Another Lens Suggestion Post… looking for a gift for myself.

[Scarpz13]

Hi Everyone one… going to be fortunate enough to have a little commission/Christmas bonus money left over after taking care of all the gifts for the wife & kiddies, family and friends….

Haven't added to my lens collection since about this time last year; and will have around $1000 or so to spend. Considering the lenses I already have, my first inclination was to pick up a 100L Macro, since none of my lenses are macro. Then I considered the 135L because I don't have a long range prime, and like everyone, I like fast glass.

But as my kids are getting older and into dance recitals and indoor sports, plays, etc… the 135L might be good, but I am considering on of the new Tamron 2.8 zooms. I used to own a 17-50 Tammy for my 60D and found it was great… and I know Dustin from TWI has posted some great reviews here on the Tamron lenses.

I know everyone is going to say the Canon is better, but I'm not in place to spend 2K+ on a lens, at least not without taking away from more important things- I feel guilty enough as it is not spending all my extra money on the kids!

I appreciate any thoughts- and I am a bit concerned that I am more likely to get a "bad copy" of a Tamron, but I think it may be the best value right now. In Toronto they are on sale everywhere… $1000 or so for the 24-70 and $1300ish for the 70-200

thanks!

 

[TexasBadger]

This is a no brainer. Get the 135 f/2 L. You will not regret it. So much high quality goodness for the money.

 

[Random Orbits]

The 135L is nice, but I often find it too short for recitals and indoor events. Would you consider trading in your 70-200 f/4 L IS and upgrading to the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II? If you do it that way, then the net cost would be closer to 1k... The 70-200 f/2.8 L II focuses quickly and tracks subjects well (best in the 70-200 range, excluding the 200L f/2), which is really a boon for sports. It also takes extenders better than the 135L.

I love using the 70-200L II for soccer, and I find myself using it for indoor stuff too because of the reach. Unless you can control where you shoot from (I can't as a parent), the 135L may be too limiting. I often bring along the 135L for recitals, etc, but I usually end up using the 70-200 II most of the time.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd suggest replacing your 24- 105 with the new 24-70L. I loved my 24-105, but it hasn't been used since I bought my 24-70, and my 24-105mm L is now listed on ebay.

 

[mrsfotografie]

How about a 35mm f/1.4 (Sigma). It's a fantastic general purpose lens with lots of creative leverage, and an absolute low-light killer! Also great indoors. It replaced my 24-70 f/2.8L and I haven't looked back.

 

[CR00]

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM might be a good chice for you as you can get it for $1,099 right now. Fit both your need and budget.

 

[Vossie]

The 135L is a great lens. The 100L is too. That will be my present to myself ;D

Remember that when going to macro, you also need a lighting solution which adds to the costs. I plan to get a Wimberley shapeshifter bracket to use with the 2 flashes I have. With some mini softboxes that will give smooth lighting without having to invest in the pricey macro twin lights.

 

[Menace]

If I was in your shoes, I'd treat myself to the stunning EF135!

 

[Ruined]

Hi Everyone one… going to be fortunate enough to have a little commission/Christmas bonus money left over after taking care of all the gifts for the wife & kiddies, family and friends….

Haven't added to my lens collection since about this time last year; and will have around $1000 or so to spend. Considering the lenses I already have, my first inclination was to pick up a 100L Macro, since none of my lenses are macro. Then I considered the 135L because I don't have a long range prime, and like everyone, I like fast glass.

But as my kids are getting older and into dance recitals and indoor sports, plays, etc… the 135L might be good, but I am considering on of the new Tamron 2.8 zooms. I used to own a 17-50 Tammy for my 60D and found it was great… and I know Dustin from TWI has posted some great reviews here on the Tamron lenses.

I know everyone is going to say the Canon is better, but I'm not in place to spend 2K+ on a lens, at least not without taking away from more important things- I feel guilty enough as it is not spending all my extra money on the kids!

I appreciate any thoughts- and I am a bit concerned that I am more likely to get a "bad copy" of a Tamron, but I think it may be the best value right now. In Toronto they are on sale everywhere… $1000 or so for the 24-70 and $1300ish for the 70-200

thanks!

I have heard the Tamron 24-70 is pretty darn good, but have heard much less good things about the 70-200. Given Canon's fantastic telephoto selection, I would recommend staying with Canon in this focal length range.

In any case, the Canon lenses do offer more reliable performance even though they may lack features and be more expensive at times.

I can vouch that the 100mm f/2.8L Macro is an amazing lens you might want to consider. If you have the slightest inclination towards Macro, it is the perfect lens to start with in that category; good working distance, excellent IQ, and much more compact than the 180mm macro. In addition, by flipping a switch it becomes a portrait lens w/ IS, plus some of the best edge-to-edge sharpness you have ever seen. So it is an extremely versatile lens that will let you take close ups (I use it for ring shots) as well as highly detailed portraits that ooze expression.

Another lens in this pricerange you may want to consider is the 70-200 f/4L IS or 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. If you are not getting paid to take pictures, I'd actually advise to skip the 70-200 f/2.8 - it is just so darn heavy and huge that for a photographer doing things for fun it may actually dissuade you from usage! I have one, and it does give excellent results, but you really need to have a secondary lens to use that does not weigh a ton for non-pro events. So, before you go the 70-200 2.8 route, make sure you handle it in the store and that is a weight/size you are comfortable handling all the time, on hiking trips, outings, etc.

Regarding the 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS, I actually prefer the latter because I already have a 70-200 2.8 and the former is too close in focal length. The 70-200 f/4, while lighter, is too long for some venues - while the 70-300L's compact length allows you to get into certain places where the 70-200 f/4 would be banned. The extra reach on the 70-300 is nice, too, and unlike the non-L 70-300 lenses the 70-300L is extremely sharp throughout the whole range!

The 135L is a nice lens, but I believe we will see it trumped by a non-L IS prime in 2014 for half the price, much like we saw with the 35mm f/2 IS trumping the 35mm f/1.4L this year. Also consider with the 135mm focal length, Image Stabilization is very much desired due to the longer focal length - a lot of times you may need 1/100 or 1/60 shutter speed, and without IS you may be doomed to motion blur handheld with the 135L. Again, a non-L IS prime that will likely arrive next year will fix this for much less money while retaining the superior optics if the 35mm f/2 IS is any indication.

So my recommendations - 100L Macro or 70-300L.

 

[Scarpz13]

Hi Everyone one… going to be fortunate enough to have a little commission/Christmas bonus money left over after taking care of all the gifts for the wife & kiddies, family and friends….

Haven't added to my lens collection since about this time last year; and will have around $1000 or so to spend. Considering the lenses I already have, my first inclination was to pick up a 100L Macro, since none of my lenses are macro. Then I considered the 135L because I don't have a long range prime, and like everyone, I like fast glass.

But as my kids are getting older and into dance recitals and indoor sports, plays, etc… the 135L might be good, but I am considering on of the new Tamron 2.8 zooms. I used to own a 17-50 Tammy for my 60D and found it was great… and I know Dustin from TWI has posted some great reviews here on the Tamron lenses.

I know everyone is going to say the Canon is better, but I'm not in place to spend 2K+ on a lens, at least not without taking away from more important things- I feel guilty enough as it is not spending all my extra money on the kids!

I appreciate any thoughts- and I am a bit concerned that I am more likely to get a "bad copy" of a Tamron, but I think it may be the best value right now. In Toronto they are on sale everywhere… $1000 or so for the 24-70 and $1300ish for the 70-200

thanks!

I have heard the Tamron 24-70 is pretty darn good, but have heard much less good things about the 70-200. Given Canon's fantastic telephoto selection, I would recommend staying with Canon in this focal length range.

In any case, the Canon lenses do offer more reliable performance even though they may lack features and be more expensive at times.

I can vouch that the 100mm f/2.8L Macro is an amazing lens you might want to consider. If you have the slightest inclination towards Macro, it is the perfect lens to start with in that category; good working distance, excellent IQ, and much more compact than the 180mm macro. In addition, by flipping a switch it becomes a portrait lens w/ IS, plus some of the best edge-to-edge sharpness you have ever seen. So it is an extremely versatile lens that will let you take close ups (I use it for ring shots) as well as highly detailed portraits that ooze expression.

Another lens in this pricerange you may want to consider is the 70-200 f/4L IS or 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. If you are not getting paid to take pictures, I'd actually advise to skip the 70-200 f/2.8 - it is just so darn heavy and huge that for a photographer doing things for fun it may actually dissuade you from usage! I have one, and it does give excellent results, but you really need to have a secondary lens to use that does not weigh a ton for non-pro events. So, before you go the 70-200 2.8 route, make sure you handle it in the store and that is a weight/size you are comfortable handling all the time, on hiking trips, outings, etc.

Regarding the 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS, I actually prefer the latter because I already have a 70-200 2.8 and the former is too close in focal length. The 70-200 f/4, while lighter, is too long for some venues - while the 70-300L's compact length allows you to get into certain places where the 70-200 f/4 would be banned. The extra reach on the 70-300 is nice, too, and unlike the non-L 70-300 lenses the 70-300L is extremely sharp throughout the whole range!

The 135L is a nice lens, but I believe we will see it trumped by a non-L IS prime in 2014 for half the price, much like we saw with the 35mm f/2 IS trumping the 35mm f/1.4L this year. Also consider with the 135mm focal length, Image Stabilization is very much desired due to the longer focal length - a lot of times you may need 1/100 or 1/60 shutter speed, and without IS you may be doomed to motion blur handheld with the 135L. Again, a non-L IS prime that will likely arrive next year will fix this for much less money while retaining the superior optics if the 35mm f/2 IS is any indication.

So my recommendations - 100L Macro or 70-300L.

Thanks Ruined!
I already have the 70-200 F4 IS, and I agree... the 2.8L IS is probably too big for what I need. the F4 is more than sufficient for taking photos of my kids playing outside at the park, etc... where most of my long range photos are taken.
I had been leaning towards the 100L Macro before your post, as I do prefer the IS it has over the 135L, and the versatility it brings to my kit (being able to do some macro work which I would like to try, and also a sharp portrait lens!)

thanks for taking the time to respond.