lens spew

[focalintent]

well, not really a spew. I have a longer post regarding my thoughts on long term lens purchase plans, as well as an idea of 'tiers' of lenses or rounds of purchases, and where I'm at in that, and what my plan is with it (assuming the photography keeps moving forward). But work is hell and so today i'm just tossing out a simple brain dump/question.

I need a new long lens. The 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM III has served me ... ok for the time i've had it, though the full frame of the 5d is brutal on the lens quality and the fact that the front lens element rotates when focusing drives me batshit (circular polarize, what?). So, i'm looking to step up.

In an ideal world, i'd probably be getting a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with either a 1.6x or 2.0x extender to keep in the bag for that extra reach. Alas, i'd also be looking at $1800 in purchases to do that. Not quite the money there right now (and, i'm not sure that's what i'd want to spend it on if i had $1800 lying around, even - but that's part of the later tiered lenses post).

I think my budget is hovering somewhere around $500, give or take - which narrows my field down to three lenses of interest:

• Tokina AT-X 840AF-II 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - the cheapest of the bunch, it is also the slowest (f/4.5-5.6) the lowest rated (but still respectably so), and the heaviest of the options. Gear based focusing (e.g. not USM/HSM) and an ass long minimum focusing distance (2.5m).
  
• Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - this is roughly the same price as the other lens on my list. It also has a middle reach in terms of range, and is also faster than the tokina, but slower than the other canon below. It seems to be rated as one of canon's highest quality non-L long zoom lenses, and the addition of IS can help make up for the slow. A 1.5m minimum focusing distance is also nicer than the tokina's 2.5m. Alas, like the 75-300mm lens i'm looking to replace, the front element rotates while focusing. (I believe the tokina doesn't, and I know the next lens doesn't).
  
• Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM. - i've shot with this lens before. It's a nice lens. Lightweight, best minimum focus distance (1.2m) of this set of lenses - also the fastest with a constant f/4 aperture. Alas, it's also the shortest range of the lenses in this group.
  

Of course, if I want to double my price, my lens options go up to a sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 that's supposed to be phenomenal qualitywise, or a sigma 80-400mm that adds image stabalization (and higher image quality over the tokina 80-400mm), or a 100-300mm f/4 from sigma which is getting some really great reviews, or I can go for insane reach with a 50-500mm lens, that is insanely slow (and probably the least likely lens that I would get). I'm not sure that I want to double my price range at the moment though.

If money were no object, i'd probably be chosing between the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS or the 70-200mm f/4L IS (why would I consider an F4 vs. F2.8 all else being equal? Weight/size. The 2.8L is a monster of a lens, and the 2.8L IS is even moreso). The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS might be another option, but the push/pull zoom was awkward the one time i played with it (albiet briefly, in a store for a few minutes) - ditto for the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS (also push pull, and normally I wouldn't consider such a long range lens - but at the level of quality of this one... I should try renting one some day - but at $2200 - it's so far out of budget it's not even funny).

So, now, the poll:

[Poll #851398]

Comments

[sensesurfer.livejournal.com]

70-200 2.8 USM without IS can be had for sub 1k

[sol3.livejournal.com]

True - though that pricing falls into the "slightly higher than this round of lens" grouping. The 3 lenses i'm bouncing between are in the ~$500 range. I'm not 100% sure i'm ready/willing to dump nearly $1k into a lens just yet. (And If i do - i'd probably be more likely to bump up my wide angle or mid range lenses first - since those get far more use).

[tk7602.livejournal.com]

i've been pondering this stuff too.

right now i have a really poor 70-300mm quantaray 4.5-5.6 lens. it's incredibly slow to autofocus, slow, big and heavy. i haven't had it on my camera in about a year.

next is a sigma 18-125mm, 3.5-5.6 general purpose lens. not bad, not great. just there.

the one i usually have on there is a sigma 18:50 2.8. it's fairly fast, but 50mm isn't much in the way of zoom. i had that at devina's wedding, and wasn't able to even get close enough at the chapel for it to be worth doing.

my problem mentally is that at the wide end, 70 just doesn't make me happy. sometimes you want to get something nearby on short notice, and that just won't cut it. i guess the solution there is to carry 2 bodies :)

given all of the constraints you describe, i'd go for the 70-200. i like the comment in the review you linked to about the steak. i'd rather a nice small filet than a huge sirloin :)

[sol3.livejournal.com]

I've usually got a tokina 28-70mm on my lens. Of course, I hit the same problem at 70 on the full frame that you hit at 50. It's one of the reasons i'm looking at the 24-105mm f/4L IS at some point (even though there's also the 24-70mm f/2.8L - that 70mm is tight). That's what I was renting at the wedding on saturday. It's a really nice lens to play with. (Check out ziplens.com or rentglass.com - cheap, netflix-ish style lens rentals : )

Your quantary sounds like it's roughly about the same as my current 75-300mm in terms of issues : )

Alas, while the 105mm had a bit longer reach (though, being roughly equivalent to 65mm on your body - not -that- much longer : ) the bodies and heads in front of me blocked a lot of the ceremony shots for me - and I was a bit shyer about standing up to shoot during the ceremony proper.

[sensesurfer.livejournal.com]

It sounds like a big reason for upgrading is lens quality I dont see the 70-300IS making you happy in the long run. I believe the optics are on par with what you have. I dont know the quality of the off brand lenses, but you will get hammered in resale value when you decide you finally can afford the fancy lenses. Can you live without a zoom? If so you will get better optics at a better price. Thus in that price range my first choice would be the 200 F/2.8L. Then I would add a 2x teleconverter at a later date. Second choice would be the 70-200 F/4L.

[sol3.livejournal.com]

I've read a number of reviews saying that the 70-300mm IS has far better optics (canon has done two lenses in this range with IS - the first one was a disaster, quality wise, from what i've read - the second is supposed to be far better - but i think i'd want to play with/rent one for a bit first). But yah the 75-300mm IS lens, which was the earlier model ranks somewhere around the 75-300mm that I have at the moment. That said, the turning front element would drive me nuts if i'm trying to shoot outdoors with a circular polarizer on the lens (which I've done a bit)

As for resale value on the offbrand - I tend to buy my offbrand lenses used anyway precisely because of that : )

I've done a little bit of trying to shoot with a long prime, but often times when i'm shooting with a long lens i'm also not in a position to move around much, so I find myself wanting the zoom. (On the shorter/wider end I often have more freedom to move). Still might be worth playing with again.

[fermata9.livejournal.com]

I wasn't even aware that 70-200 f/4 was so cheap. I had always been looking at the 2.8 amd never paid any attention to this one. You may have sparked my interest in a new lens as well. :) (Too bad the new IS version is twice as much!)

[sol3.livejournal.com]

Yah - and i've shot with it before and really like it.

It's also a nice, light lens - and focuses wicked fast : )

[maighread.livejournal.com]

You rented the Cannon 70-300 once before, yes? If not, I'd go ahead and rent it to really compare to the 70-200. The logical side of my brain says save up. But the artsy side of my brains says Get New Lens! (Especially if the old stuff you have now is driving you cRaZy.)

[sol3.livejournal.com]

The one I rented was the 70-300mm DO IS lens - and I didn't care for the DO (diffractive optics) very much : )

The 70-200mm f/4L is winning more and more points in the back of my head, as it's quality matches or is better than the higher value lenses - and i'd almost rather spend ~$500 on the 70-200mm f/4L and also bump up the quality of my wide angle lens (e.g stepping up to the tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 lens as a stop-gap to getting a 16-35mm f/2.8L : )

Of course much of this may be moot, the question of whether or not there is money to spend on this isn't answered yet.

[maighread.livejournal.com]

Still, it's good to know which one you'd get if the money is there, right? =) (come on, big money, no whammies....)