Advice needed on lense choice

[tengr_68]

Hello all. I've been reading this forum for a month or two now, but have not had much to say until now. I would appreciate any advise that could be given. Currently I have a Rebel 350XT with kit lense and a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Macro lense. I'm not happy with the quality of either lense.

I'm getting ready to make a rather large purchase, for me, and I'm not sure the best way to go. I'm debating on getting the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM alone or the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM together. The prices work out about the same.

Is the IS really that important to justify only getting the one lense. I mainly take landscape pictures on hiking trips. I would like to have the ability to take good macro pictures too, but the more important point is to take the best landscape pictures that I can.

Thanks

[tim]

If landscapes are what's important to you, skip the F2.8 and get the F4. It's meant to be as sharp or sharper at F4 than the F2.8 lens, it's a lot lighter, and it's slightly shorter - much better for hiking. Of course, you'll want a tripod for that. The 2.8 IS is great for shots in low light if you can't pack a tripod.

The 100mm macro's a great lens, very sharp, one of my favorites.

[tengr_68]

If I don't really need the F2.8 than what about the EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L than? My only concern with that is from what I've seen there seems to be better clarity with the EF 400mm F/5.6. So I was going to get the 70-200mm now and get the prime later. But if I don't need the F2.8 should I go ahead with the 100-400mm?

Thanks

[tim]

Why do you need such a long zoom for landscapes? The 100-400 has a good reputation. Have you read this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752)?

[Citizensmith]

If someone say landscape pictures they are generally talking about wanting a wide lens. The 17-40 would be the obvious choice. Your preference for long lenses makes me wonder if you are really talking about wildlife photos, in which case something like the 70-200 f/4 or 100-400 would be good choices.

[tengr_68]

Landscapes are my preference, but if I can combine a lense that works good for wildlife too, then I figure why not. I don't have the money to buy a specialty lense for each type of shooting. I enjoy shooting landscapes the most,but for my money I want the most versatility that I can get. Thanks for the advice!

[erik-nl]

I recently had to make exactly the same choices as you do now.
Limited money, so preferably maximum usefulness for what I could spend.

To me f2.8 is important for a clear viewfinder image, I don't want anything darker than that.

Landscapes:
I figured that for landscapes I don't need fast autofocus, but I do need a reasonably wide field of view.
A light and compact lens on my camera is preferable while moving around, looking for a nice view.
I usually make my panoramas by stiching together several images with PTGui, so I needed a lens with as little vignetting and distortion as possible.
A fixed lens makes stiching images easier.
To me zooming capability is not really necessary for landscapes, i'll just use my feet.

Wildlife:
Wildlife also means little creatures and flowers to me, so macro capability was important.
For wildlife you generally need a long lens.
A long lens must be able to focus fast.
A zoom lens is nice for wildlife.

These criteria cannot possibly be met by one lens alone. Canon doesn't make it, and even if they did I could never afford it.

After many hours of reading all the info I could find, I finally bought the 24mm/f2.8 for my landscapes and the 100mm/f2.8 USM for wildlife and macro.
While the 24mm turned out to be not quite as perfect as I had hoped it would be, I did make some absolutely wonderful pictures with it. It is a truly great lens for its intended purpose.
Obviously the 100mm needs no advertising by me, its qualities are common knowledge around here.

These two lenses cannot cover all I want to be able do with my camera, but for now I can do with it what I want most, and with high quality optics.

Perhaps this approach is useful for you too?

[tengr_68]

Citizen, You're exactly right. That is the focal range that immediately comes to most peoples minds when landscape photography is the subject. I recently read an article that said if you come upon a scene that looks perfect for a landscape picture than you can bet there have already been tons of shots taken there already. Also that using a telephoto, you can get some unique landscape shots. Sure it's not the wide open shots that are so common is landscape photography, but it does provide the chance for a more unique approach.

Now combining this thought process with the need to have as much versatility for the money, while maintaining high quality, is what led me through my thought process. It may not be agreeable with traditional thought, but what the hell. (lol) Am I thinking wrong? This is why I posted the question. Thanks again for any advise given.

[nosquare2003]

Regarding the IS lens, you may consider the non IS. Since the primary purpose is for landscape, you may have to take a tripod. And there is no need to have the IS. If you don't need the f/2.8, the 100-400 won't disappoint you IMHO.

By the way, I also use telephoto for landscape.

[tengr_68]

Thanks nosquare & tim. I think I will skip the IS. One item down. Now for the lense choice. Decisions, decisions.

[WepWaWep]

After selling off My E-10 and the whole lens system, I've been rebuilding for my Canon. I shoot a lot of wildlife from birds down to the wee little critters and the flora.

My two main lenses as I build my collection are the 100-400 L and the 100 f2.8 macro. My kit lens is doing duty as my wide angle until I can afford something better. If I use it for landscapes, I use a tripod to increase the aperture to give me the sharpness I need.

The 100-400 L can be very flexible and I am learning how to "cheat" with it under certain conditions, but mainly I focus on using it for wildlife. I need to work out the issues at full extension with sharpness, but I just need to experiment more. May add an extender later to increase focal length.

The macro is new to my line up as of yesterday afternoon, but I am familiar with macro lenses and just need to learn this lens. Still, it's main arena is macros and doubling as a portrait lens/short, tight angle shooting. I know already that I am going to love this lens.

The next step is to find what wide angle will suit me. It still comes down to the right equipment for the job, I stopped trying to hammer screws in a long time ago. Same to getting the quality of pictures I want. Start with your main emphasis, cater to that style and technique and build from there, good glass adds so much more to the whole picture. Hope this helps.