Canon Lenses - Which One for Standard Zoom & Macro???

[Tasiamay]

After researching, I narrowed it down to the lenses below. Now, I need help choosing between them. I looked up the info for each lense on some photography sites, but am still a bit confused. Lenses will be going on a Canon Rebel XT. Subjects will mostly be animals & things found outdoors.

Standard Zoom
1 - EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
2 - EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Macro Lenses
1 - MPE 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro
2 - 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Pros and/or cons of why you would choose a certain lense would be helpful. I'm still a newbie at this whole photography thing, but am getting better.

 

[StCraft]

MPE 65mm - You need to be a pro to do very good shot.
i was thiking to buy this one two, but.. im more looking now the 100 mm with some magnification like tube extension.

 

[gregr]

Hi-
The pros and cons for the two decisions are actually pretty clear cut. For the zoom, the deciding factors are image quality and budget. The L lens is sharper, has better contrast and color and is built better. Costs almost three times as much though. I've owned both of these lenses and it's a no brainer for me because I value optical quality so highly. That said, the 28-135 is probably Canon's best non-L zoom and will serve you well if you can't spare the extra several hundred dollars. It's not a bad lens at all, it just doesn't have that beautiful contrast, sharpness and color that the L lenses do.
On the macro side- the 65 is a very specialized lens and will get you amazing magnification. But in my opinion it's not well suited for aquarium photography. The limited focus range is what prevents it from being more useful-- it doesn't focus to infinity so you can't use it as a regular lens. For nature stuff like bugs and flowers it can get you stunning results however you will have a hard time using it on subjects that aren't stationary because the depth of field is very limited. But for stationary objects... look out! You'll get detail that our eyes can't see.
The 100 macro is outstanding for nature, portraits and aquarium photography. I'd recommend getting that one first and if you decide you want to get extreme close-ups you can get the the 65, or add extension tubes to the 100.
Hope my opinions help,
Greg

 

[jwedehase]

There's no reason to refute Greg's advice. I'm just adding another "Yep."

The 24-105 will smoke the 28-135 out of the water. You'd be absolutely floored at the difference. But you pay for it, too. Your budget makes the call on this one. And exactly as mentioned, the 65mm macro won't do what you want it to. It's a specific use lens, intended for extreme closeups only. Go with the 100mm here.

 

[Blazer88]

Here is my take on zooms. I own the 24-105 F/4L and it's an amazing piece of glass and well worth the $1000 in my opinion. Zooms, by nature, aren't going to be as sharp as a prime so I wanted the best I could reasonbly get. The 24mm on the wide end is much more useful to the 28mm in terms of a general walk-around lens as well. The extra reach of the 135mm may be useful but the 105mm on the F/4 is plenty for now. I will leave my 100mm+ shots for a different lens. I also haven't really heard steller opinions about the 28-135mm lens. The benefit of IS is great though.


In terms of macro, the 100mm F/2.8 seems to be the standard for most. I have used one for a year and got great results but sold it yesterday. My reason for selling it is that I needed more magnification beyond 6" that the 100mm can provide. Adding a 1.4x TC to the 100mm helped but I still needed more. I went with the Sigma 150mm F/2.8 with a 1.4x TC and Kenko extension tubes. Again, that setup isn't for everybody and will only be used for extreme macro shots. I also will be getting the EF-S 60mm F/2.8 macro for general fish shot/tank shots since the 150 won't work well for that. The 100mm F/2.8 will serve 99% of people just fine. The MP-E65 is a very specialized lens with a very small working distance, not useful for aquariums IMO. You can also reverse a 50mm on a 100mm just to have some fun with.

 

[BlueCorn]

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I know that it goes against what Greg and jwedehase will tell you but I had that lens. Our [ua] prevents me from using language, to describe it, that fully does it justice. If you're shooting "outdoors" doing landscapes and such you'll find the 28mm very limiting. I hated that thing.

In regard to lens prices, keep in mind that there's no rule that says you have to buy "new." I picked up my 24-70 f/2.8L used for $300-$400 less than it would have cost new. I'd try to find the 24-105 F/4L used and then pick up the 100 f/2.8 macro.

 

[Blazer88]

Doug, I think it's hillarious with the amount of hate you have for that lens, lol. I see people trying to sell them all the time on the Canon boards. I'm glad that's a lens that I never ventured into

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9473339#post9473339 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Blazer88
Doug, I think it's hillarious with the amount of hate you have for that lens, lol. I see people trying to sell them all the time on the Canon boards. I'm glad that's a lens that I never ventured into

My family still knows it as "the stupid lens" in passing conversation.

:lol:

 

[VoidRaven]

Well, I am most decidedly NOT a Canon guy....but even I can tell you that your choice for the zoom lens is a no-brainer: go for the L glass. It's great stuff that you will NEVER have any regrets buying.

As to the macro lens...never used either but every Canon person I talk to speaks highly of the 100mm lens. So maybe lean towards that one?

See? I'm not biased! Really, I'm not......at least I think I'm not......

 

[Tasiamay]

Thanks for all the help everyone. I'm going to go with the L lense - guess I better start saving now As for the macro, I didn't realize the MPE wouldn't be any good for aquarium shots, so I'm going to go with the 100mm.

Anyone know any good, reliable sites to get used lenses?

 

[Blazer88]

I have bought and sold probably $5K worth of gear from www.fredmiranda.com and www.photography-on-the.net. Both sites have been good to me. I just sold my 100mm macro the other day on POTN.

 

[BlueCorn]

B&H and Adorama both carry used and refurbished. (I got my 24-70L from B&H.)

You just have to check with them often as the stock changes frequently.

 

[ahuxman58]

Best zoom around is the 70-200MM 2.8 L IS USM.!!!!!!!!

 

[beatle]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that all of the zooms listed lack any kind of wide angle. They'd be great on a full frame camera, but on the RXT, you're only at 38mm when fully zoomed out, even on the 24-105. That would bug the tar out of me, but I shoot a lot of landscapes. It's also very nice for shooting groups indoors. I have a 17-85 IS f/4-5.6 for my RXT and I love it. The 17-55 IS f/2.8 is more expensive with less range, but it's faster and people say it's really up there with the Ls.