Gah! (WARNING: Geekiness ahead.)

[kv0925]

Stoopid Internet. Now I'm all conflicted. Skip this if you don't care about camera geek-speak. :)

I'm expecting a nice juicy tax return this year, and shortly after that I should get a very tidy year-end bonus from work. Most of all this will go into savings, of course, but we're agreed that we can each get a luxury or two that we want. The big thing I want is a very nice lens to go with my new very nice camera! I definitely want something super-sharp, fast-focusing, and long--I very much like nature and wildlife photography, so a good telephoto range is crucial.

I was pretty well settled on the Canon 70-200mm 4L, which is a decent focal length range and an L-series lens, which means nothing to most people but is worshipped as if a pantheon of deities by those who care. :) My only hesitations in considering that lens are that it's fairly large (read: more conspicuous and tougher to haul around), and has no image stabilization, a handy feature which can really extend a lens' ability to be handheld in lower light situations. So I was just poking around today, and came across the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO IS lens, which adds a lot more reach (up to a 480mm equivalent with my XT's 1.6x crop factor), throws in excellent image stabilization, and comes in a much smaller package. Cons: to achieve the shorter length, it uses a diffractive optical element (the DO in the name) which can produce some undesirable optical artifacts not present in the other lens. Also, the DO currently costs about twice as much, and the other lens ain't cheap to begin with! I'd love to have an L lens, but I know I'd really prefer the longer reach, smaller size, and image stabilization of the DO. So probably money will be the deciding factor--if I get less than I expect between the tax return and bonus, I'll get the 70-200, and if I get more (and can sell Heather on this being just about the last lens I need to buy ever), I'll go for the 70-300.

Whew! I guess I answered my own question. :)

Edit: I'll just edit this entry since no one cares anyway. :) After *more* reading, I think I'm just going to shoot for the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. It's not an L lens, but it has the extra focal length and excellent IS, is actually a bit smaller than the 70-200 4L, and costs a bit less (and half of what the 70-300 DO costs). Yeah, I'll start with that, and then later when I have more money to play with I'll delve into L-series territory. :)

Comments

[cinnamonbite.livejournal.com]

Wow! And I was thinking this morning that I'd really like a wood chipper!

No, seriously. For Valentine's, even!

[cp.livejournal.com]

A wood chipper? I can't look at those things the same way since seeing Fargo. :)

[cinnamonbite.livejournal.com]

Heh heh

[cp.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I trust you know all about this?
http://www.queensryche.com/releases/operation-mindcrime-2/index.html

[midnightmadness.livejournal.com]

I so want to get my own Canon and a nice lens w. my tax return, but alas I have to replace one of the windows in my condo. :-( At least I have my 20D at work to use/play with.

[cp.livejournal.com]

Yeah man! Who needs windows? Come to the dark side! :) I really would have gotten a 20D if I'd had more choice, but for the sweet interest-free financing I had to stay with the more consumer model. Not that I don't love my XT, though!

What lens do you use on the 20D at work, anything remarkable? Reading some more, I think I should just stick with the 70-200, or get the 70-300 IS (non-diffractive) instead, since it's a lot cheaper and still seems to be very good optically. Bah, these decisions are too hard! :)

[midnightmadness.livejournal.com]

The 20D is wonderful, but I don't have a lot of room to get creative with it since it's mainly used for product shots. Though I did take those cast photos http://midnightmadness.livejournal.com/280673.html and the Clue promo pics http://midnightmadness.livejournal.com/283777.html I posted a couple of months ago with it.

It's just the standard 18-55 lens I have for it - it's hard to justify much more for my employer to buy given what I use it for in actual work settings, though I am trying to get them to bite off on a nice wide angle lens. I've thought of just buying some L mount lenses myself since my wife and I already both own standard 35mm SLR Canons, and I know we're probably sticking with Canon for good, digital or otherwise.

[cp.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I also considered the Nikon D50 or D70, but the Canon was faster and smaller and seemed to have better image quality throughout the ISO range--at 1600 the noise gets really noticeable, but still looks good to me! Since I really like nature photography, though, I'm itching to get something with plenty of reach.

[mandil.livejournal.com]

Ha....last lens ever...don't you know that glass is an addiction? Even I know that and thus far I have managed to stick with my kit lens.

I do have at least one lens purchase planned out though, I need something mildly zoom with a nice low f-stop for when I take pictures of ballerinas in theatres. Can't afford image stabilization!

[cp.livejournal.com]

I know, I know, but as long as I can cover a pretty decent range of focal lengths with better-then-average sharpness, I'll be happy enough. :) Maybe I'll show her the *really* expensive L-series lenses so the ones I want look positively cheap in comparison. :)

So which way would you go? The 70-200 4L without IS, or the non-L 70-300 with IS? I definitely lean towards the L, even without the IS and extra 100mm, just because it's an L! Instead of IS I'll get a good tripod. :)