. If that is the reason.. damn... I would just buy a Sony mirrorless full frame.

GoldeneyeJB · Jan 8, 2014

I've been a bit too enthusiastic about photography stuff. I've decided to buy the Canon 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 and use the rest for a vacation and savings. Still thanks a lot for your suggestions all!

This topic can be closed.

JacaRanda · Jan 8, 2014

GoldeneyeJB said:
I've been a bit too enthusiastic about photography stuff. I've decided to buy the Canon 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 and use the rest for a vacation and savings. Still thanks a lot for your suggestions all!

This topic can be closed.

Wait, I did not get to spend any of your money.