Advise on next lens for my current setup

[keithfullermusic]

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.

Not to be a downer, but IS on lenses like that isn't incredibly useful. Don't get me wrong, I love it on the 100-400, but unless the image is around 1/1000 of a second your image isn't going to look that good because your subject is usually moving. The IS definitely helps, but a better IS wouldn't be nearly as beneficial on a lens like that as you might think.

Also, the new one might require a serious bank loan, whereas you can get the current one used for less than $1,500.

 

[keithfullermusic]

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.

Tripod is actually not a must. At first I thought it was because I was too scared to shoot above ISO 100. As the years went on I realized that my camera is fine up to ISO 400, and not that bad beyond.

In fact, the biggest problem with macro shots is something that a tripod and IS can't solve - its the damn wind blowing your subject around. While I prefer shooting macros with a tripod, it is not something that I always do. Handheld macros are usually perfectly fine.

 

[Marsu42]

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/ ...).

In fact, the biggest problem with macro shots is something that a tripod and IS can't solve - its the damn wind blowing your subject around. While I prefer shooting macros with a tripod, it is not something that I always do. Handheld macros are usually perfectly fine.

Actually, handheld usually is the only way to shoot macros of moving insects etc - sometimes I managed to drag my tripod around and get very good shots the exact moments a bug stopped, but that's rather unusual. It's only that the closer you get and the more something moves, the less impact IS has - so I have to shoot @iso1000 with my 60d. And keith is right: wind is the absolute macro killer, esp. for focus stacks.

@Xabbu: I don't use a macro flash, imho one or two more versatile regular flashes work just fine. But you're right about one thing: setting up a or thinking about a picture adds complexity in contrast to point and shoot - but but it's the essential ingredient in every shot, not only for macro.

 

[!Xabbu]

@Xabbu: I don't use a macro flash, imho one or two more versatile regular flashes work just fine. But you're right about one thing: setting up a or thinking about a picture adds complexity in contrast to point and shoot - but but it's the essential ingredient in every shot, not only for macro.

Thanks for the advise. I like composing pictures and think that I got better since I started getting into photography. However, I really like to shoot pictures without having to set up a tripod, lighting and prepare the subject. I love candid portraits and I like to just walk through town and shoot whatever is cool. The tripod feels to me as if it limits me. But from what you guys say it seems like handheld macros are possible - that brings me to the question, if I should get an IS macro lens?

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.

You shoot 400mm @ f/7.1 - what kind of ISO do you need to get a fast enough shutter speed (I assume 1/200s is the slowest reasonable speed even with IS)? From the tests I read it seemed like it is a pretty sharp lens - I don't really want to spend 1'500 bucks on a soft lens.

 

[Marsu42]

But from what you guys say it seems like handheld macros are possible - that brings me to the question, if I should get an IS macro lens?

The 100-400 is a complete different beast.

* For macro & is, see the recent topics on this - the opinions are divided, but I guess one tendency is consensual: The less distance to your object (i.e. real macro shots), the less IS helps. But if you're not on a budget: By all means, get the 100L - personally, I got a used non-L and will invest the money saved in another lens.

* For 100-400L/70-300L(/70-200L): There were a couple of extensive topics on this during the last month, too. I got the 70-300L because the 70mm means less lens changes (70-300 is a great difference, while on the tele end 300-400 is not) and the long zoom end on the 70-300L actually is sharp - as you read above in contrast to the 100-400L. And for the latter, you have to be ok with the push-pull zoom design.

 

[!Xabbu]

* For macro & is, see the recent topics on this - the opinions are divided, but I guess one tendency is consensual: The less distance to your object (i.e. real macro shots), the less IS helps. But if you're not on a budget: By all means, get the 100L - personally, I got a used non-L and will invest the money saved in another lens.

* For 100-400L/70-300L(/70-200L): There were a couple of extensive topics on this during the last month, too. I got the 70-300L because the 70mm means less lens changes (70-300 is a great difference, while on the tele end 300-400 is not) and the long zoom end on the 70-300L actually is sharp - as you read above in contrast to the 100-400L. And for the latter, you have to be ok with the push-pull zoom design.

I was reading some reviews on the 100-400mm and according to the-digital-picture it's really sharp - especially at 400mm (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx). This contradicts Keith's experience.

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.

Does anyone else have any other experience with this - I will go and look at the 100-400mm posts in this forum also.

 

[Marsu42]

I was reading some reviews on the 100-400mm and according to the-digital-picture it's really sharp - especially at 400mm

Sharp in comparison to what? To a 400 prime? To other 1998 zoom lenses? I cannot see when this review was written. When I decided between the 70-200/2.8, 70-300L & 100-400L the reviews and opinions I read did state that the iq of the 100-400L might need improvement to compete with newer lenses (and their updated IS) - but of course all have a very high iq and you'll see differences only at 100% crop, so other things (zoom range, physical length, weight, zoom design, IS version) will matter more.

The 70-300L seems to be a bit sharper at 300mm: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

 

[eolson]

First off I would sit down and think about what your goals are. If you are just an amatuer who wants to enjoy taking pictures the 100mm macro will provide you with a whole new "world" to explore! (I just ordered my 100mm macro today)
On the other hand if you really enjoy taking shots of animals i would go with the 100-400.

If you are just looking for the reach of the 100-400 i would consider the 400mm f/5.6L, it is a amazing lens!

So in summary, sit down and figure out what your mail goal is and make the purchase that makes sense. If you dont have any specific goal but just want a new "toy" then make a list of the comparative costs, uses, etc.. and make your decision that way.

Good luck!