What lens to buy next?

[CgRay]

I've had my DSLR for about a year and I'm hooked. I take it everywhere with me. I'm looking to replace the kit lenses I have with something that's going to keep me happy for a long time. I've been eyeing off an EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM. Or possibly also the cheaper non L version. I've since had a friend recommend that instead, I buy the EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM. Cause its so fast. Which I'm now kind of leaning towards. But then I think that for that price, I could get the non L series 70-300 along with a couple of wider primes. I'm thinking that if I get the 70-200 f2.8 L, then that's that range sorted for some time to come, whereas if I buy the cheaper one with other primes, then I'm thinking I might always be wanting a more serious telezoom. I want to do all sorts of photography in the future, all the way from wildlife, to family occasions, to macro insects, galleries, street art, hdr spherical captures for lighting in 3d projects, long exposure star shots, moon shots. Can anyone share any experiences that might make this a little less overwhelming?

Cheers,
Cg.

[ScottyP]

I found the 70-200 2.8 IS mk2 to be an incredible lens but a little awkward on a 1.6x crop body. The 70 was just a little too long in most general purpose shooting situations. Very sharp, beautiful bokeh. A desire to use the lens more was a factor in deciding to go full frame. It seems to fit the shooting environment more often on the full frame.

I understand the f/4 is extremely sharp, not very expensive. But again you would not get the 2.8 aperture. If I was going to make a budget compromise I think I might seriously consider it though.

You might consider the 17-55 f/2.8. It is the ultimate general purpose zoom for a crop.

[CgRay]

Wow, I never expected this much input. This community is awesome. Luckily I'm on holidays from work and have all the time to digest all this information and investigate all your suggestions.

@scottyP, the17-55 that you mention. I'm assuming you mean the efs 17-55 f2.8? I'm trying to not buy lenses specifically for the cropped sensor as I'm hoping one day to own a full sensor body. Even if its a second hand 5d. And I can't imagine the resale value on an efs lens would be very good.

On the other end, I'm still very undecided on a nice telezoom. I figure that if I can't afford to get the 70-200mm f2.8 IS at $2600, then I'm likely looking at the f4 IS or f2.8 non IS both at about $1600. But the f2.8 is heavy and lacks IS.Then if thats the case then the 70-300 f4-5.6 might give me more range for the same price and a bit lighter than the f2.8. Then I'm back thinking that why spend $1600 on that if I could get the non L version and just spend $500. I mean is it really going to be more than 3 times better? And if I do get the cheaper one, it leaves money for other lenses/filters/flash etc etc. Do you all go through this back and forth when you want to buy lenses? Or is it that when you have more experience, its easier to decide because you have more of an idea where your needs/wants lie? I have some experienced friends that I've also been asking opinions of. Some say that fast glass is definitely the way to go even without IS and the weight hasnt been an issue for them. Others are saying you really shouldnt forgo IS with lenses that long. So all in all, I'm a lot more educated than I was a week ago, but I'm still no closer to deciding what to get. Hehe.

I was up til 4am this morning investigating, reading reviews, calculating costs etc.

I am really enjoying this journey so far,
Cg.

[ebiggs1]

Again, IMHO, you should stay away from any of the consumer line of lenses. You already have them!

You need to start looking at "L" glass or for instance EX in the Sigma line.

If on the other hand you are pleased with the photos you are getting right now, maybe other accessories would be more valuable to you.

The choice of shying away from crop body only lenses is yours to make but the Sigma I recommended in my first post take a backseat to very few lenses out there. Plus you can use it right now and not be waiting for something you might never do.

Buy the lenses that fits your needs now not tomorrow.

[ScottyP]

I would go with any 70-200 L (except maybe the 2.8 IS mk 1) over any 70-300, even the "L" one. It is plenty long on the crop body right now and the IQ is much better. If you do go FF later you can keep the crop body for long outdoor shooting.

If you really really want a long tele, I'd seriously consider a 400 f/5.6. Better IQ from this fixed length lens than you get from a long zoom (under like $10,000 anyway) and it is bright enough since most things you'd typically shoot at that distance would be daytime targets anyway., and the price is a comparative bargain.

[CgRay]

I think I've found the lens for me. It has all the features of the $2600 70-200 f2.8 IS, but is only $1100. It's the sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex dg os hsm. Granted its sharpness towards the corners isn't right up there with the canon, and it doesnt have the weatherproofing of the canon, but from what I've read, it is a very good lens. Especially for the price range. I felt that if I bought one of the canon 70-200s , I would have been compromising on features. Either buying an f4 with IS, or f2.8 without. This way I get f2.8 with OS. (Sigmas version of IS). Does anyone have experience with this lens?

[ebiggs1 · Accepted solution]

"Does anyone have experience with this lens?"   Yes! 

It is a fantastic lens and a very good choice. Of the lenes you have mentioned it is probably the second best, to the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II, which, BTW, is the best lens I have ever owned. 

[fasteddiehawaii]

Aloha!   I think the " best next lens"  is the one you absolutely have to buy for your next project or hobby event; but only after reading as many reviews as you can and comparing the MTF charts on each lens.  I bought a 16-35 F4.0 many years ago and it is just sitting there-now there is a faster version out there and I would take a great loss selling it just to take it out of my equipment bag but at the time, it was a great lens to have and recommended by many pros and magazines.

[Bill-Emmett]

Now you can get rid of all that EF-S glass in one big swoop.  Aquire a Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens, that lens will cover all you bases with good glass.  Once you experience Canon "L" quality glass you will never go back.  You may want to look at the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM, or the f4 version with IS.  Both are great lenses.  I don't recomend a lens with out overlap of the upper and lower mm.  Usually this is where the most distortion exists, so in your case I recommend the 

24-105mm f4 IS USM lens.  On the lower end you have the Sigma to cover that mm size.  Once you decide to go full frame, you will have all the lenses you may need in your bag, as far as zooms.  Oh, when you mention shooting wildlife, you better start thinking expensive.  The price of those lenses will humble you.  You may want to look into some extenders for your Sigma 70-200, Kenko makes pretty good ones at 1.4, and 2X.  Don't think your crop factor will add you any more tele, it just adds angle of view.  With a tele-extender you do get 1.4 magnification of your subject, or with 2X you will magnify by two the subject.  Also, you will loose one or two f stops when using a converter.  Keep in mind, putting more glass between the camera and lens will degrade the image quality.  For you daylight work, be sure to add a good quality CP filter, it will remove glare from water, shiney objects and darken the blue sky.  

[fasteddiehawaii]

aloha!  Besides thinking about this before you buy, and weighing the different options you might want to consider (weight, low light availability, MTF chart studies, focal length, etc) what I have always tried to do is to buy the best lens I could get for what I needed.  I never bought non-"L"  lenses and have never been sorry.  The wait it took to accumulate the funds often gave me more time to think about it and make a  commitment to my choice.  It also gave canon time to come out with a new model sometimes, but one thing is for sure-you never want to purchase the same lens twice-one" L" lens later and one **bleep**ty or off brand one in the beginning.  You may, as time goes by, want to upgrade the body as well, and I don't think I would want a canon top of the line body with a sigma or someother lower grade lens.  Not ony that-I never mix ford and chevy parts so to speak and have never been sorry in over 25 years of taking pictures.  thanks-just a thought!

PS:  it is much easier to sell an "L" lens with less loss if you take care of it!!

[ebiggs1]

If you are still reading this column, there seems to be some mis-information posted.

A hard concept for some to understand is the 1.6x crop factor. Although it does not change the actual focal length of a lens, it does change the “effective” focal length. No matter what you may call it a 100mm lens will act like a 160m lens on a crop body, for instance. Your 70-200mm will act like a 112-320mm. You do get free tele for nothing.

Now about lens quality, there is no doubt Canon makes some of the best lenses in the world. A best example is my 70-200mm f2.8 II. But Canon, photographers and most people know for a fact Canon does not make the best lens in every one of it's offerings. Sigma and Tamron, Leica Summicron and others make some very good glass. Some of them are at the top of their class and charts. A glowing example is Sigma's new 35mm f1.4 “Art” series lens. Tamron's 24-70mm f2.8 is also a best buy. Just for a couple examples. There are many others.

Any piece of glass you put between your camera and lens will degrade the quality of the photo. You must decide whether it is worth the effort. Remember in photography there is no free lunch. You give up something to get something. If do decide to get an extender for instance, get the one made by the lens maker.

I don't know what this has to do with car parts but it is always good to stay with a lens makers accessories. This goes for the screw on filter. I do recommend you get a Sigma UV filter for your new baby. It just makes sense to have a $35 dollar protector on the $1200 lens!?!?

I don't buy lenses for what I might sell them for in the future; I buy lenses that fit my needs, now. That certainly includes initial cost as a factor. The lens you wish you had won't take a better picture than the one you do have.

Have fun with your new "baby"!