Next Lens to Add....

TheOtherBob · May 7, 2007

I have a new 20D, 18-55 kit lens, and 50mm 1.8 prime. I like it, but I need a lens to get just that little bit closer to the subject. (Ducks. Central Park has great ducks, but I can't get a good shot of them because my zoom won't...zoom far enough.)

I'm thinking that when all is said and done, my bag should have a 10-22, 28-135, 70-300, and 50 (and maybe keep the kit lens to cover the space between 22 and 28). But right now I have to decide what to get next. So I'm thinking there are two options for the next lens:

1. Canon 28-135 IS.
2. Canon 70-300 IS.
(3. I could alternatively go with a 70-200 f4L...my objection there is really just size, weight, and the fact that it's a big, white lens.)

The advantage of the 28-135 is that it's a walkaround lens - and since I'm thinking of a 10-22 later on down the line, the two could replace the kit. Plus I don't think I need a ton of extra zoom - just enough to shoot ducks and such.

The 70-300, though, is a real zoom - and since I already have an 18-55, it would give me a lot more options in range rather than overlapping what I already have.

Given that I'm likely to end up with both at some point way down the line, this may seem like a dumb question, but does anyone have a view on which I should get next? Also, does anyone have a view on the setup described above - particularly for a planned trip to Scotland?

Thanks, as always, for everyone's insight.

Sw1tchFX · May 7, 2007

If you can afford it, why not get the f/4L?

TheOtherBob · May 7, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
If you can afford it, why not get the f/4L?

A tough call, I know. This has apparently been debated at length on other forums, but I think it's the longer reach and IS of the 70-300 versus the better quality build and slightly better optics of the 70-200 F4L. It's a tough call - for me I think it comes down to not wanting to walk around NYC all the time with a big white lens, but the L is definitely an option.

Stretch Armstrong · May 7, 2007

I have the 28-135mm IS. It is a fine lens. You are maxing at 55mm right now so 135mm will be a nice step closer.

I agree with the above. If the f4 L is in your budget go for it. But I am physically excited by the L lenses.

JIP · May 8, 2007

Unfortunately the only real way to improve the quality of a zoom is to enlrge the size and quantity of th glass elements so if you want a quality zoom you are going to have to deal with a "big white zoom lens" and the paranoia that comes with toting this around NYC.

Sw1tchFX · May 8, 2007

If it was slightly better, it wouldn't be an L lens. You don't have to shoot Canon to know that.

Mike_E · May 8, 2007

You could sell your Canon stuff and go with Nikon. At least Nikon doesn't make a target of you.

Really though, from the sound of your posts, I would suggest that you take a longer look at the 70-300 IS. You will eventually get tired of only taking photos of ducks and will want to move on to other things -like hawks or falcons say- and will need the longer reach. I'm guessing that you won't be in Central Park after dark or even near dusk so the faster glass shouldn't be an issue either.

mike

TheOtherBob · May 8, 2007

JIP said:
if you want a quality zoom you are going to have to deal with a "big white zoom lens" and the paranoia that comes with toting this around NYC.

It's not so much paranoia as a desire not to attract attention. (My neighborhood is now apparently safer than most small towns, believe it or not). I guess I just don't want to be "that guy," if you know what I mean - that guy whose rig is set up not necessarily to take great pictures, but to just be really friggin' huge and impress...I don't know, the ducks or something. So if it's a choice between a big, flashy white lens and something a little more discreet, and they're otherwise close to equal... (And whether they are or are not otherwise close to equal is a subject that has been discussed at length.)