Trying for ideal lens collection

[mpeltier]

I bought the D30 about 3 weeks ago. I purchased 1 50mm f/1.8 with it. I am now looking to get serious with the lens collection but I am trying to get some advice on what to get. I have read numerous reviews on the following

28-70 f/2.8l USM
CANON EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
CANON EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM
CANON EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM


From what I have read the 28-70 f/2.8l USM is almost a must have. The hard part comes in trying to figure out which ONE of the next three I should get. I don't photograph any specific thing (sports, wildlife, etc) but all of these thing I would like to be able to accomplish with one of the lenses if possible. I am also considering the Extenders 1.4x II or 2x II depending on the lens.

The 70-200 has excellent reviews here but seems like it might not have enough zoom. The 35-300 is outdated from what I have read (but still good) and covers a wide range. The 100-400 leaves a gap with the 28-70 but with the extender and IS seems to give the most bang for the buck?

Any help/advice/opinions you guys could provide a new guy would be greatly appreciated.


--
Mike
Mpeltier@earthlink.net

[Jonboy]

Personally - I would go for a wider lens. It all depends on what you are photographing, but I bought a 70 - 200 f2.8 and 28 - 70 f2.8 with mine (both Sigma), but with the magnification of the D30 (not giving true 28mm) I am now looking to buy a 17 - 35 lens.

I mainly do soccer photography for a local newspaper and football club and the wider angle would be better for group shots/ parties etc.

Im sure some would have different ideas......

Happy New Year

Jon

[WJ Fleury]

The lens you use/have depents on what you like shooting.
28-135 IS is what I use 90% of the time, got it Dec 2000 with the camera.
75-300 3.5-5.6 use some.
50 1.8 use some.
buy very soon,
100 2.8 macro
70-200 f4
1.4 convetor
later this year (2002)
100-400 IS
Down the road, someday
27-70 2.8 L
17-35 2.8 L
I do a lot of shooting were about 100 mm is nice, I will have 4 lens soon that cover 100 mm. wide angle is not what I shoot most of the time, oh well that is me.

[mpeltier]

I posted this on dpreview also and they had brought up the 17-35 /16-35 type lens also. I am not sure if I need to get this wide yet. Also for the cost it doesnt seem that it would benefit me more than the 28-70? I used a 50mm 1.8 for christmas indoors and it worked well, I just hated having to move all over the room to get closer/farther from what I was shooting. This is why I was thinking the 28-70L

I dont shoot well enough yet for anyone to publish my pictures. I plan to start doing sports and wildlife in the next 6 months or so (when the temp gets back above freezing for the most part) I have a 75-300 (non IS) and I can see a need fo a zoom with IS as I hand hold 99% of my pictures. Decisions... Thanks for your advice

Mike

[mpeltier]

WJ Fleury wrote:
The lens you use/have depents on what you like shooting.
28-135 IS is what I use 90% of the time, got it Dec 2000 with the camera.

I keep thinking about this one. I just dont know if I want to spend 500 now and then another 1500 a year from now getting something else. My wife would shoot me I think with my own gun

75-300 3.5-5.6 use some.
50 1.8 use some.

I have both of the above. The 50mm is good but now zoom. The 75-300 was a mistake for me. I drink to much coffee for it to be of use hand held i should have saved the money and got the 100-400 IS or the 70-200L

buy very soon,
100 2.8 macro
70-200 f4
1.4 convetor
later this year (2002)
100-400 IS
Down the road, someday
27-70 2.8 L
17-35 2.8 L
I do a lot of shooting were about 100 mm is nice, I will have 4 lens soon that cover 100 mm. wide angle is not what I shoot most of the time, oh well that is me.

I dont shoot wide angle either (yet), hence the 28-70L consideration. I just dont like spending money twice I guess. I figure the L series lenses will be good enough for the next camera I buy 5 years down the road, etc

Thanks for your reply/advice

Happy New Year
Mike

[JCDoss]

If you only want to have one lens, the 35-350 might be your ticket. It's not mine, though.

Here's how I envision my collection (which is by no means complete yet)... Each lens has a specific purpose...

Wide angle, architecture, travel, indoors: 16-35L
(Fred will convince you that it's certainly worth the extra $$ over the 17-35L)
All-purpose: 28-135IS
Indoor, low light, portraits: 50/1.4
Sports, wildlife, nature photography: 70-200IS with both converters
Closeups, macro, portraits: 100/Macro
Wildlife: A fast telephoto prime such as the 300/2.8 or 400/DO. I'd consider the 200-400/DO zoom based on performance and price.

I'd prefer to have fewer lenses... if the 35-350 were faster, it could fill several niches in my arsenal, but it's too slow for my purposes.

JCDoss

[mpeltier]

Thanks to all who responded. The advice given was very helpful in making a decision. I purchased a 100-400L from Delta international today. It was $100 more than the 70-200 (non IS). Theory is that the IS version will come down price wise later so I will pick it up later after 28-70 or 16-35. Thats a choice down the road (and fiscal year) Thanks again

Mike