Advise on next lens for my current setup

[!Xabbu]

Hi fellow Canon photographers,

I have been following the posts on this forum now for quite a while and really appreciate all the knowledge that all of you have.

I'm currently thinking about getting a new lens and I'm split between a macro lens (either EF-S 60mm f/2.0 Macro or EF 100m f/2.8 ) or the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS.

My current setup is a Canon 450D with Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (my least favorite lens) and Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (currently my favorite lens).

Do you have any advise on which lens would best complement my setup and also how good the above stated lenses are (e.g. is the 100-400 on par with the 70-200 or is the IQ of the 70-200 much better)?

Many thanks for your feedback!

 

[DanoPhoto]

Two different applications for the lenses you are looking at. What areas are you trying to expand your shooting range in?

Sports/wildlife, then the 100-400. Mature/macro/portratiure, then the 100 macro.

I have the 70-200 f2.8 II, so have not shot with the f4, so cannot comment there, but the 100-400 is a great zoom lens (especially on a crop camera).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Don't select a lens just because its good. Select the one you need to accomplish a goal. Each of the lenses you mention are very good, so its a matter of deciding what your needs and goals are, and no one can tell you that.

you might get plenty of suggestions that work for someone else, but they have no clue as to what your needs are.

 

[Random Orbits]

If you decide on a macro, I'd suggest the 100mm macros over the ef-s 60mm. Longer working distance is a plus!

 

[!Xabbu]

Thanks for your answers.

I'm aware that I'm looking at different applications and also different price tags. The reason for this kind of odd question is that I'm loving to shoot with my 70-200, but sometimes feel like I miss some reach and the 100-400 would fit in there very well. However, I don't really have any lens with a good maximum magnification.

Essentially I think that I would extend what I already know with 100-400, but would open a whole new universe with a macro lens. On the other hand it seems like macro photography needs a lot of dedication with a DSLR (tripod almost a must, special macro flash would be good, setting up the picture is much more complex than for landscape/portrait/zoo animals/ ...).

The other reason which makes me struggle is that I don't really like shooting with my 50mm f/1.4. It seems to me like it's not as sharp (at comparable apertures) as my 70-200mm f/4 and I really prefer the versatility of my zooms. So, I'm kind of biased against primes.

 

[Marsu42]

If you decide on a macro, I'd suggest the 100mm macros over the ef-s 60mm. Longer working distance is a plus!

+1 - don't underestimate the working distance, esp. if using flash. In addition to your 100mm macro lens, you simply might want to add a tc to your 70-200/4 to get more reach.

 

[!Xabbu]

If you decide on a macro, I'd suggest the 100mm macros over the ef-s 60mm. Longer working distance is a plus!

+1 - don't underestimate the working distance, esp. if using flash. In addition to your 100mm macro lens, you simply might want to add a tc to your 70-200/4 to get more reach.

Wouldn't the IQ deteriorate a lot with a 1.4x teleconverter? And it would "only" give me 280mm on the long end. A 2x tc would give me 400mm, but turn it into an f/8 combo (most likely) with questionable IQ. The 100-400mm seems just like a very versatile lens to me (I never used it) and I feel like the IQ I would get from it would by far beat any 70-200mm f/4 + tc combo.

 

[Marsu42]

Wouldn't the IQ deteriorate a lot with a 1.4x teleconverter?

Of course a 70-200 + 1.4 tc doesn't make a "real" tele lens unnecessary - I'm just not a fan of duplicating zoom ranges, thus the tc suggestion - or get a prime like the 300mm if you can afford it. You can read a lot about tc iq elsewhere on the forum, but 1.4x doesn't have a large impact (also see the ISO 12233 at The Digital Picture, they include the 70-200+tc combination). Concerning the aperture: f8 is bad because of the af problem (thanks, Canon!) - but f5.6 is absolutely usable and still pretty thin, I know this from my 70-300L/4-5.6.

 

[Random Orbits]

Thanks for your answers.

I'm aware that I'm looking at different applications and also different price tags. The reason for this kind of odd question is that I'm loving to shoot with my 70-200, but sometimes feel like I miss some reach and the 100-400 would fit in there very well. However, I don't really have any lens with a good maximum magnification.

Essentially I think that I would extend what I already know with 100-400, but would open a whole new universe with a macro lens. On the other hand it seems like macro photography needs a lot of dedication with a DSLR (tripod almost a must, special macro flash would be good, setting up the picture is much more complex than for landscape/portrait/zoo animals/ ...).

The other reason which makes me struggle is that I don't really like shooting with my 50mm f/1.4. It seems to me like it's not as sharp (at comparable apertures) as my 70-200mm f/4 and I really prefer the versatility of my zooms. So, I'm kind of biased against primes.

If this is the case, get the macro first. Save up and then decide on the 100-400 I vs. II when that comes out. If the 50mm f/1.4 is not sharp at f/4, you might want to have the lens calibrated. If you send in the body, they can make sure it works well with your body. For moving subjects, the 50 would struggle with shallow DOF compared to the 70-200, but it should do well for portraits and low light.

 

[dmj]

I think you should ask yourself what you want to shoot. Both lenses suggested are excellent, but for totally different things.

You probably know where you're limited just now, if you don't, then save the money untill you do or untill you find some niche to expand technique.

 

[elflord]

The other reason which makes me struggle is that I don't really like shooting with my 50mm f/1.4. It seems to me like it's not as sharp (at comparable apertures) as my 70-200mm f/4 and I really prefer the versatility of my zooms. So, I'm kind of biased against primes.

Macro lenses are generally very sharp. If you don't shoot at faster apertures than f/2.8 very often, sell the 50 and get both lenses on your wish list.

 

[Marsu42]

Macro lenses are generally very sharp.

... but, repeating myself over and over again, but this is really important for anyone who would like to use a macro lens as a general prime: The 100mm Canon lenses are easily outperformed concerning bokeh and sharpness by "real" primes like the 100mm non-L non-macro or most other L primes like 85L or 135L - read the reviews before you decide.

 

[!Xabbu]

Macro lenses are generally very sharp.

... but, repeating myself over and over again, but this is really important for anyone who would like to use a macro lens as a general prime: The 100mm Canon lenses are easily outperformed concerning bokeh and sharpness by "real" primes like the 100mm non-L non-macro or most other L primes like 85L or 135L - read the reviews before you decide.

Thanks for all your advise on this. I just read the lens reviews on the-digital-picture.com and it seems like he sees the macros on par with the EF 100mm f/2.0. Do you really think that there is a considerable difference in IQ between the 100mm macros and the 100mm non-macro?
I can see where the 85L and 135L would outperform the 100mm macro lenses.

 

[JTPAIN]

Just my chip,

What about selling your 70-200mmL and buying the new 70-300mmL

Admittedly both great lenses, but you'd be surprised at the sharpness of the 70-300mm even compared to a 70-200mm f2.8 with 1.4x tele ( Look at Craigs review of the 70-300mm) - also, saves you a whole lot of hassle with taking the extender on and off.

Of course this way you also have some money left over to invest in a reasonable macro lens.

Hope this helps?...

 

[Marsu42]

Do you really think that there is a considerable difference in IQ between the 100mm macros and the 100mm non-macro?

What's "considerable"? All are good lenses, no doubt, it's about 100% crops really. Back when I decided if to buy the 100mm macro the reviews I read said that for general shooting at open aperture you'd be better off to use the real prime instead of dual-using a macro - the 100 non-L is softer, and the 100L is much more expensive while having the same iq stopped down. So for real macro shots which are taken stopped down anyway I bought the non-L leaving money for to save for my next L prime.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=107&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

Rent the lenses you are considering. It gives you a chance to feel out the lenses before the purchase. That is how I found out I didnt want the 24-70L. It was too front heavy so I went with the 16-35L II. I am VERY happy that I rented the 24-70 giving me a chance to feel it out and make the decision. I had A TON of people tell me to stay away from the 16-35 because of issues with flare but I have had no real "issues".

Everyone has a different taste and tasting the lens could eliminate lenses before you waste time and money.

 

[Marsu42]

Rent the lenses you are considering.

In the store I usually purchase, there is a 2 week return period and you can just give the lens back no questions asked. Of course it should look like new, but since there are no shutter cycles to count you can really use it which is kind of "renting" for free. Don't know if you can do this time and time again, but when really in doubt it sure helps.

 

[HarryWintergreen]

I would go for a really well stabilized lens. Once you have become used to not worrying about shaky hands your focussing on the situation improves. an update of the 100-400 should sport a better IS.

 

[!Xabbu]

Rent the lenses you are considering. It gives you a chance to feel out the lenses before the purchase. That is how I found out I didnt want the 24-70L. It was too front heavy so I went with the 16-35L II. I am VERY happy that I rented the 24-70 giving me a chance to feel it out and make the decision. I had A TON of people tell me to stay away from the 16-35 because of issues with flare but I have had no real "issues".

Everyone has a different taste and tasting the lens could eliminate lenses before you waste time and money.

I don't know of any place in Switzerland that rents out lenses. :-\ So, that might make this very good advise hard to put into reality.

 

[keithfullermusic]

I have a 50D and both lenses, so maybe I can offer some advice. I've had the 100 non L for a while and I effing love it. It's amazingly sharp, much sharper than my buddies 24-70L and 70-200L. I use it whenever I can. Not only is it incredible for macros, but it is incredible at everything. Even at 2.8 it is amazingly sharp. Also, at 2.8, if you focus on something about 15 feet away and get lower to the ground you almost get a tilt-shift effect.

The 100-400 is a complete different beast. Lately, I use it all the time, but I take a lot of bird shots. Also, it is not very sharp wide open at the 400 end. I always set my camera to at least f/7.1 and usually keep ISO at 400 to get nice fast shots. Even with that you get a beautiful creamy bokeh and a very sharp image.

In terms of weight, you hardly notice the 100mm, so it's perfect for carrying around. The 100-400 is a little heavier, but it's lighter and less bulky than the 70-200, and I have no problem carrying it around for a full day.

In the end it boils down to what you really want. If you want macros, then it's a no brainer (100mm) If you want incredibly sharp images it's a no brainer (100mm). If you want a low light lens it's a no brainer (100mm). If you want a great portrait lens it's a no brainer (100mm). But, if you want reach then the 100-400 obviously wins hands down.