"The next lens to buy"

[zinta]

 Hi

I am looking to buy "the next lens" . Preferably a macro lens but i am confused.

I currently have a 18-55mm and 50mm lens. I mostly capture landscapes and flowers. 

Tks

Zinta

[ScottyP · Accepted solution]

The 55-250 is a little better. Also look at the 70-300 (the black one) which is pretty decent. 75-300 is not one I'd recommend.

If you spend a bit more you can go to Canon Refurbished and get a 70-200 f/4 (a white lens) for only a couple hundred more than these others and it is truly a well built and ultra sharp lens.

[davdgreat · Accepted solution]

Well - I think that depends on what you want to use the lens for?   Far away?  Close up?  You're tempted by Macro, the L Series macro is amazing, but I found  myself not usign it as much as I thought due to the fixed length.  Honestly the upgrade to the 24-70 2.8L made a HUGE difference in my photos, and landed me more  gigs to purchase future lenses/.

[Stephen]

Hi zinta!

Welcome to the Canon Forums! So that the Community can help you better, we will need to know exactly what equipment you're using, and the types of  macro shots you intend on taking. Any other details you'd like to give will only help the Community better understand your issue! Thanks and have a great day!

[zinta]

Thanks Stphen.

I am using a canon Rebl T3.   I want to take macro shots of flowers , water drops . 

[Skirball]

There's no wrong answer, everyone has different styles and preferences.

But the 100mm 2.8 macro is an amazing lens.  It's a focal length you don't have, and much, much sharper than anything you don't have.  Otherwise, I'd get a telephoto.

[zinta]

I will look into the 100 mm lens.

Also if im to consider Telephoto which one is better  

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens  or

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens 

Thank U Skirball 🙂

[ScottyP · Accepted solution]

The 55-250 is a little better. Also look at the 70-300 (the black one) which is pretty decent. 75-300 is not one I'd recommend.

If you spend a bit more you can go to Canon Refurbished and get a 70-200 f/4 (a white lens) for only a couple hundred more than these others and it is truly a well built and ultra sharp lens.

[zinta]

Thank you scott 🙂

[davdgreat · Accepted solution]

Well - I think that depends on what you want to use the lens for?   Far away?  Close up?  You're tempted by Macro, the L Series macro is amazing, but I found  myself not usign it as much as I thought due to the fixed length.  Honestly the upgrade to the 24-70 2.8L made a HUGE difference in my photos, and landed me more  gigs to purchase future lenses/.

[zinta]

oh !Well i really have think my options about 100mm , since it is fixed length..I will look into the  24-70 2.8L.

Thanks davdgreat ..

[Bill-Emmett · Accepted solution]

Wow, if I were in your boots, I would defintly look at a Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM macro.  The cost may seem a bit high, but you will use the IS option more than you may think.  The non IS model, lens wise is good, but you will find in bushes, shrubs, rose bushes, it is much more comfortable to shoot hand held than with a lens camera and tripod.  The Canon EF 100 "L" lens can drill down to 1:1 for those tight macro images.  If you decide to shoot some bugs, you can get within 11.5 inches and still have great focus, any closer, you'll need a extenison tube.  Not knowing what you are using for your landscapes now, I would suggest a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM.  This lens is razor sharp, and considered a Ultra wide angle.  It can also be used for close-ups, and portraits.  For some real close up work you may want to use a set of extension tubes.  The EF-S 10-22 does not come with IS, so shutter speeds below 1/250th second must be used, and a high ISO to keep jitter down when hand holding.  You can always use a tripod for the landscapes you may want to take.  I use mine even in low light to get some rather nice after dark city scapes of New Orleans.