LENS CHOICE NARROWED DOWN...

[Steve Parr]

I just saw the thread that HKFEVER started, highlighting the crispiness of his 24-70L. Because of the shot of the Porsche Cayenne headlight; it's ridiculous clarity and sharpness, I've decided to forego the purchase of a lesser lens (I'd been looking at a few different Canon and non-Canon lenses) and save my pennies for some L glass.

There are three lenses which will fit my budget: The 24-70mm, the 70-200mm, and the 200mm prime.

What would be the best way to go? I've got the kit lens, the Nifty Fifty, the 85mm f/1.8, and a cheesy 70-300mm Quantary-Special-with-cheese (takes decent enough pictures for the amount of time it spend son my camera).

I'd been leaning towards the 70-40mm but, lately, the 200mm prime is catching my attention.

If you were in my shoes, which would you likely opt for? Right now, I don't really have a need for a long gun, so nothing over 200mm would really be required.

Also, a follow-up question: If I were to go with the 70-200mm, and used an extender (on the rare occasion I would need one), would the resulting shots be better quality than the cheesy Quantary? I'm thinkiin' yes, but I'm hoping to draw on what I've come to know as a ridiculous amount of experience here.

Thanks...

Steve

[brad.swanson]

I'll tell you some things that I appreciate about my lenses, and you decide for yourself.

I have the 24-70L, the 70-200 f2.8 IS, and a 50mm f1.4. Primes offer better quality for a lower price at the sacrifice of some convenience, and they usually weigh less than a comparable zoom.

Typically, people are shocked at the weight of a good f2.8 zoom, but they usually get over it when they see the results.

Frankly, I believe that the 70-200 f2.8 IS is the finest zoom lens Canon makes. It's nice to be able to stand back, zoom in, and get closeups without getting in someone's face. I use it indoors, shooting RAW, and underexpose by a stop. I like the IS. I use it a lot, but it will go through your batteries faster if you spend a lot of time at 1/2 shutter.

The 24-70 is a fantastic lens too. I think at f2.8, at 70mm, the 70-200 is better, but not by much. The 24-70 is incredibly fast at autofocus. It's probably my favorite walkaround lens. If I were to walk through Rome, Paris, or London, this would be the lens on my camera.

If I were looking at teh 70-200 vs the 200 prime, I'd spend the extra money and get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. The optics are updated, the AF is fast, and you kill a lot of lenses with one stone. It's not as fast as a 100f2, or a 135f2, or an 85f1.8, but it covers a LOT of focal length with one lens.

Good luck.

[Maureen Souza]

My next purchase will be the 70-200/2.8L. No ifs ands or buts about it. Good luck deciding but don't drive yourself crazy.

[Steve Parr]

Good luck deciding but don't drive yourself crazy.

It's a tad too late for that. I've spent the better part of the last few days surfing the net, checking out lenses. My wife calls it "camera porn"...

Steve

[CyberDyneSystems]

There's allways a used 28-70mm f/2.8L :rolleyes: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2hdzu/pics/spam1.gif

[eosster]

There's allways a used 28-70mm f/2.8L :rolleyes: http://members.bellatlantic.net/%7Evze2hdzu/pics/spam1.gif

LMAO,