Canon SLR lenses

[backpack]

So as some may have read last week over in the main forum, I'm going back to Ecuador this spring as a TF. The last two times I was there I had either an s400 or g2 (mostly s400), and got some great stuff, but since this may well be my last extended visit I'd like to try some better equipment and lenses.

I've pretty much already decided on the Rebel XT rather than 20D, because the camera really only has to last for 6 months and I can get a good lens for the difference in price between the two that I can then use on a 20D-esque camera later on.

Anyway, on to the main event. Based on past experience, I'd like to have a good macro lens for the rainforest and coast, a telephoto lens for everywhere (birds, monkeys, people, etc), a semi-wide or wide-zoom lens for random walking around and a standard fast lens for available-light stuff.

Here's what I'm thinking based on my research at various sites online (luminous-landscape and dpreview, primarily):

• Macro: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM -- Because I know how skittish a lot of the cool insects in the rainforest can be, I think the extra range of the 100mm lens will be useful to keep my distance (well, relatively speaking... I realize I still have to get pretty close [6in] for 1:1).
• Tele: My family has an older Quantaray 70-300, but I don't know if it will be sharp with the pixel density of the 1.6x chip. [EDIT]The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is sort-of within my price range, has the third gen IS with panning support (for flying birds, etc), and most things I've read about it claim good optical quality.[/EDIT]
• Wide Zoom: Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM OR Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM -- the EF-S lens is somewhat more expensive, but because of the reduced-size sensor it provides coverage equivalent to a 28-135, while the 28-135 is more like a 45-216.
• Canon 50mm f/1.8 II -- cheap, cheap, cheap, but everyone claims the optics are good as long as you can keep it from falling apart. I figure this can be a "throwaway" lens to keep on the camera at all times, and it might be useful for work under the canopy and in low light with ISO 1600.

I probably can't afford everything there... the macro is a must because of the month-long rainforest trip and all the cool small stuff, as is a tele lens (even if it is an old off-brand soft version). So basically I'm trying to decide if a wider-angle lens would be worth it, and also if the cheap 50 (85 on 1.6x) will prove useful. I'll probably try to sell some of them when I get back (no real need for serious macro work in Boston), so resale value (assuming I don't mess them up) is important too.

Oh, and I've been told that lens shades are useful, but they're kinda expensive when you buy one for each lens... $30-50 for a circle of plastic?

Thanks for reading.

[Hugh Jass]

Sounds like you're in for some fun.

I too went from a G2 to the Digital XT. I can't advise you much on lenses, as I only have the Canon 17-85, which I am really happy with for all-purpose use.

I would advise you to get the lens hood. Mine was $30, and serves as cheap protection, and supports the camera/lens when I lay it down. Mine is the CAEW73B model from www.bhphoto.com

You may have this covered already, but getting a filter to protect your lens is a pretty good idea. Mine was $21, and the HOUV67 model at B&H.

You might also benefit from the extra battery and battery grip with vertical shutter release. I have them on my XT and really like them alot. The battery grip adds some size and weight, but the hand feel is great for me. I'd say close to half of my shots are portrait rather than landscape and having the grip and release for vertical shots is nice. The extra battery may be good for you too if you're traveling.

Hope that helps.

[summit]

[*]Macro: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM -- Because I know how skittish a lot of the cool insects in the rainforest can be, I think the extra range of the 100mm lens will be useful to keep my distance (well, relatively speaking... I realize I still have to get pretty close [6in] for 1:1).

Working distance for skittish insects/lepidoptra is still useless until you start doing 180mm or 200mm macros.
However, this lens is THE SHIT! The USM will allow you to be quicker, IF means the lens won't move in on the subject AND you won't lose light due to the bellows factor.

[*]Tele: No idea... my family has an older Quantaray 70-300, but I don't know if it will be sharp with the pixel density of the 1.6x chip.

This lens is teh suck. Consider a 300mm f/4 IS or 70-200mm f/4

[*]Wide Zoom: Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM OR Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM -- the EF-S lens is somewhat more expensive, but because of the reduced-size sensor it provides coverage equivalent to a 28-135, while the 28-135 is more like a 45-216.

That 17-85 will be like a 28-135. Also, 4-5.6 sucks balls especially on a consumer zoom where you will want to stop down for quality (shallow DoF is not an option with that lens).

That 28-135 will be OK as your telezoom... won't get you da birdies though. Quality will suffer wide and long if you don't stop down, IS helps with that. Consider the new 24-105mm IS L.

[*]Canon 50mm f/1.8 II -- cheap, cheap, cheap, but everyone claims the optics are good as long as you can keep it from falling apart. I figure this can be a "throwaway" lens to keep on the camera at all times, and it might be useful for work under the canopy and in low light with ISO 1600.

Great lens. I have a 50 f/1.4 USM I'll sell you cheap. For that low light stuff consider a monopod that doubles as a walking stick.

Oh, and I've been told that lens shades are useful, but they're kinda expensive when you buy one for each lens... $30-50 for a circle of plastic?

Buy used. Cheapest way to protect your lens (from impact and keeps things off the front element) AND increase quality (increases contrast, reduces flare) far more than a similarly priced UV/Sky filter.

Ebay if you know what you are doing. www.keh.com is highly reputable used gear. www.bhphoto.com for new gear.

I have some Canon lenses or sale cheap:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=36030

[MeatPuppet]

[QUOTE=backpack]

[*]Macro: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I think this is a good choice. I've heard nothing but good things about this lens. It's on my short list for next lens purchase. You might also think about a ring flash or similar macro flash setup. It can make a huge difference in the quality of shots you get. Especially if your under the canopy or at dawn or dusk. Also, I don't expect the creepy crawlies your going to be chaseing are going to want to sit still long enough for a longer exposure.

an older Quantaray 70-300, but I don't know if it will be sharp with the pixel density of the 1.6x chip.

I wouldn't expect much from this lens. DSLRs are very picky about lens quality. You might do better with a sigma or tamaron in the same range. You should be able to pick up one cheap on ebay. Do a search of the forums on dpreview and see which ones to stay away from. I don't know what your budget is for lens purchases, but another option might be the 70-200 4.0L with a 2x teleconverter. The 70-200 can be found new for <$600, even cheaper on ebay. I'm not sure on the price of the 2x teleconverter but I don't think it's terribly expensive. You can search the dpreview forums to find out how to get the AF to work with the teleconverter. That should give you plenty of reach and then you have the 70-200 without the teleconverter.

[*]Wide Zoom: Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM OR Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM -- the EF-S lens is somewhat more expensive, but because of the reduced-size sensor it provides coverage equivalent to a 28-135, while the 28-135 is more like a 45-216.

Another option might be the canon 11-22 EF-S. It will give you true wide angel coverage. It's slightly more expensive than the 17-85 but might be worth it for the added coverage. Everyone is different, but I would rather come back from a trip with killer WA shots, than great telephoto shots. In fact I've gone on many trips with nothing but a WA lens, and never missed the long lens. But then again, that's personal preference.

[*]Canon 50mm f/1.8 II -- cheap, cheap, cheap, but everyone claims the optics are good as long as you can keep it from falling apart.

I've heard the same.

I'll probably try to sell some of them when I get back (no real need for serious macro work in Boston), so resale value (assuming I don't mess them up) is important too.

The 100mm and the 70-200 will hold their value well. The 11-22 will probably hold value better than the 17-85. It's generally considered a better lens.



Something else you will have to contend with is moisture. In very wet environments moisture can get in between the elements of the lens and in extreme cases fungus can begin growing there. In which case, your screwed. You will need some kind of sealed case to put you lenses in at night with silica packets to keep them dry. If your going to be carrying your lenses in a backpack while in the field make sure to keep them in zip lock baggies or something similar with a silica packet. This will help keep them dry.



If you go with the 100mm, flashring, 70-200/4.0, teleconverter, 50/1.8, and 11-22 you have very good coverage with very good glass. That might be pushing the budget a little but it sounds like you have some time to shop around and try to find some good deals.

Oh, and I've been told that lens shades are useful, but they're kinda expensive when you buy one for each lens... $30-50 for a circle of plastic?

I almost never shoot without a hood. Whatever lens is on the camera has a hood on it, almost without exception. The only time I don't use the hood is in low light without a lot of point sources of light around me(i.e. streetlights, shiny surfaces, etc.). Most lens come with a hood if you buy them new, although I think a few manufacturers have stopped includeing them with their newer lens. You'll have to check on that when you decide on what you want to take with you.



Good luck! I hope you have a great trip.

[backpack]

So to sum up what I've gathered from y'all's input:

I probably need to get a tele lens, as the one currently used on an older Canon film body will almost certainly be shit. (I'm seriously thinking about the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, given its image stabilization [good for stuff like monkys] with panning mode [for flying birds, etc], and good reviews for image quality so far.)

The 10-22 (16-35 equiv) is the best bet for wide angle stuff.

The Canon 100mm Macro lens is a good one. (I realize it still requires me to get close to things, but considering that I got within a few inches of most bugs with my s400 by stalking them quietly, I think I can probably manage. Plus, the 100mm either acts like a 160mm at 1:1 or a 100mm at 1.6:1 on the reduced frame of a 350D.)

These three lenses plus the 350D body, even using B&H, Amazon, Adorama, Calumet, Dell, etc. to find the best price, will cost me around $2500 + shipping, so maybe more like $2550.

There are some Canon rebates going right now that would total $330 for that setup, so after those come in it will be about $2220.

$2220 is a lot more than I'd like to spend, and I won't even have a "normal" focal length lens for walking around, really. I could go for the $75 50 1.8 or buy Summit's discounted 50 1.4, but I still need to get an extra battery for the camera ($40), another memory card ($85), lens hoods ($80), etc. etc. etc.

I'm thinking the 10-22 might have to be axed, though I'd have to replace it with something close to that end, like the 17-85 or whatever... not that it would save me much money, really.

Although technically I can afford to spend around $2000 on the assumption that I can sell some things back for around $1000, it's still more money than I think I've ever spent on any one system, ever.

I may also sell my G6, which could get me around $500, but that would go towards buying a smaller camera and an underwater housing for the coast/galapagos/rainforest river/etc.

As far as the humidity problems go, the field station where I'll be working has several dry boxes for cameras and other electronics, as well as part-time air conditioning in the lab (where the dry box is) which helps keep the air less humid but also means the cameras are subject to huge temperature variations when you first take them out or put them away. Generally speaking, I found it best to keep the camera in an open ziploc bag in the drybox in the air conditioned lab, and then seal the bag with some silica gel packets in it before setting it outside to stabilize the temperature and then take it out of the bag for the day. (I also use a double-ziploc with silica gel in both bags for when I'm hiking around and don't plan to stop for photos). Kind of involved, I guess, but I didn't have any real condensation or mold problems. There is also a "hot box" thing to dry out silica packets, so it's possible to bring a few and re-use them over and over. I also have two waterproof bags for transporting my electronic crap to the rainforest without fear of it getting wet in my backpack or being destroyed if the canoe tips over.

The coast tends to be mostly dry, and the galapagos varies but shouldn't be too bad since our normal ship is fully air conditioned and will dry stuff out pretty quickly.

I also think a macro ring light would be ideal, but realistically I can't afford one. I actually do a fair amount of macro stuff on frogs and other small animals in the lab, which would really benefit from the macro light, but oh well.

Anyway, yea. Just for reference, here are the primary places I'll be using the camera, in order of how much use I think they'll see and what I'll use it for:

1. Rainforest -- Everything from tiny beetles to spiders, butterflies, frogs, birds, monkeys, river dolphins, jaguars, etc. from the ground, boats, canopy towers, etc. Plus countless flowering plants and trees, other people's antics, and so on. Not too many landscapes since the only place to really get a long-range view is from the canopy tower, but it might be useful to have a wide angle for a sense of how tall the trees are.

2. Galapagos -- The usual fearless wildlife, plenty of landscapes, and lots of underwater stuff (with the other point-and-shoot camera and a waterproof case). I have to use a fairly long lens to get in close since you aren't permitted to approach the animals.

3. Mountains -- Mostly landscapes and people shots. Some wildlife and of course cloud forest (which is like the rainforest but with fewer animals), but I don't think I'll get much other than really pretty lanscapes and a few flowers.

4. Coast -- Lots of birds, some landscapes, lots of people shots, lots of tide-pool action (I used my s400 to get the lens almost touching the water so the flash reflection wouldn't be in the frame and it worked pretty well... I suspect with the macro lens I can stay even further away.), and some street-work in the coastal towns.

5. City -- Colonial Architecture, People, Sports (soccer/bullfighting), etc.

Yea, I think that's it for the moment... it's amazing how expensive good lenses are.

[summit]

If you have an external flash, you can cheat on the macro flash by purchasing an off camera TTL cord ($30-$50) then simply hold the flash up to the side of the lens/subject.

[mtbakerskier]

Here is waht I would get if I was on a "Budget" this will give you everything that you need without degrading lense quality and blowing the bank.

Buy a 17-40L or better yet get a used 17/16-35 F2.8L ($600~$900 used)

Get the Canon 50mm Macro with the life size converter. This will give you good macro capability and will also double as a sharp standard lense. Ive seen this set as cheap as $175 used.

Buy a Sigma EX series HSM 70-200 mm F2.8 around $600.00 used.

A ringflash would be a very good idea if you plan to do a lot of macro work.

Also get a set of extension tubes so that you can use the 70-200 in close range as somewhat of a longer focal length macro lense.

DO NOT use any QUANTARAY SHIT!

[Telepath]

Buy a Sigma EX series HSM 70-200 mm F2.8 around $600.00 used.

I have one of these that I have been really happy with. Great value imo. Trying to get rid of mine though (as I have shot less than 100 shots on SLRs over the last 1.5 year, just doesn't get around to it). It works well with my Sigma 2x extender too. Not the same übersweet performance of the Canon 70-200 top thingy I guess, but damn that thing is pricey. Only good things to say about the Sigma EX line from here.

[backpack]

If you have an external flash, you can cheat on the macro flash by purchasing an off camera TTL cord ($30-$50) then simply hold the flash up to the side of the lens/subject.

True. I'm thinking about the whole flash thing... ~$250 for an E-TTL II flash like the 430EX is just one more expensive thing to add, especially if I end up going for a macro ring light ($400!?!). I think I may just do the 430. We'll see.

17-40L or better yet get a used 17/16-35 F2.8L ($600~$900 used)

Whoa. Those are friggin expensive. (Even the used ones I found were like $1200+) Still, the 16-35 F2.8L looks really nice... hmmm...

Get the Canon 50mm Macro with the life size converter. This will give you good macro capability and will also double as a sharp standard lense. Ive seen this set as cheap as $175 used.

Where exactly do you find them used? The 50mm macro is around $225 new, and the life-size converter is $250ish, which ends up being about the same price as a new 100mm macro. Maybe I'm not looking at the right used equipment websites. I guess it's still more flexible in some ways than a 100 since I can use the 50 as a standard lens...

A ringflash would be a very good idea if you plan to do a lot of macro work.

So basically everyone agrees on that one... so expensive!

DO NOT use any QUANTARAY SHIT!

Ok, ok, I get it!

[mtbakerskier]

www.fredmiranda.com buy and sell forum. You got to register, and know hat your looking for but it is the mecca of used camera gear privately for sell.