Which lens to buy

[sparktography]

So I'm looking at a couple of lenses to complete out my collection. I currently use the following lenses:

28-135 IS
cheap sigma 70-300

I do a lot of event (clubs, dj's) photography, as well as some portraits from time to time. I want to get the following lenses (in no particular order):

Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens $469
Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens $284
Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM $699
Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens $1389

Given that I have very limited cash, but a slow steady stream I can devote to this what order do you think that I should buy those in? Does anyone have suggestions for lenses that might be better, or significantly cheaper? Anyone have specific comments on those lenses?

I made a mistake buying the sigma 70-300 because it's a cheaply made lens and I don't like it much. It was cheap, but I'm just going to end up spending that money again when I eventually get the 100-400, so I don't want to make that mistake again and go for the quick solution.

Thoughts? Ideas? Thanks!

Sparky
http://sparktography.com

(whew... what a first new topic :oops: )

[CoolToolGuy]

I would go for the 50mm f1.4 next. You get two things you don't already have - the portrait lens, as the 50 acts like an 80mm on a film camera, and you will get lens speed that you may need in a dimly-lit club environment. :wink:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[sparktography]

I would go for the 50mm f1.4 next. You get two things you don't already have - the portrait lens, as the 50 acts like an 80mm on a film camera, and you will get lens speed that you may need in a dimly-lit club environment. :wink:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

That and its the cheapest so I would get the instant gratification :) I was leaning twords that beacuse a lot of the work I do in clubs would benifit from droping a couple of F stops...

[nosquare2003]

If you don't do macro photography, you may consider EF100mm/f2 that is cheaper, smaller and a larger aperture.

[timmyquest]

DO NOT!!!!!!!!!! get the "cheap sigma 70-300 "

I own this lens, images are always very very soft

Focus is SLOW!, lowlight? Forget it!

If you want i'll show you some un edited pictures from this lens, but it would be easier if you'd just take my word for it.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=162547#162547

That picture was taken with a flash @ 1/630 and i still had to unsharpmask the thing...ALL THE WAY. And note the discolor around the edges of the lil buddy. Those were there in the RAW as well.

[sparktography]

If you don't do macro photography, you may consider EF100mm/f2 that is cheaper, smaller and a larger aperture.

I don't do much macro, but it would be nice to have that capability. Right now I'm using the 280135 for it, and it's not the best suited to the task...

[sparktography]

DO NOT!!!!!!!!!! get the "cheap sigma 70-300 "

I own this lens, images are always very very soft

Focus is SLOW!, lowlight? Forget it!

If you want i'll show you some un edited pictures from this lens, but it would be easier if you'd just take my word for it.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=162547#162547

That picture was taken with a flash @ 1/630 and i still had to unsharpmask the thing...ALL THE WAY. And note the discolor around the edges of the lil buddy. Those were there in the RAW as well.

Too late! I already bought it, and am regretting it. I should have saved up and gotten the 100-400 instead... I'm never buying a cheap lens (or hell, anything not made by Canon) again!

[timmyquest]

DO NOT!!!!!!!!!! get the "cheap sigma 70-300 "

I own this lens, images are always very very soft

Focus is SLOW!, lowlight? Forget it!

If you want i'll show you some un edited pictures from this lens, but it would be easier if you'd just take my word for it.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=162547#162547

That picture was taken with a flash @ 1/630 and i still had to unsharpmask the thing...ALL THE WAY. And note the discolor around the edges of the lil buddy. Those were there in the RAW as well.


Too late! I already bought it, and am regretting it. I should have saved up and gotten the 100-400 instead... I'm never buying a cheap lens (or hell, anything not made by Canon) again!

Awww now i feel bad. **EDIT** and stupid as i didnt realize you already had the lens Thats what i get for posting while tired and not reading the entire thread**

The lens isnt that bad. But it sure isnt going to be like the 100-400. Infact thats like a whole other league of photography.

I do have to say that for dark portraits it is nice (just so long as it'll focus).

Ya live, ya learn. I'm regretting not saivng up for a 10D rather then the 300D. I learned.

[sparktography]

Awww now i feel bad. **EDIT** and stupid as i didnt realize you already had the lens Thats what i get for posting while tired and not reading the entire thread**

The lens isnt that bad. But it sure isnt going to be like the 100-400. Infact thats like a whole other league of photography.

I do have to say that for dark portraits it is nice (just so long as it'll focus).

Ya live, ya learn. I'm regretting not saivng up for a 10D rather then the 300D. I learned.

Yeah - I made a concious decsion to do that. I'm going to get a lens collection built up and let DSLR technology improve before I plunk down for a nice body. The MK II is really tempting me tho - playing with one for 5 minutes really sold me on it. They just feel perfect :)

[sparktography]

I'm also considering ditching the 100-400 for the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM that was announced at PMA... it should be about the same size, nearly the quality, and much smaller... I'll have to wait for it to come out and see what people say about them tho...

[ron chappel]

Don't fret about the sigma!
You can sell it for a reasonable price (us$100?) when you want that 100-400.
You MAY consider doing that sooner than later...but the 50/1.4 does sound the biz for clubs,etc & prob should be got 1st.....

I had the cheapest sigma (70-300 DL).It was not quite as sharp as my above-average-example EF75-300 II usm,had a slight blue cast and lowish contrast.But it did get great pics occasionally-and the focus WAS fast-50% faster than the just mentioned 75-300 usm!

[CoolToolGuy]

I'm also considering ditching the 100-400 for the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM that was announced at PMA... it should be about the same size, nearly the quality, and much smaller... I'll have to wait for it to come out and see what people say about them tho...

Make sure you're sitting down when you look up the price on that bad boy :shock:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[sparktography]

Make sure you're sitting down when you look up the price on that bad boy :shock:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

Hrmmm... I haven't seen it online anywhere yet. I'm assuming it will be expensive beacuse the fine graine fresnel len's cant be cheap, and it has all the optics of an L series... anyone have an idea as to the price?

[CoolToolGuy]

Make sure you're sitting down when you look up the price on that bad boy :shock:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

Hrmmm... I haven't seen it online anywhere yet. I'm assuming it will be expensive beacuse the fine graine fresnel len's cant be cheap, and it has all the optics of an L series... anyone have an idea as to the price?

check this link http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012902canon70300do.asp

Not as high as I thought - I must have been thinking of the new 28-300. But at $1300, its still a good chunk of change.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[sparktography]

check this link http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012902canon70300do.asp

Not as high as I thought - I must have been thinking of the new 28-300. But at $1300, its still a good chunk of change.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

Hrmmm... Not too bad - I'll have to save up for it... but with the quality being as high as they are touting it to have, and the size/weight factor I'm going to have to seriously consider that instead of the 100-400.