Thinking of a new lens.. Good Morning! I was seriously thinking about buying a macro lens. The one I'm interested in is about $900. Although macro photography is something I want to...

Fran Loc: Northeast, United States

Good Morning!

I was seriously thinking about buying a macro lens. The one I'm interested in is about $900. Although macro photography is something I want to learn more about, I'm wondering if I should think about another lens.

I currently use all canon lenses. They are: 50mm 1.8; 18-135mm is 5.6; and 70-300 is usm L 5.6. I shoot mostly people, some landscape, and my son's sporting events.

Here's the part where youse guys come in. For about $1,000 which lenses should I consider?

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

ask the guys on UHH about extension tubes, that might be a better way to go.

Dun1 Loc: Atlanta, GA

If you shoot portraits you should take a look at the Canon 1.4 lens, it is tack sharp and you should be able to find one for approx $399. If you take sports shots save or find a 70-200 mm 2.8 lens. You will find that most pro sports shooters will either have this lens in their bag, for shooting sports. If you don't mind used you can check at KEH, @ www.keh.com. They sell used equipment and you might be able find something to fit your needs
http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-CE079990071110?r=FE
I included a link this is the Canon 70-200 mm 2.7 lens excellent condition a tad more than you wish to spend but new it's $1,400 for the IS version and $1,699 for the IS model. You can still use it for portraits vs a 50 mm etc. it is tack sharp also.
The best investment you can make is glass or lenses. The 70-200 mm lens I paid $1,600 for four years ago is still near that price point
Good luck

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

I own the 100mm canon 2.8 macro with IS and I love it. Tack sharp and makes a good portrait lens as well.

effrant Loc: New Hampshire

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/mp-e-65.shtml

pigpen

I own the non "L" version of the 100mm f/2.8 macro, and I love it. It is 1/2 the price of the "L", about $550. If you plan on tripod use, you will not need the IS. Once in a while (handheld) i wish I had the IS, but the image quality of the "L" version can't be that much better, it is that sharp. I think the extra cost is for the IS, not glass quality.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

pigpen wrote:

I own the non "L" version of the 100mm f/2.8 macro, and I love it. It is 1/2 the price of the "L", about $550. If you plan on tripod use, you will not need the IS. Once in a while (handheld) i wish I had the IS, but the image quality of the "L" version can't be that much better, it is that sharp. I think the extra cost is for the IS, not glass quality.

I'll second that. I'm a principally a Nikon shooter but we do use Canon and that lens is great.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Gary Truchelut wrote:

I own the 100mm canon 2.8 macro with IS and I love it. Tack sharp and makes a good portrait lens as well.

I always recommend that a photographer use his brand lenses, when possible. Since Canon makes two different 100-mm macro lenses with sterling reputations, your choice is simplified.

Fran Loc: Northeast, United States

Dun1 wrote:

If you shoot portraits you should take a look at the Canon 1.4 lens, it is tack sharp and you should be able to find one for approx $399.
The best investment you can make is glass or lenses. The 70-200 mm lens I paid $1,600 for four years ago is still near that price point
Good luck

Thanks for the info nd the link. Is the 1.4 you mention the 100mm macro lens?

The 2.8 sounds great; but since I bought the 70 300 L lens I can't justify the 2.8. Hadith known more about f stops before I made the purchase I would have most likely have chosen the 2.8. With that said, I really enjoy the one I purchase.

Fran Loc: Northeast, United States

Thanks all. I need to check out the 100mm macro. I will most likely end up with an IS lens because I do mostly hand held shooting.

Excellent point that this lens also makes a good portrait lens.

JerseyMan Loc: NJ Pinelands

I'm considering the 70-300 USM L for sports photography.
How do you like your's?
P.S. Don't tell my wife !!

Fran Loc: Northeast, United States

JerseyMan wrote:

I'm considering the 70-300 USM L for sports photography.
How do you like your's?
P.S. Don't tell my wife !!

LOVE it!!! It takes amaizing shots!!! I got it from b&h. It's refurbished so I saved about $300. It came with a warranty. Go for it!!!

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

i llke how some of us throw around $1000.00 plus figures so glibly.not all of us can afford hi-end glass so how about pointing us toward some lower priced alternatives.the question was about macro shooting,he seems to already have a good battery on lenses.

melphoto60

Fran wrote:

Good Morning! br br I was seriously thinking abo... (show quote)

canon makes 2 100mm f2.8 macros' one in newer and has IS. Tamron makes a 90mm f2.8 that has good reviews if you have $1000 get the canon 100mm F2.8 IS usm, Sigma has macros in 70, 105, 150, and a new one comming out a 180 all of these lenses are f2.8...

pigpen

bull drink water wrote:

i llke how some of us throw around $1000.00 plus figures so glibly.not all of us can afford hi-end glass so how about pointing us toward some lower priced alternatives.the question was about macro shooting,he seems to already have a good battery on lenses.

I too am on a budget, but I have wasted too much money on inferior lenses. If you get a cheaper lens, and your not happy with it, then sell it for a fraction of what you paid so you can buy the better lens anyhow, it cost you money not saves you money.

The non "L" is $550. Still not the cheapest, but the best you will get for the price. I shop exclusively from B&H. Usually free shipping, tax free if not in NY, and I use the "bill me later" option. I have 6 months to pay off with zero interest. Make sure you pay it off in 6 months, the interest rate is quite high.