Wonderful members of FM, please help me decide. A gift opportunity is nearing and I'd like to use it to get a new lens.
Yes, I know the 100mm f/2.8L macro and 70-300mm f/4-5.6L lenses are entirely different beasts, which is why I'm very conflicted on which to get. The price of a new 70-300mm (~$1500) is at the high end of what I can get away with.
I'm very much an amateur and I like to shoot a variety of things with my 7D, like:
...macro photography, but am not ready to invest in a true macro rig (focusing rails, additional lighting, etc.
...family photography both inside & outside, currently I only have 1 speedlite to illuminate them when needed.
...wildlife photography and often can't get close enough for the shots I really want.
...mostly handheld.
...walkaround (tourist) shots.
My current lens bag has the 50mm f/1.4 prime and 17-55mm f/2.8. Yeah, I know there's some overlap at 50mm but I found the 1.4 helpful for some of my indoor work.
Please impart your expertise and advice onto me. I'm also willing to consider reasons why I should instead get the 100-400mm or the 70-200mm.
but if the 70-300L is the top end of your budget you could possibly find a way to have your cake and eat it by:
1: Get the 100L and a 70-300 . my choice would be the Tamron VC as its a great lens and an absolute bargain considering its IQ . but if you want canon then a 70-300 IS (not the DO) is a very good lens also
2: find a good used 100-400L (heck the 70-300L is a decent price used) and get a macro from either sigma or tamron . Yes you loose the IS but the IQ will still be excellent (there are very few bad macro lenseswhen used as macro's)
Im sure there are other options that others may suggest Personally Id go with the 100-400as its a great lens and for wildlife its hard to have to long and its still quite portable (the main reason i miss mine now i have a 120-300 OS )
Considering everything on your list, I'd be inclined to postpone the 100 macro and go for the 70-300. With your 7D, that should be a very flexible and useful range. With the 17-55 you'd have a two lens carry around that handles a lot. The IS is an effective, recent generation design (better than that of the 100-400, which in other respects would be even better if wildlife were your primary focus).
For family inside, you can do a lot with one speedlite if you learn to bounce off back or side walls, maybe making your own bounce diffuser to split light between ceiling bounce and fill, etc.
I agree with Ians 2cents.
The 100 L is a pleasure lens, even my copy stopped focusing manualy after just three years. I have to send it in. The 70-300 is a great lens and I love to use Canons newesst Līs. But the Tamron Ian mentioned is a great optical performer, too. And much less heavy and bulky at 1/4th of the price (here in germany). Next to that Tamron here offers a 5 year factory warranty if one register the purchase. I wonder how much Canon will charge me for my 100 L cleaning/repair and hope it is less, than the Tamrons retail price.
100L
macro photography, Family (though with the crop and effective=160mm inside youll need to have a lot of room to backup or have a lot of tight shots), handheld, walkaround (tourist) shots (foot zoom).
70-300mm f/4-5.6L
Family (inside your aperture limited/flash synch limited SS),handheld, walkaround (tourist) shots, wildlife photography.
Pick whats more important to you right now. We cant figure that bit out
I would get a 100-400 and a used Canon 50 2.5 macro. The macro will still be a bit tight indoors but not as tight as the 100. No it doesnt have IS, the focus motor is a bit noisy, and its not a 1:1 without the adapter, but its a great, sharp lens, and if you painted it white it would be an L.
corndog wrote:
I vote for buying the 70-300L and an extension tube.
The one thing to keep in mind is that the 70-300L sadly has horrific AF with extension tubes (or extenders) on all bodies AFAIK. They should make a mode to force at least f/8 AF bodies to force f/8 AF mode. It actually takes the 1.4x TC quite well.
The 70-300L is $1087 and the 100 Macro is $407. Total = $1494. Comes with 90-day warranty. Stock comes and goes, so you have to keep a daily eye on that URL. Right now, the 100 is in and the 70-300 is out.
No worries buying from there. IDK anyone that's gotten bad/beat up product from Canon refurbs, myself included. Everything I've ever gotten from there looked and functioned like new.
The 70-300L is $1087 and the 100 Macro is $407. Total = $1494. Comes with 90-day warranty. Stock comes and goes, so you have to keep a daily eye on that URL. Right now, the 100 is in and the 70-300 is out.
No worries buying from there. IDK anyone that's gotten bad/beat up product from Canon refurbs, myself included. Everything I've ever gotten from there looked and functioned like new.
skibum5 wrote:
The one thing to keep in mind is that the 70-300L sadly has horrific AF with extension tubes (or extenders) on all bodies AFAIK. They should make a mode to force at least f/8 AF bodies to force f/8 AF mode. It actually takes the 1.4x TC quite well.
It's okay, AF is a waste of time with macro work anyways.
Much thanks for the comments. To make things more interesting I may be permitted to budget up to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II L, which probably makes it a clear winner.
As for refurb....they seem perpetually out of stock, which makes it tougher.
Squirrely Eyed wrote:
Much thanks for the comments. To make things more interesting I may be permitted to budget up to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II L, which probably makes it a clear winner.
As for refurb....they seem perpetually out of stock, which makes it tougher.
The 70-200 2.8 is often OOS and when it shows up, they go quick.
That said, they do show up I'd say at least once a month. I got mine there. When in "buying" mode, I'd recommend checking the page several times a day. Another thing to try is to call the 800 number and make friends with one of the reps and ask them to call you when it comes in. A friend of mine did this and actually got the call several weeks later.
corndog wrote:
It's okay, AF is a waste of time with macro work anyways.
Not necessarily, in some cases I find it works out much better (at least if you have a camera body that has high speed focus shifts and a Canon USM macro lens, maybe not so much with the third party of old Canon macros or non 5D3/1series/7D bodies). I believe the talk that you should never use AF for macros is one of those myths myself that gets pushed much too much.
I won't say that people should never use AF with macro, because people should use whatever works best for themselves, but I do think that the vast majority of folks shooting 1:1 or better will quickly figure out AF if more of a hindrance. Just my 2c.
With macro AF vs MF it depends what I am shooting. In the studio, shooting jewelry most of the time, I am always on MF, checking focus in liveview via a huge monitor.
Outside, with still things MF and moving things AF.
