I have recently purchased the Canon 40D. I cannot afford the expensive prime lenses, but I would like to spend around $1500 for a good lens. Can anyone give me a recommendation for a lens in this price range?
It really depends on what you want to shoot. If I had 1500 to spend, I would get the Canon 17-40, Canon 70-200 F4 and a Sigma 150 Macro...but that hits my style. If you shoot wildlife or birds, that won't work.
Let us know what you want to shoot, and I'm sure you'll get all the advice you'll need!
I would look at the Canon 200 MM 2.8 IS and that is assuming you have another walk around lens for general shooting.
There is no question that the best practice is to buy a better lens then you can afford. You will be happier in the long run. I have skimped and I have been unhappy. I have a shelf full of lenses that should be sold because I thought differently then I do today. My walk around lens is a Tamron 28 - 300 with IS. Fantastic lens for the money. Since I shoot objects where I need the reach I will save for prime lenses only in the future.
I have the Canon 70-300mm IS USM lens, and the 28-135mm IS USM lens. I am looking to get something like the 100-400L lens. Do you think it is worth the $1500?
The 100-400 has become my standaard lens. I'm shooting a lot of animals. Sometimes I'm using my 50/1.2 just for the light. I also have a 28-135 but almost not using it anymore.
If it is worth the money, that's up to you and what you want. For wildlife it is the least you need I think. I'm also saving now for the 500/4.0 lens from Canon.
I agree with Tom, if you're shooting animals. I would buy the 100-400. It will give you the best overall functionality for animals, with the biggest compromise being its lack of faster autofocus for shooting birds in flight.
If you're shooting landscapes, I would go with the 17-85. Done deal for landscapes. I love it.
Tyler,,In your price range the 100-400 Is a great lens for the money. You won't get the clarity etc. that you get with a prime such as the 500. If you can get to the 500 someday you can use the 100-400 on another body for those close in shots as your subject moves into you.
Since you already have the 70-300, a very versatile zoom range, you should know if 300mm is long enough for your needs. If it is, the Canon 300 f4 has an excellent reputation, and the 1.4xTC will give you some extra reach, 420mm at f 5.6. The Canon 100-400 zoom is a very popular lens among bird and wildlife photographers. It will give you 1/3 more focal length than your 70-300. It generally is considered not to be as sharp as high quality prime lenses. The Canon 400 f5.6 also is a highly touted lens, however, you would lose AF capability on your 40D with the 1.4xTC, as you would with the 2xTC on the 300 f4.
Independent lens manufacturers Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, generally have a lower price point than comparable Canon lenses. They sometimes are considered to be as high, or nearly as high, a quality as Canon lenses. I don't know if any of them make a telephoto prime in the near $1500 price range. The Sigma 50-500mm is a popular lens.
Several years ago, a 70-300 was my most-used lens. I bit the bullet (sold an antique car) and bought the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens and both TCs, rather than the Canon 100-400mm. I think I made the right choice.
My advice is get the highest quality lens you can.
I just got back from Magee Marsh here in Ohio and by far (really far!) the most common lens present was the Canon 100-400. They were all over the place.
As a birding lens, 400 is going to be a bit short at the long end. For Magee, it works since the birds are relatively close in at this time of the year. With the 1.6 crop bodies, you are up to 640 mm, which is a workable focal length.
Does anyone know if the QC for this lens has improved over the years?
Discussion
9 repliesLet us know what you want to shoot, and I'm sure you'll get all the advice you'll need!
Thanks Tyler
There is no question that the best practice is to buy a better lens then you can afford. You will be happier in the long run. I have skimped and I have been unhappy. I have a shelf full of lenses that should be sold because I thought differently then I do today. My walk around lens is a Tamron 28 - 300 with IS. Fantastic lens for the money. Since I shoot objects where I need the reach I will save for prime lenses only in the future.
I'm closing in on a 500 MM Canon prime!!
Joseph Martines
Thanks
Tyler
If it is worth the money, that's up to you and what you want. For wildlife it is the least you need I think. I'm also saving now for the 500/4.0 lens from Canon.
Happy shooting with whatever lens you chose.
If you're shooting landscapes, I would go with the 17-85. Done deal for landscapes. I love it.
Independent lens manufacturers Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, generally have a lower price point than comparable Canon lenses. They sometimes are considered to be as high, or nearly as high, a quality as Canon lenses. I don't know if any of them make a telephoto prime in the near $1500 price range. The Sigma 50-500mm is a popular lens.
Several years ago, a 70-300 was my most-used lens. I bit the bullet (sold an antique car) and bought the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens and both TCs, rather than the Canon 100-400mm. I think I made the right choice.
My advice is get the highest quality lens you can.
As a birding lens, 400 is going to be a bit short at the long end. For Magee, it works since the birds are relatively close in at this time of the year. With the 1.6 crop bodies, you are up to 640 mm, which is a workable focal length.
Does anyone know if the QC for this lens has improved over the years?