What lens to discard

What lens do I sell

  • Canon 70-200mm f 2.8 IS

    Votes: 2 9.5%

  • Sigma 180mm macro + extender

    Votes: 12 57.1%

  • Canon 17-40mm

    Votes: 7 33.3%
  • Total voters
    21
eggbanjo

eggbanjo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
464
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
I like my new 7D but
I really miss my 5d and its full frame lovelines:'(
and now I cant stop myself longing after a 5d mk11.

I want both:nuts:
I mainly shoot wildlife and macro

So what do I do?
The only solution at the moment is to raise part of the cost by letting go of one of these lenses

Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS
Sigma 180 macro + 1.4 extender
Canon 17-40L

that would leave me with

a Canon 400mm f 5.6
and the other two.

advice very much appreciated
 
If its wildlife and macro, surely its gotta be the 17-40L?

THe 70-200 for wildlife and the macro for ... macro :D

However selling the 70-200 would give you more cash towards the 5D and still leave you a walkabout (17-40), macro and wildlife (400mm)

Paddy
 
When you say macro, are you someone who is serious about macro and needs a dedicated lens? Or do you think you could get away with extension tubes on the 70-200?

Perhaps move on the 70-200/2.8 for the f/4 version?
 
Only you can answer the question as really you should get rid of the lens you use the least. Personally I'd lose the macro lens but that's because I don't do any macro work.

You have 180mm covered off by the 70-200mm so it comes down to needing the macro capability.
 
For what i enjoy, which is getting down and dirty with nature. A dedicated macro lens with decent reach would be hard to let go of but if this area could easily be covered with the 70-200 i could let it go.
 
I would be willing to provide a home for your 17-40mm, you can visit occasionally and take it for days out.
 
Lose the macro and replace it with tubes on the 70-200.

That's pretty much what I did and I actually prefer the 70-200L 4 IS to my 100 macro - more flexibility on both range and magnification. IQ is very good, but I don't shoot really critical macro subjects (basically flowers etc, that sort of general thing) or go higher than 1:1. Macro lenses are needed for critcal stuff like stamps and coins but for most other things, there are sometimes better and cheaper alternatives, bearing in mind that thre quarters of the image is probably out of focus anyway ;)
 
I'd ditch the macro unless you really need a dedicated macro lens for close up work (as in, you're commissioned to do it). The 70-200 is a workhorse lens and I wouldn't get rid of it, you'll want the 17-40 for general usage and wide angle shots.
 
You could sell the 17-40 and the 180mm macro and get a Tamron 17-50 (or Sigma 18-50) and a Sigma 105mm (or Canon 100mm or Tamron 90mm) with enough left to buy the MKII :)
 
At the moment I least use the 17-40, but I have two trips to Scotland planned this year
and with a FF 5d I could regret letting this one go.

As for the 180mm macro with spring around the corner and the dragons and butterflys soon emerging,
would I be able to just make do with the 70-200mm and tubes?
 
Could you not let the 7D go instead?
If you have a 400mm f/5.6 then reach probably isn't a problem even on full frame, and that would let you keep the other lenses. Perhaps swapping the 17-40 for a tamron 28-70 f/2.8 for the more useful field of view and 2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top