Do I want this lens????? I am a hobbist photographer. I discovered prime lenses, and now have a 60 and an 85. I mainly shoot dogs running in a medium sized field or nature shots from a canoe or kayak with a Canon T2i. I have a decent IS telephoto that goes to 300, but I am not thrilled with it. It does the distance but I miss that crispness and dimension I get with the primes.My main objective is to get a great shot of the dog with a nice, blurred background that makes the whole dog three dimensional. I am doing good with the other primes, but now feel I would like a greater distance while still keeping this super sharpness and great color that I get with the primes. I came into a little bit of cash recently and wonder if now is the time for me to spring for my first L series lens and, if this is the lens I want, OR do I continue to save and get a zoom instead?Anyone have any suggestions??? Do I want this lens????? I am a hobbist photographer. I discovered prime lenses, and now have a 60 and an 85. I mainly shoot dogs running in a medium sized field or nature shots from a canoe or... » Read More Do I want this lens????? I am a hobbist photographer. I discovered prime lenses, and now have a 60 and an 85. I mainly shoot dogs running in a medium sized field or nature shots from a canoe or kayak with a Canon T2i. I have a decent IS telephoto that goes to 300, but I am not thrilled with it. It does the distance but I miss that crispness and dimension I get with the primes.My main objective is to get a great shot of the dog with a nice, blurred background that makes the whole dog three dimensional. I am doing good with the other primes, but now feel I would like a greater distance while still keeping this super sharpness and great color that I get with the primes. I came into a little bit of cash recently and wonder if now is the time for me to spring for my first L series lens and, if this is the lens I want, OR do I continue to save and get a zoom instead?Anyone have any suggestions??? « Show Less
498662
Thanx Chris for the advice this may swing me over to the 200mm fl2.8 prime...!!!
942879
non professional here!i am so confused by some of the pro's here ! so someone please tell me,will it work on my nikon D 60, Then, for a amature-beginner- training pants guy, how will this do for real estate, mountains, gardens, charging grizzly, kidds christmas with sants, high school photos of the kids,, antique autos, the " Hoss" an buggy, does anyone get my ideas, there is two guys on the reviewsthat sound incredibaly smart, good show, i so want to get this lens, BUT ? J.R. Massachusetts
606484
I'm so glad there's something posted here - this is one of the lenses I'm considering getting my husband for Christmas. He has the Sigma 50-200mm lens right now and in my experience with it, it hasn't been too bad. Should he be happy with the 18-200?
1041296
The 35mm f1.4 is amazing. The photos I gets are out of this world. I'm saving now for the 56mm f1.2. Prime lenses are pretty much all I work with.
1790228
Honestly, there are some available on ebay with buyer protection (but I understand why you would want to get it from the above places instead). The 70-200mm is a great lens, but if you have your heart set on this particular lens you should wait to get this one :) I just ordered one from ebay but I did my research on the seller first.
1787339
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full... » Read More Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. « Show Less
36986
I have most of the primes along with many of the zooms. This lens is the lens I use the most. With the $1,000 budget I would just get this lens for sure. Those primes are great but this would be the best if you have that limitation. Then later add a prime if you have more budget. Unless you have a very specific purpose for the 12 and 45 prime this is the way to go but if you are asking this question I would assume the specific primes are not necessary in comparison to the versatility you will get with the 12-40.
2279391
I would compare it to my smaller camera as a 10x zoom for the really good zoom go up to the next lens, I loved my photos at the Grand Canyon, Walking around I used the 30-110 and to zoom in on the river aprox 1 mile below I used my bigger lens 110-220, I like the polarize filter, It is great for outdoors, no glare and crisper color, email if you need more details
1587468
I use my Canon 17-85mm lens to shoot underwater either for people shots or when I think there's a chance of seeing some large charismatic megafauna, but don't want to risk missing the other smaller subjects. I find it to be a decent all around lens, but as you can imagine, its not quite wide enough (originally wanted the 15-85mm, but it wouldn't fit in the Ikelite housing/port) for really big critters and its macro doesn't allow the photographer to approach close enough to the subject - especially if it's a small target. If you have the money and are solely interested in wide angle photography, invest in a superwide zoom 10-22mm or similar. If you're looking for an all purpose lens, this is a decent choice for the price.
364835
Basically just more distance. In my opinion, i never ever use the kit lens, so get the cheaper one and get a couple primes with much much better quality. Thats just my opinion. Honestly, just watch some reviews and based off what kind of photography you're doing its your call!
1872897
I would agree with Nav3000. With this camera, I'd go for a nice lens if you can afford one. The 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 are probably your best options as far as versatility and the focal length would pretty much cover you for everything. The image quality of the 85mm 1.4 is outstanding, but is difficult in tight spaces. But if you are looking for something less expensive I would look into the 50mm 1.4 - but its a prime lens so you have to be OK with using your feet to zoom. If it were me, I wouldn't waste the money on the kit lenses. If at all humanly possible I would get the nicest lens I could afford because the image quality is SO worth it. I would agree with Nav3000. With this camera, I'd go for a nice lens if you can afford one. The 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 are probably your best options as far as versatility and the focal length would pretty much cover you for everything. The image quality of the 85mm 1.4 is outstanding, but is difficult in tight spaces. But if you are looking for something less expensive I would look into the 50mm 1.4 - but its a prime lens so you have to be OK with using your feet to zoom. If it were me, I wouldn't waste the money on the kit lenses. If at all humanly possible I would get the... » Read More I would agree with Nav3000. With this camera, I'd go for a nice lens if you can afford one. The 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 are probably your best options as far as versatility and the focal length would pretty much cover you for everything. The image quality of the 85mm 1.4 is outstanding, but is difficult in tight spaces. But if you are looking for something less expensive I would look into the 50mm 1.4 - but its a prime lens so you have to be OK with using your feet to zoom. If it were me, I wouldn't waste the money on the kit lenses. If at all humanly possible I would get the nicest lens I could afford because the image quality is SO worth it. « Show Less
473928
I have owned both lenses, still have the 400 prime. It focuses faster and more accurately, is sharper and light. With good technique and the right settings on your camera the results are pleasing. I hated the push/pull zoom of the 100-400. The only thing I miss is the IS, but if you spend most of your time photographing birds in flight you don't use IS anyway. I bought it used for $1030 and it is a gem.
873524
Hey, a hockey fan! You will love this lens. My husband and I each have one and it is all he ever shoots. He does a lot of close up flower and wildlife pictures. If it is your only lens you may not be happy with landscapes but otherwise you will love it.
137017
Honestly, there are some available on ebay with buyer protection (but I understand why you would want to get it from the above places instead). The 70-200mm is a great lens, but if you have your heart set on this particular lens you should wait to get this one :)I just ordered one from ebay but I did my research on the seller first.
2170406
As long as you're not doing fast or low-light action, this is a fantastic outdoor telephoto - a real image-quality champ. It works quite well with the Canon 1.4X tele extender, too. (I don't have a 2X so I can't say with that one.) For fast action or action in low light, save up and get the 70-200mm 2.8 (II not I; the new version is super sharp, the old version a bit lacking). And start pumping iron ;) If you're doing birds a lot, this may not have the reach you need. In that case the 100-400mm is better - not quite the same image quality but pretty good nonetheless. If you're doing a lot of portraits, the 70-200mm 2.8 II will give you better background blur. Or go cheap with the 135mm f2.0 or the 200mm f2.8 for portraits.
2176752
POTN is the best Canon-centric (sortof!) site on the internet! Great post, Norman!Oh, and I took a ton of shots with the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) lens and my 40D at a friend's kid's football game. You can see one of them here: http://kalla.net/POTN/_MG_0938-Edit.jpgIt was my first attempt at a sporting event, so my composition left something to be desired, but you can't fault the quality of the lens!
2187919
I am not really a very good bird photographer but my wife is an avid birder so I tag along. I bought the 100-300 specifically to photograph birds and I can say as unskilled as I am the lens got me some very fine photographs. I would definitely think you would be happy with it for shooting wildlife. (Compared to a full frame DSLR optic the thing is a feather.)