I am trying to decide on which lens to get next. I want to play with Macro but I like the versatility of the 70-200.
My question is: wouldn't a 70-200mm at 200mm, even with a minimum focus distance of 4 ft., get me a closer look than a 100mm at a min. focus distance of 1 ft.? Will the picture be sharper with the 100mm Macro? I don't know the math to calculate and I don't have the lenses on hand to test it out.
I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. From what I've read, images are very sharp through this lens. They both have IS, they are both f/2.8 apertures. I can use the 70-200 for portraits...i guess I can use the 100mm for portrait work as well. But it seems the macro lens is a specialty lens. Eventually, I'd like to own both but would the 70-200mm get me by on macro work at all? (I hope this is not a stupid question!)
Yes, I've heard about the 180mm f/3.5L and I would be open to considering this lens. I have a 24-105 so I'm also concerned about adding some variety to the focal lengths I already own. I've got the wide end covered but am seriously lacking on the telephoto side. It seems the 100mm macro would only be used for macro.
Any insight from experienced users would be great. BTW, I'm shooting on a 60D. I will eventually purchase a 5D mkiii and keep the 60D as a 2nd body.
Happy shooting to you all =). I look forward to reading your replies.
Why not get the 100mm 2.8 Non-L, which is already super sharp, and the 70-200 II. If you like the macro alot, you can sell it for the L version.
I thought about it but I think I wanna go for the L. I'll just save up a little longer. I'm gonna make the 70-200 + tubes work for me for now.