What next?

[Chaz Photos]

Hi I have just up to a 50D and bought a 100-400IS F
I want to use my 30D as a second camera but not sure what to get
I wish to do wildlife was thinking of a 70-200L2.8 but not sure it worth it as teh 70 is too close to the 100 on the 100-400
y other lens are
Sigma 10-20 17-70 and a 70-300
What do you think would be good to get

 

[RJL2005]

For wildlife the 100-400 on the 50D for the birds and beasts, 100mm f2.8 macro on the 30D for the small stuff.

 

[stan the man]

Hi I have just up to a 50D and bought a 100-400IS F
I want to use my 30D as a second camera but not sure what to get
I wish to do wildlife was thinking of a 70-200L2.8 but not sure it worth it as teh 70 is too close to the 100 on the 100-400
y other lens are
Sigma 10-20 17-70 and a 70-300
What do you think would be good to get

well,you have 10mm-400mm focal lengths covered....but no wide apertures amongst them,but do you need it?

only you can answer that question.

if not,then i would suggest a macro lens for the smaller wildlife out there..or get yourself a 600 F/5.6 or summat if you have a fair chunk of disposable cash

 

[swag72]

If wildlife is your poison, then I would definately add a macro lens to that set up. The Canon 100mm macro is very good - The Siggy 105 also has many happy followers.

Do you want REAL close up stuff? If so, perhaps an MP-E 65?

 

[Chaz Photos]

For wildlife the 100-400 on the 50D for the birds and beasts, 100mm f2.8 macro on the 30D for the small stuff.

The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 is a macro ok not 1-1 but have some good shots would a prime be worth it? and why you say a 100mm?

 

[stan the man]

The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 is a macro ok not 1-1 but have some good shots would a prime be worth it? and why you say a 100mm?

i also have the 17-70,but you in no way compare the results to what you get with a dedicated macro lens.i have the sigma 105 that swag mentioned in her post,and it's a fantastic lens giving pin sharp results wide open.100mm is a good focal length to have,as it's quite light to hand hold,the working distance isn't too close hence scaring bugs....and a bonus of being a great portrait lens

 

[Chaz Photos]

OK Stan thanks I take a look at one

 

[packham]

+1 for Macro 100mm. You already got 100-400 so no need to buy 70-200 for wildlife IMO unless you want for other stuff e.g. portrait, candid.

 

[RJL2005]

i also have the 17-70,but you in no way compare the results to what you get with a dedicated macro lens.i have the sigma 105 that swag mentioned in her post,and it's a fantastic lens giving pin sharp results wide open.100mm is a good focal length to have,as it's quite light to hand hold,the working distance isn't too close hence scaring bugs....and a bonus of being a great portrait lens

 

[buckas]

400/5.6 prime - absolute stunner

i went for that over the 100-400 as i already have the 70-200/2.8IS + 1.4x tc

drew