p.2 #2 · If you can only one more lens which would it be?
100 L.
But I would save the Money and some more, sell 5D II and grade up to 5D III.
Your lenses cover my need of range. And 4.0 works fine with a camera one can use easily up to ISO 12.800.
p.2 #4 · If you can only one more lens which would it be?
The 3 lenses I have given serious thought are the 135mm, 100mm IS and 100-400mm IS. I hade a Zeiss 135mm on my Sony and even though I didn't use it everyday I always loved the pictures from it. I also used it as a close focus lens instead of my true Minolta macro. I need to take some photos with the Canon 135 and see how close it is to the Zeiss in sharpness. The 100-400mm sounds great except why is this lens not in everybody's bag? There doesn't seem to be too many around. It has a good range, it's not too big and it's sharp from what I have read.
My Sony had in body stabilization so when I used my macro without a tripod I still got some very nice shots. The Canon 100mm IS seems a little pricey for the IS unless the picture quality is much better than the non IS. There are many lenses I could go with but not all have the IS which I need since my hands are a little shaky and I don't like using a tripod. Someone local is sellling a 400mm f4.5 for $1075 which seems like a decent price and there is a 100-400mm for $1100. I still need to sell off my remaining Sony gear before I buy anything else so I have some time.
I have been leaning towards the 135 but seeing so many for sale it makes me wonder if that will be me in 6 months. Does the 100mm IS do a lot of focus hunting when not using it as a macro?
p.2 #5 · If you can only one more lens which would it be?
I do not really understand why someone would want an extra lens. I could understand if you wrote you want a lens for the purpose of .... and you filled in the need you have. To me it sounds you have to think better about where you want to go with your photography first. Then it is much easier to help you with some kind of recommendation.
If people candids is really one of the main subjects, I would rather go with Michelle and others who say the 85/1.8 is a great lens than a macro lens. The 85 brings opening speed, with new possibilities in low light. But since you mentioned you have been thinking yourself about the 135 (better IQ, contrast, color rendition and bokeh than the 85/1.8, but pricier and a narrower FOV), the 100L (great macro tool, but less than a general purpose lens to my taste not the best rendering for portraits) and the 100-400L (the poor mans wildlife zoom, great for distant subjects, birds in flight, compressed landscapes etc, wonderful colour rendering and very good sharpness, but it needs light, lots of light). They all are so different it's clear that we first need some more information on your photographic style and future needs. There is a lot of EOSfun to buy for 1000$ in addition to your semi-allround setup already (I say semi because opening speed / light fast lenses for most photographic styles add allround capabilities).
p.2 #6 · If you can only one more lens which would it be?
Couple of things:
The 100-400 isnt as popular as it maybe shoud be b/c people don't all like the push/pull zoom. t least that seems to be the case from what I read. Also there was a time when they were of questionable sharpness copy to copy, but if you do a search you can find the safe date codes.
The 135L is awesome. I think you see so many for sale now because people are upgrading to the 70-200 F2.8L, which is of equal sharpness and close enough speed, plus has IS. If it didn't cost an arm and a leg, his may not be the case.
p.2 #7 · If you can only one more lens which would it be?
campy wrote:
The 3 lenses I have given serious thought are the 135mm, 100mm IS and 100-400mm IS. The 100-400mm sounds great except why is this lens not in everybody's bag? There doesn't seem to be too many around. It has a good range, it's not too big and it's sharp from what I have read.
On the contrary. I think the 100-400 is one of the popular wildlife lenses available. Samples produced later seem to have less sample variation, resulting in mostly sharp copies. Even though it's a relatively old model, the 100-400 still makes great photos. The primary reason it isn't in EVERYONE'S bag is that not everyone wants or needs that FL.
It seems a bit odd to be considering a 100-400 long telephoto zoom vs the 100 macro - they're so different that it seems the first consideration should be a self-examination of what your shooting priorities are and what you expect to achieve. From your other posts, I though you were leaning toward a portrait lens, but then the 100-400 wouldn't be a consideration.
It seems that the question you're asking is - I don't know what to shoot, tell me what lens will make this decision for me.
