Another "what lens?" thread...

So I'm pondering picking up another lens. Question is, what. I could use a macro, I could also use a decent telephoto zoom lens. There's probably some other stuff I could use too, but those two categories came to mind first.

Right now, I've got a 20D that I'm using with the following:

• EF-S 18-55mm kit lens
• EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS/USM
• EF 50mm F1.8
• Sears (Ricoh) 55mm F1.4 M42 (using an adapter)
• Pentax 200mm F3.5 M42 (using an adapter), though this thing isn't really usable anymore. Whatever multicoating or anything it may have had must have failed or something, because it developed terrible ca problems and blows out all the highlights, something it didn't do when I first bought it.

So yeah. I was considering an EF 70-300 (//edit- the IS/USM model) to supplement the 28-135 (yes, I know there's a large focal length range that would be covered by both lenses), but I figured I'd find out what other people would get, given the equipment that I already have. However, I need to be perfectly clear about one thing: I will NOT purchase an L lens. I'm not sure at this point if I'm going to stick with the 20D, upgrade to a newer Canon, or switch to a Nikon or something, and I'm not going to drop >$1000 on a lens until I've made up my mind on that issue.

Well, another resident member MacHeadcase will tell you that you should stay far away from the 70-300mm lens. If you want a 70-300mm, then you need to get the IS model. She has a "review" per say on her blog mhc.insidestretch.com

I'll check out the review, thanks. I'd be getting the IS one, if I bought it. My hands shake a bit, even if I don't have any caffeine or anything, it's difficult for me to use a lens like that without IS.

Yeah, with a lens that long, IS is a very good idea, unless you just happen to carry a tripod all the time.

My review of the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM. As you can see I was very disappointed but now I know that you get what you pay for in terms of lenses. Back then I was a bit disillusioned and thought you could get away with cheap lenses.

Here's an entry on the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (the lens I finally bought to replace the previous dinky one I had).

Here is the first test I did of the lens. And here is further testing of the 70-300mm IS. Decent for the price. Of course if I was full of cash, I'd go for an L series lens but I just can't afford one in my present situation.

Actually, L's can be had for $600.

I had a chance to shoot with the 70-200 f/4. It's about $650 and is an incredibly sharp lens. And that's another problem. Purchasing a crappy lens is kind of a waste of money and won't help with a decision later on. A good camera needs good glass or else you're going to end up with fuzzy pictures and extra pp needed to make them looks good.

I must Say L Lens are the best I dont move away from L lens as I have the range of it

17 - 40 L
24 - 105 L
70 - 200 IS L
400 IS L

All are the must

Next on my list is a 50mm Prime L and I know big money

Village Idiot said:

Purchasing a crappy lens is kind of a waste of money and won't help with a decision later on.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, of course. However, buying a $700 EF 17-40mm f/4L lens, and then switching to a Nikon D3 or a Canon 1Ds Mk2 or 3 would be an even bigger waste of money, because I'd either need a Nikon lens or I'd want the 16-35 f2.8 on the 1Ds. It's even more of a waste since I never get around to selling anything. Hence my reluctance to spend much over $500 on a lens right now. (yes, I said >$1000 in my first post; I'd really rather keep it at in the ballpark of $500-600)

You should really decide on what camera system you want to use first.

I have owned the 70-300mm IS USM for almost two years now, and I can whole-heartedly recommend it. It's great to be able to hand-hold a big zoom like that, get great pictures, and not bust your bank account!