Lens suggestion for a 1600 budget

[dstppy]

Replace the 75-300 with a 70-300L - will be better for journalism

Brian, what is your take on 70-300 L vs 100-400 L?

37.1 oz vs 48.7 oz is really the big camera-tipper

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

To the o.p., sooner or later, a good tripod is needed, and usually you don't know it until someone strong-arms you into doing it right   Maybe not for some journalism, but events, definitely makes a difference.

What I ended up with:
Manfrotto 055CXPRO4, Manfrotto 468MG and converted the ball-head to an arca-swiss type . . . at the time I got the pair for $454 and there was a rebate on it.

I really don't hesitate to take it along if I even *think* I'm going to need it, since it's so light and hassle free to set up/take down.

As for lenses, if I had to own one lens on a crop body, it'd be the 15-85mm, which pretty much stays on my 60D now that I have a 5DmkII.  As long as my head is on straight, I can't take a bad picture with it.  The 24-105 you mentioned is also a good choice, but the extra-wideness of the '15' in tight spaces sometimes makes a difference.

[briansquibb]

Replace the 75-300 with a 70-300L - will be better for journalism

Brian, what is your take on 70-300 L vs 100-400 L?

The 70-300L is a small lens, that works will as a portrait lens.  Smaller than the 70-200
The 100-400 is a big lens with the 100 being tpp big for portraits

I sold mine and bought the 70-300L for walkabout, the 400 f/2.8 for the reach. This has worked very well for me

[Emeyerphoto]

If $1600 is your budget, why spend it on one lens and hope that it does everything when if think smart and budget accordingly you can get a range of lenses and a flash.  My two cents is purchase a 70-200 f/4L for $600, a 28-135 for about $400 and then add a used 430 EX for about $160 through KEH, you will still have about $400 to start saving for another lens in the future.  With that kit you should be in pretty good territory with spending all of your money.  Remember, you can buy theses lenses through KEH who is a very reputable dealer for used equipment and not spend all your money on one lens.

[BobSanderson]

If you want to not be noticed and get great pictures, I would avoid the white L lenses. For v good reach on a crop body, value and very good IQ, I would recommend the 70-300 4-5.6 IS. The IS works great and allows use for fast moving subjects and to  hand hold it when slower speeds are essential.

For indoors and limited light conditions, the 50mm 1.4 is a great value and you won't believe the wonderful images it will produce for you. You might want to invest in flash such as the 430 EX. with the extra cash. Check out eBay for that.

After that, it is all up to you....and you still save a little cash. If you sell the existing lenses, give a consideration to the excellent 17-40mm L.

[K-amps]

Replace the 75-300 with a 70-300L - will be better for journalism

I was going to suggest that as well. I have owned 2 copies of the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii, and my 70-300L is sharper.

It has incredible resolution advantages compared to the 75-300. It will be like a Veil was lifted. When you see though the viewfinder with it, it just looks so much cleaner and easy on the eyes. It's weight and size are much better suited as a walk around lens. It is "L" and yes, it is a white one. 

[girod199]

I would suggest the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. It is inexpensive (around $400) and VERY sharp. It also has a 2.8 aperture which is awesome. The build quality is not professional like an L lens but it is good enough for the money. On the longer side, I would definitely get one of the Canon 70-200L lenses. I shot some photos for my school newspaper and that lens was perfect. You can shoot sports, portraits, performances and a lot more. I got the 2.8 non IS. It is very sharp. Unless you shoot indoors you really don't need the IS. For photojournalism I would go for the 2.8. If you shoot sports or any action, you can get faster shutter speeds and your subjects will really stand out against the blurred background.

[dstppy]

If you want to not be noticed and get great pictures, I would avoid the white L lenses. For v good reach on a crop body, value and very good IQ, I would recommend the 70-300 4-5.6 IS. The IS works great and allows use for fast moving subjects and to  hand hold it when slower speeds are essential.

For indoors and limited light conditions, the 50mm 1.4 is a great value and you won't believe the wonderful images it will produce for you. You might want to invest in flash such as the 430 EX. with the extra cash. Check out eBay for that.

After that, it is all up to you....and you still save a little cash. If you sell the existing lenses, give a consideration to the excellent 17-40mm L.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about with the  70-300 4-5.6 IS. The IQ is so much lower than pretty much every other lens I own (most expensive being a 24-105, so we're not talking super high end stuff).

I very much regret buying that lens instead of putting the money towards a 200mm L (The black one).

[K-amps]

If you want to not be noticed and get great pictures, I would avoid the white L lenses. For v good reach on a crop body, value and very good IQ, I would recommend the 70-300 4-5.6 IS. The IS works great and allows use for fast moving subjects and to  hand hold it when slower speeds are essential.

For indoors and limited light conditions, the 50mm 1.4 is a great value and you won't believe the wonderful images it will produce for you. You might want to invest in flash such as the 430 EX. with the extra cash. Check out eBay for that.

After that, it is all up to you....and you still save a little cash. If you sell the existing lenses, give a consideration to the excellent 17-40mm L.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about with the  70-300 4-5.6 IS. The IQ is so much lower than pretty much every other lens I own (most expensive being a 24-105, so we're not talking super high end stuff).

I very much regret buying that lens instead of putting the money towards a 200mm L (The black one).

+1 . Look at this review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

More than half way down there's a picture of some trees. Compare the IQ of the 70-300 IS to the 70-200L and see the L blow it in terms of resolution.  Honestly speaking I was going to buy the 70-300 IS, but after reading this review, I got the 70-300L instead and love it.

[imberandon]

from reading all the suggestions, its sounds like i need to go and figure out what my main type of photography will be and buy lens according to it. Ive never really thought about primes, i guess iv been scared of not being able to zoom in from one spot aha, but ill look into them now...thanks everyone 

[BobSanderson]

   

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about with the  70-300 4-5.6 IS. The IQ is so much lower than pretty much every other lens I own (most expensive being a 24-105, so we're not talking super high end stuff).

    I very much regret buying that lens instead of putting the money towards a 200mm L (The black one).

+1 . Look at this review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

More than half way down there's a picture of some trees. Compare the IQ of the 70-300 IS to the 70-200L and see the L blow it in terms of resolution.  Honestly speaking I was going to buy the 70-300 IS, but after reading this review, I got the 70-300L instead and love it.

Regarding both responses.... I think we were responding to a request on how best could someone starting out spend his money($1600) to get a nice kit. I was not trying to find the finest lens out there although if you do read further on the 70-300L, which is almost 3X more expensive than the non-L version, you have to wonder if it is worth it.

This 70-300mm L IS

This is a marvelous lens for the man who demands the best, and is willing to pay for it. Another advantage of this 70-300mm L IS is that it is shorter than the 70-200/4 IS L or 70-300mm IS, but it is a lot fatter.

This 70-300mm IS L is a beauty, and priced accordingly. If you want to afford it, and carry its significantly heavier weight, you won't be disappointed. If all you want are great optics, the 70-300mm IS is about the same, for a third the price.
Ken Rockwell  http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-is-l.htm#compare
 

and this review in PopPhoto

...In our Test Lab, we expected its Excellent-range SQF showings at 70mm and 200mm, butwe were surprised to see sharpness and contrast dropping two quality levels to the top of the Good range at 300mm. Its scores were comparable to 70–300mm zooms from Nikon and Sigma, but slightly softer at 300mm than Canon’s own non-L 70–300mm....




Final thoughts? This lens gives high-end Canon shooters a stabilized telezoom that’s physically less burdensome than the 100–400mm and financially less so than the about-to-be-replaced 70–200mm f/2.8L IS. It’s also significantly superior by most optical standards. If you don’t need its rugged L-series build, though, stick with Canon’s current non-L 70–300mm f/4–5.6 IS, which is slightly sharper (at 300mm) and has slightly better close-up magnification (1:4.1 at 300mm).   http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/03/lens-test-canon-70-300mm-f4-56l-usm

[justsomedude]

Buy a used 70-200 f/2.8L IS (1st version)...

http://www.sportsshooter.com/classitem.html?id=35786

Take the left over $200 and get a battery grip.