Trade 100mm Macro for 70-200 f/4L?!?!?!?!?!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hello everyone! Just bought my 20d two days ago with a canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, and I'm not totally pleased with it.... well, I like the lens... but I can't shoot wide angle at all with it, sucks for birds and small animal photography, and is sort of softer than I had expected.........

So, I was thinking maybe I should return it (for $600.00 at ritz where I bought it from) then hop on bhphoto.com and order a 50mm f/1.8 and a 70-200 f/4L. This should allow me to do more? 50mm for indoors, low lit, macro, landscape stuff. 70-200 f/4 for outdoor, sport, wildlife, ect. The combo is basically the same price.

Just wondering if anyone thinks this is a good idea? What ever I buy, I'm stuck with for a looonnnnggggg time until I pay everything off. That's why I'm thinking this through so thoroughly...... I want as much productivity as possible.

So, will these lenses do what I want them too? Shoot great macro of flowers, awesome sports, good wildlife, ect? What are the disadvantages, advantages, ect? Thanks for your help!

[paulhillion]

I'm not entirely sure why you bought the 100 Macro as your starter lens when you seem to be wanting to shoot 'wide' AND 'wildlife'? Having said that I've used the 100 macro as a walkabout lens shooting wild garden birds etc, I've also found it to be a very sharp lens so I'm not sure about the 'softness' issue?

If you do get the 200 f/4 for wildlife you'll probably find yourself wanting something longer after a while, in which case you may be better to stretch your budget (or buy used) & get the 100-400L? I'd also think about getting the much loved Tamron 28-75?

Good luck with whatever you decide.

PS. Your signature contradicts your message ;-)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I'm sorry, I made it sound like I completely hate the 100mm macro. I really do like it, it's just I'm going to be stuck with what ever lens I buy now for a while until I pay most of this thing off. So, I just want to make sure I get as much out of my lens, or lenses that I can so I don't get bored, frustrated, what ever. I like to do a lot of things, and I'm just not sure the 100mm macro will allow me to do those things. I bought it in the first place, because I went to ritz, wanted the 70-200 and then they told me it was $800.00 there. I was like, screw that.... and they offered 0% financing on their credit line, so I wanted to purchase from them. So, 100mm macro seems logical at the time..... now I'm starting to question myself..... I'm pretty sure this macro isn't going to hold me off for the next 6+ months.

I kind of want to stick to the macro, but technically I'm losing 140ish since it's only 460ish on bhphoto.com if I keep it..... and for 600ish I could have the 50 and the 70-200 which is a pretty good range.... if I really need it I can get the macro later on.....

Anyway, I'm just wondering.... can I still get some really good macro shots with the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200mm f/4L? Will I be at a great loss trading in the macro for those two lenses?

[fetching]

the 50mm isn't nearly wide enough for landscapes.

[tim]

The 50mm isn't wide enough for landscapes, and it's not a macro lens either. It's focus motor is quite poor, i've stopped using mine because I get a lot of out of focus images. It also can't focus close enough to do macro.

The 70-200 F4 is a great lens, and except for macro it's probably going to be more versatile than the macro lens for you.

The 100mm macro is a great lens for what it's made to do: macro, and portraits. It's probably my sharpest lens, so either you got a bad copy or you need to practice a little - it can take a little time to get used to a new camera and lens.

You've specified basically all the types of photography that most people do, I think you need to narrow down what you're most interested in taking photos of, from that we can recommend a lens or two that should cover most of your needs. Post your lens budget too.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thanks Tim. Pretty much all I want is to be able to shoot animals at the zoo, and do macro. Those are my two favorites. Land scape can wait I guess. I like shooting butterfly's, and flowers, large animals (cats, dogs, exotic zoo animals like lions, tigers, bears, ect) and sports photography of like, lacrosse games. I want to shoot birds too, but I can't afford a good focal length to do that right now. So, that's out of the question..... I'll stick to the big animals I guess.

Right now my lens budget can't get any higher than $650.00. That's my absolute limit.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Oh yea, and I am a total noob shooting in full manual with my macro. I've had this thing for 2 days so your probably right. I just need to get the hang of it to get the sharp images I want.