Canon Community

papabob · ‎06-11-2013

I have a Canon 5D. I want to start adding lenses. I want to be able to take close-up photos of flowers, etc. Any suggestions on what lens I should purchase? What would be considered a good selection of lenses for many different subjects?

Skirball · ‎06-11-2013

Macro lenses are very specific. If you want to do macro I highly recommend getting a dedicated prime macro lens. A lot of general use zoom lenses will call themselves macro, but it’s not the same. I can’t say enough good things about the 100mm macro. The non-L version is reasonably priced and the sharpness will amaze. The image quality of the L is even a little better and you get image stabilization, but it costs more of course.

If image quality isn’t of top importance to you then a “macro” zoom lens will offer more flexibility. Both in composing your shot (having a variety of focal lengths to chose from) and being useful for other types of photography. But it won’t come close to the sharpness of a prime (unless you get a 24-70 II). You can use the 100mm primes for non-macro use, but the thing is just too sharp for portraiture in my opinion.

Skirball · ‎06-11-2013

To add a little more on lens choice. That’s a very subjective discussion. Some people prefer primes, most prefer zooms, and some people insist on owning every lens made. I would start with a good quality general purpose zoom (like the reasonably priced 24- 105 L), and add a few primes: 100mm macro, and a 50mm 1.4 for when you need something fast or portraits. The 85mm f/1.8 and 135 f/2 are great lenses, but too close to 100mm if you’re just starting out building a collection. This would be a good start and let you see what style you like to shoot. From there decide if you need more reach (like a 70-200, or longer), or perhaps you like ultra-wide angle and get a 16-35 or 17-40.

sabocketti · ‎06-11-2013

I just rented the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro USM (the non-L) version for the weekend to try it out and I loved it.In fact, I am going to be getting it.

The only downfall to the non-L version is the lack of image stabilization. On some shots you have to use a tripod. The L version has IS so you can handhold it and still get clear shots.

For what I am doing, amateur hobby type photography, it's not worth it for me to spend twice as much on the L version when the non -L has the same specs, sans IS.

Skirball · ‎06-11-2013

@sabocketti wrote:

For what I am doing, amateur hobby type photography, it's not worth it for me to spend twice as much on the L version when the non -L has the same specs, sans IS.

That’s the same conclusion I came to. Unless you’re going to be chasing bees and bugs I don’t think you’ll miss the image stabilization that much.

c1video · ‎06-11-2013

I have that lens, and the lack of IS is not that important unless you want to do professional macro work, in which case the L glass is noticeably better. But for casual/infrequent use, the non-L macro 100 is a terrific lens. And it takes good portraits as an added feature.