Which lens to buy?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Hi All

I am planning to buy a telephoto lens (Zoom or fixed length). These are my considerations. Please suggest one for me.

1. 70-200 F4 L 2. 100mm F2 USM (Is there a version with softfocus?) 3. 100mm F2.8 Macro

I give first priority to 70-200 because it is L but at the same time worried because it is a zoom and it cannot give sharp pictures as primes(I dont know, here where I need your suggestions). Also not happy because it has a small aperture of F4. I cannot afford to have 70-200 F2.8 now and it is a bit heavy and bulky for me. Next goes 100mm F2.8 Macro, but it is almost near to 70-200 in price. I want to go for 70-200 instead of this if the picture quality of 70-200 is almost or near to 100mm F2.8 Macro. Next comes 100mm F2 USM. Please tell me your suggestions. My basic requirement is a good telephoto lens.

Another question is about the Tripod collar of 70-200F4 L. It costs 115$ in B&H. What the hell? Why is it so costly? Is there any other alternatives or low price collars available?

-- John (eosquestions@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002

Answers

You are considering three very different lenses and not stating a specific purpose for the lens. If its use will be widespread: sports/action, portraits, candid, etc., then the zoom would probably be best. In my opinion, the 100 f2 (no soft focus version is available) would make the best portrait lens, and the 100 f2.8 Macro would make the best macro lens (duh!). You just have to ask yourself what you want it for. I wouldn't describe any of these lenses as "a good telephoto lens" - I would describe the two primes as excellent, and from what I have read and heard, the zoom is superb (although it will be more prone to flare than the primes).

I don't know about the collar price thing - Canon hoods are outrageously expensive as well. I think they rob you because they can. Good luck with your decision.

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), April 04, 2002.


I have the 70-200/4L. Don't worry about its sharpness. It is just as sharp as any good prime! Its max aperture just isn't as fast. The 4L is a great lens. Light, compact, sharp, solid. As for the tripod collar, you can buy the black version at B&H for $78.95 (versus $113.95 for the white version). They are both identical except for the paint. The white version is for 70-200/4L, 300/4L and 400/5.6L, which are white. The black version is for the 200/2.8L, which is black. Because the 4L is relatively light and compact, you don't really need a collar. But I plan on getting one just for the convenience of being able to switch from vertical or horizontal without having to loosen the tripod head.

-- Peter Phan (PPHAN01@YAHOO.COM), April 04, 2002.

i would prefer to go for 70-200 because of its versatility (limited till 200mm). if sharpness the issue i will go for 100mm f2.8 macro. it can be used for the same purpose as the 100mm f2 i.e. for portraits. but it can be used for macro photography also. you can go through this thread for some discussion on using macro lens for portraits.

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), April 05, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ