# $1000 .. what to buy



## ayekay (Jun 17, 2013)

I have a a budget of $1000 for my next lens.. which one should I buy ?

I trying to decide between the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8


currently have the following

24-105 f/4
35 f/1.4
70-200 f/2.8 IS
70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS
50 f/1.8

Canon 5DM3

I mostly shoot events and portraits and a few landscapes. would live to get into macro which is why I'm considering the 100mm f/2.8L. on the landscape end, the widest I have is 24.. not sure if going for the 17-40 would make sense in this case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2013)

Get the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1.5x Macro. I recommend that because it's obvious that your main photographic interest is ultra macro.

Better yet, stretch your budget by $200 to get the TS-E 90mm f/2.8, because I'm sure that your main photographic interest is product photography.

Oh wait, I have *no idea* what your main photographic interest is, and you haven't given a clue about what you want to shoot with your new $1000 lens...


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 17, 2013)

You seem to have quiet a setup already on hand, so what are you looking for in your new 1000$ lens? If anything perhaps look at the arsenal you have and clean up whatever you don't use to offset a 24-70 mk2 which should be a very capable lens. If you need a lens for macro and portraits I do recommend the 100L, it's a great lens which I used to own and most probably will acquire again. If UWA is the missing link I would suggest the 16-35 with the budget you have. Good luck with your choice.


----------



## jasonsim (Jun 17, 2013)

If you don't need f/2.8 in a wide to normal zoom range, I'm inclined to suggest the new 24-70 f/4L IS, which has some decent macro capability. Especially, if you are not certain macro will be your "thing".

Short of that recommendation, the 100mm Macro is a great lens and can double at a head & shoulder type portrait lens. 

--Jason


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 17, 2013)

Wild card time.... Could I suggest a Lensbaby with the accessory kit - £225 ish will get you a manual selective focus lens, wide (30mm) and tele (80mm) screw in optics, a +4 and +10 macro filters, a set of creative aperture disks and a whole load of fun photography ! Add a fisheye for another £100, other optics to take your fancy... 

It's not totally macro, but will extend your photographic options and enjoyment


----------



## Halfrack (Jun 17, 2013)

If Macro is something you're looking at, pick up a used 100mmF2.8 non-L for ~$400.

You don't say if you have any strobes, so spend the rest on a 600EX or a macro lens light setup.

Otherwise the 17-40L is a great lens - especially since you can purchase used and sell it later at the same price point.


----------



## yogi (Jun 17, 2013)

The 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is a great all-round lens, especially for macro and IMO for portraits. As far as landscapes, it depends on how much of a wa you want or need. But it is an excellant lens. If you want a range in one lens, then a zoom is your choice.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 17, 2013)

You have three lenses covering 85mm and 100mm, but none wider than 24mm. 

If you want ultra wide, you might look at a 17-40mmL. Mine was a good lens, I just never warmed up to ultra wide shots. I now have a 16-35 and it gets very little use. You need to be a person who likes the wide shots I guess.

I'm finding that I no longer use my 35mmL, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm's, or even my 135mmL since I bought the 24-70 MK II and the 70-200 MK II lenses. I sold all three of my 50mm lenses, and my 85, but still have the others. My 100mmL is staying, its a lens I'll keep. My 24-105mmL now gets little use, but I've kept it.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 17, 2013)

You already have a really nice kit. If it were me, I would look at selling your 24-105L and use that money and the $1K toward a 24-70 2.8 II. It would give you a killer excellent standard zoom instead of a good one.


----------



## chas1113 (Jun 17, 2013)

If you were comfortable with refurbs, the Canon Direct Store usually has both the EF 17-40mm f/4 and the EF 85mm f/1.8 in stock; you could buy both and be very close to your budget. Or you could easily meet your budget and buy both used. Stretch the budget a bit and add the 50D closeup lens for the 85mm for occasional macro use to see how you like it....stretch the budget a little more and get an EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. A lot of people don't find the differences between the non-L macro and the L version that significant.

I have had both and prefer the L version for both macro and portrait work.

If you are just buying to cover a range, getting the zoom makes the most sense; you have everything else covered really well.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jun 18, 2013)

A plane ticket.


----------



## Zv (Jun 18, 2013)

Do yourself a favor. Buy a $3 77mm reversing ring adapter and turn your 24-105L backwards. Take some macro-ish shots to see if this is the kinda thing you would like to do. If it is then buy the 100L. 

Otherwise use the money to go on holiday and stop worrying about lenses. Trust me, it aint worth it!


----------



## rpiotr01 (Jun 18, 2013)

Spend the $1000 on a nice tripod and ballhead. If you want to try macro shop around for some used lenses. I picked up a Sigma 50 2.8 DG macro lens for about $150, really pleased with the results. Either way, a good tripod will help with landscapes and macro.


----------



## seamonster (Jun 18, 2013)

sell your 70-300mm to me ;D and get a teleconverter for your 70-200 2.8. Or sell them both and get the II version of the 70-200mm (and a teleconverter). It seems redundant to have more than one telephoto zoom.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 18, 2013)

If you want to go Macro, 50mm won't cut it since you've got full-frame unless you want a reverse 50mm. If you really want to start macro photography, I would recommend a 100mm USM non-L can be a good start + tripod and some lighting. For cheap lighting alternative to mt-24ex, you can start with some DIY rigs consisting of some brackets and flash. The L version of the lens is a better option but I don't think 1K is enough for your setup. With tripod and good light, the non-L version can be as sharp if not sharper than the L version. Good luck with your macros!


----------



## Act444 (Jun 18, 2013)

seamonster said:


> It seems redundant to have more than one telephoto zoom.



Not necessarily...I enjoy the flexibility of having the 70-200 2.8 for indoor use/sports, and having the option of the much smaller, lighter 70-300 for general outdoor photography because not only is it manageable for an entire day, it has 100mm extra reach...

Of course, most people are best off weighing the pros and cons and picking one. Thankfully I'm fortunate enough to be able to have both.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2013)

Act444 said:


> seamonster said:
> 
> 
> > It seems redundant to have more than one telephoto zoom.
> ...



+1

I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II, also used for indoors/sports and sometimes portraits (when not using primes). I have the 100-400L for birds/wildlife (when I don't want to carry the 600 II). I have the 28-300L as a one lens solution that extends into the telezoom range. 

I just ordered the 70-300L as a travel telezoom - lighter, but more importantly more compact than either the 70-200 II or 100-400, fits vertically in my photo backpacks.


----------



## tron (Jun 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > seamonster said:
> ...


I see that you didn't resist finally  
As I have already mentioned I am interested in your impressions mostly regarding the opposite use of rings. 
P.S It will fit nicely vertically on the bataflae 26L bag I just ordered


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2013)

tron said:


> As I have already mentioned I am interested in your impressions mostly regarding the opposite use of rings.
> P.S It will fit nicely vertically on the bataflae 26L bag I just ordered



I'll let you know on the rings - lens arrives tomorrow. TDP's specs show it as the same (retracted) length as the 24-70/2.8L II with the hood mounted, and that fits vertically in my Flipside 300 - so I assume the 70-300L will be the same.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > As I have already mentioned I am interested in your impressions mostly regarding the opposite use of rings.
> ...



So...I got the 70-300L on Thursday, AFMA'd it that night (a constant +2 at four focal lengths across the zoom range), and took it on an excursion Friday afternoon. The size is great - it does fit vertically in the Flipside 300, so I was able to take four lenses (and I needed all four). It also fits in a Lowepro Lens Exchange 100 AW, so that'll be nice on a belt to pair up with the 24-70 II. 

I did find the reversed placement of the zoom/focus rings (relative to my other L zooms) a bit annoying. I'm sure I'll get accustomed to it, although frequently switching off with the 24-70 II will slow that process down (it would have paired well with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 when I had it). 

I just ordered the Tripod Mount Ring C for it. It's a small enough lens and my RRS ballheads are robust enough that it's not really needed for balance (though it won't hurt). But I think the tripod foot will give me a good place to rest my hand, keeping it off the focus ring and positioning my fingers under the zoom ring. 

The convenience of the lens and it's excellent IQ more than offset the annoyance of the ring placement, IMO.


----------



## tron (Jun 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Thanks for letting me know. I had a chance to use it for a minute. Weight was OK but the rings were a bit of a problem. Good choice with the tripod foot. I believe that it will be steadier. My 70-200 f/4L IS is also safe with no tripod ring but I occasionally grab the ring of my 300L f/4 (non-IS) which has a plate and put it on 70-200 when I intend to shoot a lot of pictures in tripod.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > seamonster said:
> ...



I've been thinking about adding a 70-300L as well. I have the 70-200 2.8 II, but at times need more reach and a lighter/more portable lens.


----------



## tpatana (Jun 25, 2013)

You're quite well covered already. I'd go one of these:

-17-40 and drink the rest of the money

-Sell the 70-200 and get the Mark II, plus kenko tube-set. That'll get ok macros

Depending if you want to add wide or get macro. You could add the tubes to your current lens too, but I love the Mark II. Occasionally I've thought about the 100L, but 70-200 covers already good enough so for me it's not worth it. Macro problem is that the DoF is crazy shallow, e.g. here:


----------



## dstppy (Jun 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> *I just ordered the 70-300L as a travel telezoom* - lighter, but more importantly more compact than either the 70-200 II or 100-400, fits vertically in my photo backpacks.



That's not why you did it . . . 

You did it because they're like Pokemon to you . . . gotta catch em all. ;D


----------



## tron (Jun 26, 2013)

dstppy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > *I just ordered the 70-300L as a travel telezoom* - lighter, but more importantly more compact than either the 70-200 II or 100-400, fits vertically in my photo backpacks.
> ...


Well, I am not neuro but this can not completely right. He does not have 500mm f/4L IS II, 800mm f/5.6L IS, 200mm f/2L IS, 200-400 f/4L 1.4X.

And - I think - he does not have 8-15, 17TS-E, 24 1.4II.

(@neuro please can you verify?   )

So you see there's always room for ... improvement ... OK just joking.

To tell the truth I have suspicions that I have L.A.S (Lens Acquisition Syndrome) but at least I have sold a few up to now (6 lenses plus the battery pack of my stolen 40D) ;D

Never the less very interesting comment, I am sorry I replied to your post since I am not neuro but your post may have struck a chord with me ;D ;D


----------



## Zv (Jun 26, 2013)

Tron - I think I have the opposite of L.A.S goin on. Got the selling bug. Already sold 2 lenses this month and going for a third! Luckily this ailment brings home some bacon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2013)

tron said:


> Well, I am not neuro but this can not completely right. He does not have 500mm f/4L IS II, 800mm f/5.6L IS, 200mm f/2L IS, 200-400 f/4L 1.4X.
> 
> And - I think - he does not have 8-15, 17TS-E, 24 1.4II.



All true. I notice you left off the 300/2.8L IS II from your list...perhaps you are aware that that lens is high on my list for a future purcahse?


----------



## Zv (Jun 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I am not neuro but this can not completely right. He does not have 500mm f/4L IS II, 800mm f/5.6L IS, 200mm f/2L IS, 200-400 f/4L 1.4X.
> ...



That's odd, I thought this woulda been your next lens!


----------



## tron (Jun 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I am not neuro but this can not completely right. He does not have 500mm f/4L IS II, 800mm f/5.6L IS, 200mm f/2L IS, 200-400 f/4L 1.4X.
> ...


I have just forgotten it! But quite a coincidence!  Are you thinking of it as a lighter/smaller alternative to 600 (perhaps with a 2X) ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2013)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I notice you left off the 300/2.8L IS II from your list...
> ...



Partly. But primarily for sports, as my daughters get to that point...


----------



## tron (Jun 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


You are not thinking of making someone crazy by shooting first with your Canon S100 ps camera and then presenting the 1DX/300mm 2.8 combo after he shows you his "super" digital rebel as THE camera  ? (The crocodile Dundee case...)


----------

