Next Lens Purchase Recommendations??

Hi Everyone,
I'm brand new to this forum forum and fairly new to photography. At least new to taking good photos. I've managed to snap off a bunch of poor to average pics over my time with my Rebel XT, but now I want to try to make them look "brilliant" like the photos I've been seeing here. I've been reading a lot of tips on photography and doing research on what type of gear I should buy.

So while I'm waiting for my new camera to arrive from B&H, I'm wondering, even before I get it, what the next lens purchase should be. So far, I've ordered the Canon 5D Mark II with a EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens. I was torn between that lens and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (no IS). I must have read 100+ posts comparing the 2 and finally decided on the 24-105mm f/4 IS. Hopefully I won't be disappointed. Maybe I should have opted for 2.8 and not worried about the IS. But that seemed to be the big debate in the posts I read.

Anyway... next I want to get a Zoom telephoto and once again I'm torn between the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. With this lens, I would like to shoot mainly wild life and candid close-ups. Anyone have a recommendation as to which lens they would pick given the options.

Many thanks

Do you have any examples of these pics that you're calling "poor to average"? Your skill matters more than the gear. What lenses do you have?

I personally would go with the 70-200mm, and add a 2x extender for the wildlife shots.

Good choice on 24-105L...I don't think you want the 24-70L f/4

bruhnf wrote in post #10070127
Hi Everyone,
I'm brand new to this forum forum and fairly new to photography. At least new to taking good photos. I've managed to snap off a bunch of poor to average pics over my time with my Rebel XT, but now I want to try to make them look "brilliant" like the photos I've been seeing here. I've been reading a lot of tips on photography and doing research on what type of gear I should buy.

So while I'm waiting for my new camera to arrive from B&H, I'm wondering, even before I get it, what the next lens purchase should be. So far, I've ordered the Canon 5D Mark II with a EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens. I was torn between that lens and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (no IS). I must have read 100+ posts comparing the 2 and finally decided on the 24-105mm f/4 IS. Hopefully I won't be disappointed. Maybe I should have opted for 2.8 and not worried about the IS. But that seemed to be the big debate in the posts I read.

Anyway... next I want to get a Zoom telephoto and once again I'm torn between the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. With this lens, I would like to shoot mainly wild life and candid close-ups. Anyone have a recommendation as to which lens they would pick given the options.

Many thanks

Get the 70-200L II and the 2X, just did and it really performs beyond my expectations...

Sorry I didn't reply sooner but my 5D showed up yesterday earlier than expected and I've been playing with it. Thanks for all your suggestions. Probably will rent both and see which I like better. Leaning toward the 70-200mm.

@stickshift - I have not posted any photos out here yet as I just recently joined and I do not have a flickr page setup up yet. But now that my new gear is here, photos coming soon. Be anxious to have my photos critiqued.

I have both the long zooms you are thinking about and can say that neither are really good for candid shots. The 'big white' factor makes you sort of stand out in a crowd.
The 70-200 is more suited to 'people' photography while the 100-400 is a better range for wildlife.

I suspect that the 100-400 will still beat the 70-200 with the 2x converter but the Mk II version will be close. The IS in the 70-200 II will be better so it with the 1.4x or 2x may be a more versatile option for you.

In general the 70-200 finds more applications than the 100-400, faster glass is always handy.

waterboiler wrote in post #10080922
The 'big white' factor makes you sort of stand out in a crowd.

Haha... I guess it does. I'll try to stay FAR away. I've often noticed those lens at the beach.

waterboiler wrote in post #10080922
I suspect that the 100-400 will still beat the 70-200 with the 2x converter but the Mk II version will be close.

Beat? In what way? Sorry but I'm new to this so I'm not sure if you talking zoom or something else.

waterboiler wrote in post #10080922
...so it with the 1.4x or 2x may be a more versatile option for you. In general the 70-200 finds more applications than the 100-400, faster glass is always handy.

Thanks for this input. I think I've made up my mind. Now just to decide which converter. (1.4x or 2.0x) I'm thinking the 2.0x for the reach.

Thanks again for the input.

I'd say stop at present and learn to know your new body and lens. Use it for few months before your next lens purchase. Gears don't take fantastic images, you do.

I would favour a 70-200 F4 IS over the 70-200 F2.8 IS, it's lot lighter and it's very sharp plus it's cheaper.

If you have no real idea about what you want or actually need (which should be the real reason to buy something) don't buy anything. Stop consuming and start photographing.

When you find you want to take pictures that you can't because you do not have a specific piece of equipment, buy that equipment, but don't run around spending money just because you read somewhere that someone else thinks you should have some equipment you don't even understand completely.

Slow down. Take LOTS of pictures. Learn to be a photographer and then you will know what photographic equipment you actually need.

rral22 wrote in post #10088128
Slow down. Take LOTS of pictures. Learn to be a photographer and then you will know what photographic equipment you actually need.

Jam.radonc wrote in post #10087732
I'd say stop at present and learn to know your new body and lens. Use it for few months before your next lens purchase. Gears don't take fantastic images, you do.

But I'm impatient. I know you're both right. Just thought I'd get the basic equipment so I have something to learn with. I figured a good body, a decent wide-angle/zoom and a long zoom would be all I need. Maybe I should have just bought the body and used the crappy lenses that I already have. Who knows.

But thanks for your input.

Having owned both series I and II 70-200 2.8IS and 100-400mm , IMO for wildlife go for the 100-400mm. When I had this lens this was my go to zoo, wildlife, airplanes and birding lens. The 70-200mm is just a bit short. You want the longest reach possible within your target budget. The money save on the 100-400 vs buying 70-200 MII will mean another lens ( a macro maybe or an UW like the Canon 17-40L) or a flash and other accessories.

the answer is simple to your question from my end.... based on what i see.... the 70-200 F2.8 II with a 1.4x is a no brainer. if you do pick up that lens your camera kit would have you set for years to come IMHO.