L lens fever but no budget!

I tried out the 70-200 4.0 USM L and it was AMAZING on my 1d2. IQ was crazy right off the card and it caught the focus of everything. Here's a couple samples:

NB7P0283.JPG
NB7P0369.JPG
NB7P0381.JPG

I mean these were just right off the camera but it would not lose focus, thank you ring of fire mr. 1d2!

Okay so I'm selling my XSi + kit lens within the next week and I was wondering what lenses I can get to satisfy portrait/walkaround/ma​ybe sports. Top of my list right now is the 85 1.8, but I'm not sure if I want something wider or closer. I'm thinking sigma or tamron makes some prime around 300mm I would be very interested in, but I want it to be L quality! (well it doesn't have to be, but just enough to satisfy my 8MP!) I'm really bothered by chromatic abberation and slow focusing if that helps in a suggestion. Oh yeah and my budget will be around 1000 USD.

This is my current telephoto and it has a ton of softness and CA at 300mm, not to mention sloooow focusing: http://www.google.com …GI3oj_Bw&ved=0C​JABEPMCMAE so if theres anything like this but better IQ I'm all for it.

Thanks in advance for the advice!

I think it's alright. But 135L wins.

I'm not sure if you're asking about a walk-around zoom, short-tele prime, or a 300mm? Or all three?

Some lenses that deliver nice bang-for-buck would be Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-75 (nice range for portraits), Canon 85 F/1.8 (CA can be bad if there is high contrast, but if you stop down to F/2.8 it is very much gone), but there's not a lot @ 300mm without a teleconverter. The Tamron 70-300 VC sounds to be quite good though and should be MUCH nicer than the Sigma you have, however even the Canon 55-250 IS would probably be an upgrade too.

Would certainly help to clarify what you're looking for.

85mm 1.8 is great. If you want a definete step up from your current 70-300mm take a good long look at the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD. I think that it is a fantastic lens at it's price point. You can not go wrong with it, I highly reccomend it.

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #12936702
I think it's alright. But 135L wins.

I swear you post just to try to piss people off. Show me a good picture of the 135L shooting at 200mm, then we'll talk about which is "better."

For a budget of $1000: I would pick up the 85 1.8. I would suggest the 50 1.4 (any iteration), but if slow focusing bothers you that is off of the list. Generally speaking: if you're looking for L quality, you have to pay the L price.

I haven't delved much into primes but I either find myself at 70 or at 200 on the 70-200 so I don't really see a point for an inbetween. I just see primes as a good option because they are so wide the autofocus should be outstanding, if I get a zoom it will have USM at least. I'm thinking a mid range prime (50 or 85) and telephoto prime (135 or 200?) Since I don't find myself doing much wide angle shots, but with 300mm on one end of a zoom I wouldn't have to get so close for sports.

Right now I'm considering one prime (85 1.8) and a better telephoto (the new tamron 70-300) and possibly a 35 or 50 prime in the future for that wider angle if I need it.

Dooms_day wrote in post #12936764
I haven't delved much into primes but I either find myself at 70 or at 200 on the 70-200 so I don't really see a point for an inbetween.

I hear this quite a bit. Realize that even if you're at the two ends of the zoom a lot, it's still in one lens. If you can stick yourself on one end of the zoom and stay there that works, but if you ever find yourself switching between "ends" then the zoom may fit you better.

Dooms_day wrote in post #12936764
I just see primes as a good option because they are so wide the autofocus should be outstanding, if I get a zoom it will have USM at least. I'm thinking a mid range prime (50 or 85) and telephoto prime (135 or 200?) Since I don't find myself doing much wide angle shots, but with 300mm on one end of a zoom I wouldn't have to get so close for sports.

Right now I'm considering one prime (85 1.8) and a better telephoto (the new tamron 70-300) and possibly a 35 or 50 prime in the future for that wider angle if I need it.

The wide aperture of the primes will help with autofocus, but remember that there is always a bottleneck somewhere. Some less expensive primes (such as the 50 1.4) are slower at focusing; you may have more accurate focus, but it won't necessarily be faster.

If you want long, the starting point is ~$1000 (300 f/4 IS, 400 5.6, 100-400). Or you can get the 200 2.8 II L and a TC.

As you need to take a photo of Dooms_day, which will be in mega-scale , an UWA of 17-40L (for $780 new) will be doing the job to capture the magnitude of devastating of Dooms_day easy
I rest my case.

The girl in the 3rd pic is hot just saying

yeah, post more pics of her.

mek501st wrote in post #12936900
The girl in the 3rd pic is hot just saying

I think you'd be best getting a 70-200, Just seems to be my first thought on the matter

You can get one of the L-grade Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM Macros for under $1000 quite easily (And its optically close to the Canon non-IS 70-200 f/2.8) they're quite sharp, pretty dang quick to focus, affordable, and a nice discrete black finish

if you really really MUST stay Canon theres the 70-200 f/4L non-IS which is around $600-700, if you shop around you might just find a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS for under a grand too

You should do a bit of looking at your images though, See what you like in terms of focal length, then tell us that so we can give you recommendations

tell me about it. after buying 3 of them i'm dying to get my hands on a 85L. i don't think this "fever" will heal unless i get every single L lens made.

^ I'll settle with 200mm f/2L

mek501st wrote in post #12936900
The girl in the 3rd pic is hot just saying

I originally only opened up the first link, but when I saw your post, my curiosity led me to open the third link. haha

But about the L Lens fever. I have it too. I've been contemplating over getting either the 70-200mm F2.8 Non-IS for less than a grand, or just getting a 70-200mm F4 Non-IS for $500-550.

If you search around, you will find good deals. There was just a 70-200mm F4 Non-IS that sold on ebay for $470 I believe. It was used and the rubber rings had heavy wear on them since they were nearly all white. Some ArmorAll would have probably fixed it up. I would have bid on it if the seller replied to me with the date code, but I passed since he replied with "It doesn't have 2 letters and 4 numbers, it just has 6 numbers."

Dooms_day wrote in post #12936674
I tried out the 70-200 4.0 USM L and it was AMAZING on my 1d2. IQ was crazy right off the card and it caught the focus of everything. Here's a couple samples:

NB7P0283.JPG
NB7P0369.JPG
NB7P0381.JPG

I mean these were just right off the camera but it would not lose focus, thank you ring of fire mr. 1d2!

Okay so I'm selling my XSi + kit lens within the next week and I was wondering what lenses I can get to satisfy portrait/walkaround/ma​ybe sports. Top of my list right now is the 85 1.8, but I'm not sure if I want something wider or closer. I'm thinking sigma or tamron makes some prime around 300mm I would be very interested in, but I want it to be L quality! (well it doesn't have to be, but just enough to satisfy my 8MP!) I'm really bothered by chromatic abberation and slow focusing if that helps in a suggestion. Oh yeah and my budget will be around 1000 USD.

This is my current telephoto and it has a ton of softness and CA at 300mm, not to mention sloooow focusing: http://www.google.com …GI3oj_Bw&ved=0C​JABEPMCMAE so if theres anything like this but better IQ I'm all for it.

Thanks in advance for the advice!

a CA-free, super sharp contrasty 300mm with top speed sports AF is not cheap
the only things under $1000 that might do the trick, although I have never tried it myself, is the sigma 100-300 f/4 or a used canon 300 f/4 non-IS (this one has a fair amount of longitudinal purple/green front/back CA although little lateral CA).

if $1000 is for the portrait prime, 300mm reach and general walk-around then you are in trouble unless.... yeah you are in trouble.
well maybe you could get 18-55 IS and 50 1.8 and then put the rest to the sigma 100-300 or canon 300 f/4 non-IS