What to get for my 2nd lens?

chaos386

.sa = bad driver!
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
7,960
Location
Back in Saudia
Car(s)
SEAT Leon FR
So I'm looking to get another lens for my 500D/T1i that will complement the 18-55 kit lens it came with, but I'm not sure which one to get. My budget is $400-600, and I've been looking at the following Canon lenses so far:

  • 50/1.4 - it'd be nice to have a lens with a wide aperture, since I miss the shallow DOF of my film Minolta
  • 100/2.8 macro - longer reach than the kit lens, and I'd be able to do some macro photography
  • 70-200/4L - Supposedly the best glass of the four, for about the same money. The only downside is that the white color would attract a lot of unwanted attention to myself when shooting in public places, and the 67mm filter size means I couldn't reuse the CPL and ND I just bought for the kit lens.
  • 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM - longer than the L lens, it won't attract as much attention to itself, and it has IS.
I'm leaning towards the 70-300/f4-5.6 at the moment, since it seems I'm missing so many wildlife shots by not having a longer lens, and I could take it to the park without feeling self-conscious about it. I'd appreciate any input on lenses I might have overlooked, especially from Tamron/Sigma/etc., particularly if there are any good telephoto zooms with macro capability. I'd also like it if the lens had smooth, quiet focus/zoom rings along with silent AF for when I'm taking video, but that's really more of a bonus, since I realize SLR lens design really hasn't had much time to adapt to video yet, and I'm not quite ready to sacrifice still photo quality for it (if I want to get more serious with video, I could get a dedicated lens for it in the future, anyway).

Thanks in advance for anyone who has advice to give, and I'll be rewarding everyone with +rep, of course! :D
 
I have similar lenses actually. I have the 18-55mm IS, which was my first. Then I bought these, in order:

50mm 1.8 - great lens! It still amazes me in the dark. I can shoot on a city street at night without a problem and without a tripod. I bet the 1.4 would be flippin' sweet!

55-250mm IS - used it for the first time this past weekend at LeMons. After the other two, the reach was astonishing. I was panning at close to full zoom at 1/40th all day. 1/30th was a bit tougher but I still got some keepers. I'm very satisfied with it. The 70-300 IS should be similar, just with even more reach!

The 50mm and the 70-300mm are both great choices, imo. The 100mm prime... I personally don't have a need for one, dunno about you. That said, the L glass should be pretty amazing. There are a lot of people out there with very nice setups so I don't think the white lens will attract all that much attention. Also, anyone who is not interested in photography won't know the difference.
 
Sure they will. At the air show back in June, my mom saw a guy with a big white lens and was really impressed. White is bright and visible, black is stealfy, people who don't know anything about camera gear notice big white lenses.

Why not get the 70-300 IS and 50 1.8? You can get a lightly used 50 1.8 for <= $100, so both lenses would fit your budget. The pentagonal bokeh on the 1.8 is mehtacular, but otherwise it's huge value for little money (and you could sell it for the 1.4 later)
 
Why not get the 70-300 IS and 50 1.8? You can get a lightly used 50 1.8 for <= $100, so both lenses would fit your budget. The pentagonal bokeh on the 1.8 is mehtacular, but otherwise it's huge value for little money (and you could sell it for the 1.4 later)

I may very well do that, just because the lens is so cheap (it's $100 new from Newegg!). :)

200 2.8L prime if you can do without a zoom. I loved that lens when I had it.

From what I can tell, it costs around $750, and that's just a little out of my price range. :(
 
Had a chance to use my friends 70-300 at a Zoo and was very impressed. Fun lens, very easy to use, just be prepared to have a porn stars dick attached to the front of your camera when fully zoomed.
 
I may very well do that, just because the lens is so cheap (it's $100 new from Newegg!). :)



From what I can tell, it costs around $750, and that's just a little out of my price range. :(


The 200 2.8L can be had for right at $600 used on POTN or FredMiranda. I would advise you to go for a quality lens instead of extra reach. I've used the 70-300, and it's really a dog in comparison to the 70-200s and 200L.

As far as the 100 2.8 macro...It is possibly the most versatile lens that Canon makes. Don't think for a second that you can only use it for macro. It's nearly as good for non-macro as the 100 f/2, which is nearly as good as the 135L. The 100 2.8 is a freaking gem.
 
The 100/2.0 is also quite a gem, let's not forget that. The bokeh of that lens is quite nice. I got my byline photo for a commentary taken by a 5D2 with a 100/2.0, and that bokeh... drewl.
 
The 100/2.0 is also quite a gem, let's not forget that. The bokeh of that lens is quite nice. I got my byline photo for a commentary taken by a 5D2 with a 100/2.0, and that bokeh... drewl.

Had it for over a year. Great lens.
 
Indeed it is. One of the all time great portraiture lenses in my opinion. You generally don't shoot portraits at f/1.2 with a 85/1.2L anyway.
 
Sorry then. :p

I guess I just find it a little boring over long time. In my mind, shooting a portrait with shallow DOF (traditional portrait) get's a little tiresome after a while.

Most of my portraits are shot at wide angle, with as much DOF as I can get. And they're usually full person portraits, or half person portraits, with an environment. :)
 
grab up the 50mm f/1.8 mk2, and do the 70-200 f/4 L

I have both and love them! the 50 is so cheap that if you own a canon camera and dont have it you need to be shot.
 
OK, it's pretty much between the 70-200/4L and the 70-300/4-5.6 now, but I'm having a really hard time choosing between the two!

On the one hand, having just started using a CPL filter, I would appreciate the front of the 70-200 being stationary during focusing, but on the other hand, the IS of the 70-300 would seriously be handy when shooting without a tripod, but on the other other hand, if I'm shooting birds or other wildlife, I'll need a fast enough shutter speed to stop their motion, regardless of whether or not I have IS, so the wider aperture of the 70-200 on the tele end would be nice, but on the other other other hand...
:blowup:
 
As far as your filter debate the mistake you made is a classic newbie mistake. Now that you have made it you wont do it again. You never buy nice filters to fit your smallest lens, especially the kit lens. You should have bought 77mm ND filters since they are expensive and this way combined with step down rings they will fit every lens you own now and will own in the future. This also allows you to buy one really nice filter that fits everything and not multiple cheaper poorer quality filters.

While this is not a perfect solution (because of the use of lens hoods, if you use them) it will be a great solution about 95% of the time.



As far as your debate about your 70-200 vs the 70-300 I personally would go 70-200 all the way. Its pro quality glass (L) which you will beable to tell, and its faster. In good light you really wont use IS much especially if your shooting something with a fast shutter speed in which case IS wont work.

Don't forget 3rd party brands too. Sigma makes a wonderful 70-200 2.8 that depending on your budget you might want to consider. I own one and love it for the price.

As for your 50mm decision going with the 1.8 is the right decision. The 1.4 is hard to shoot with because it flares terribly. Its also alot more expensive for not gaining much more.
 
You should have bought 77mm ND filters since they are expensive and this way combined with step down rings they will fit every lens you own now and will own in the future.

Does anyone know if Quiky reads the photography forum? 'Cause there's a certain banned picture that perfectly summarizes my feelings right about now...

Oh well, at least I've only bought two filters so far (CPL and X8 ND, both 58mm), and given how bright the sun is in Saudi Arabia, I might end up stacking ND filters anyway! :p
 
When I bought my 50-200/2.8-3.5 used, it came with a UV filter. So it has a filter.

Other than that, I could not care less about filters. Instead of buying an expensive filter, I buy a bottle of drinkable scotch.
 
Top