Lense setups.

[Simpleboy]

So, im planning my lense collection which will hopefully last me for ages and just wondering about some lenses. My budget per lense is about NZ$2,000 (US$1,250 give or take)
For zooms Im aiming at having the,
Canon 17-40f4L,
Tamron 24-135macro, (which i already own)
Canon 70-200f4L IS,
Plus primes. The primes in my setup im looking at for the 50-60 area are
EF 50f1.4 USM,
EF 50f2.5 macro,
EF-S 60f2.8 macro,
Anyone used any of those 3 and got any opinions? Macro is nice but if the 1.4 is substantially better or so i dont mind, all are fairly similar prices (ie within $100). I've been all over Fredmiranda but its all rather similar, no specifics, full frame crops would be helpful). The two macros get me about 2x as close as my tamron currently. Whereas the 1.4 will be the same, but being much faster (my tamron is f4.5 at 50mm, so they are all an improvement really). I do a bit of macro stuff and am coping with my current lense so no gain in getting close doesnt bother me too much.

Also, anyone used the 135f2L? Thats another one ive got on the list as something for sports or so.

Hope that made sense.

[seahawk]

I am no Canon expert but donīt you think that you will be a little limited with only 200mm for spotting ?

Would the 100-400 Canon not make sense to be included ?

Apart from that read some reviews here :

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

[Simpleboy]

I do far more than just aviation, and 135 (with 1.6x crop) is enough to CHC for a/c as small as the ATR-72 when your in the right position, so, 200 should be enough, if not i can get a 1.4x.

Cheers for the link, very detailed

[seahawk]

I would add the Tamron 2.8 DI Macro 90mm to the list and drop either the 50 or 60mm Canon. If you want to do macros fron animals, 90mm is barely enough, less wonīt do it.

[Simpleboy]

The Tamron looks interesting, though im not sure how many animal shots im going to be doing, its more flowers and unique perspectives i do with macros, a minus for it is it only gets me 11cm closer than my 135mm , compared to the Canons 20cm closer. Ill keep reading around, its a possibility.

[Tanner_J]

Here is my advice...take it or leave it.

Canon 135 f2 is an OUTSTANDING LENS...for portraits. For sports it would be great, however the 135 is an odd focal length so it would make it hard unless you like to move your feet alot. We've been taught the best zoom lens is your feet.

Don't go for the 100-400, the high apertures suck, and I don't think the lens is all that great.

If you're going to get the 70-200 f4 IS, you might as well wait and save an extra $400 for the 2.8. Even with f4 IS will leave you wanting more in low light situations, and the IS with the 2.8 will make it even more worth it. Think about it, they had it for $1000 more than the f4 w/o IS. Plus the 2.8 is necessary for sports.

The 50 1.4 is most definately the lens you need out of your selection. You can do anything with a 50, that's what we've been told here at the best Photojournalism school here in the nation. We have kids make it through the 5 years here with only a 50. Did I mention that 50 1.4 is very very sharp. Although here's something for you to consider. For over $200 less you can get the 50mm 1.8 for $70. Very very very sharp lens for what it is. Great low aperture also makes it idea for low low light. If you can deal with the loss of light from the 1.4 to 1.8 (which you can) save yourself the money and put the $200 in the fund for the 70-200 2.8.

17-40 is good. 16-35 is better but also $600 more and still fits your "price range for each lens."

Email me if you have any questions. This might sound like an asshole comment, but I know what I'm talking about. I've talked to many professional photographers, including one of the most famous photographers to ever exist (James Nachtwey) and I always include talk about equipment.

[Will M]

Only one problem here the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM is NZD$3,239.48

and the 70-200L IS F4 Is rumoured to only be around the $1,600 mark !

[Tanner_J]

Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS - $1699

Canon 70-200 f4L IS - $1249

Source - B&H www.bhphotovideo.com

[Simpleboy]

Ive heard it to be a bit higher than $1,600 that but under the price of the f2.8. I cant justify almost double the price for a few f stops and AF speed when ive coped with possibly the worst AF since i got a SLR. And your also missing out on the difference in tax we've have pay to get the more expensive lense into the country.

With the f1.4 would I find id want to get closer to anything? Or is .43 close enough with such shallow depth of field.

[Will M]

thats in yankee dollars and they don't come with warranty cards

Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS - $1699 = NZD$2,557

Canon 70-200 f4L IS - $1249 = NZD$1880

Thats not an extremely tight margin.

So buying it from a shop here at trade prices there would be around $1,000 difference

[Crism]

Why bother with IS on the 200mm? The 70-200L f/4 is like $600 USD.

[JordanD]

Why bother with IS on the 200mm? The 70-200L f/4 is like $600 USD.

Panning shots.

[YYZPICS]

Panning shots.

Really, I can shoot like 1/200 at 500mm lol

[Crism]

Panning shots.

Only pussies pan with IS

[YYZPICS]

Only pussies pan with IS

lol, or poor ppl like me..