What do you think of this setup? (24-105/100-400)

wolfejm

Hi All - I'm a hobbyist and I'm looking to setup a good compliment of lenses. I can afford to buy what I need, but not afford to buy lots of extras. Here's what I have Rebel XTi w/ 17-85 IS. I'm willing to sell my new 17-85 to help recover money for any new lenses.

Here are my basic needs:
- Versatility - I haven't found a specialty yet, so I want to be able to reasnoanbly explore new areas.
- Tons of family pictures
- Tons of travel pictures
- Reasonable travel size
- Lot's of beach-scapes
- Lot's of local event pictures

I'm thinking about the 24-105L IS and the 100-400L IS. I love the IS on the lens I have, and don't really want to give it up. I rented the 70-200 F4L IS for the week, and find that the close end is often too long, and the far end could reach farther. I was thinking that most shots around 105 will either be good enough with a little foot zoom, or I'll need a lot more range making it reasonable to change lenses. Seems like 200 over 105 isn't really going to be enough of a difference, so the longer 100-400 felt like a better decision for more reach.

I'm curious what others think. Would these two lenses make for a pretty complete package? Do you find it more convenient to have more overlap in your focal lengths? I don't mind the cost of the L's, because they feel like lifetime investments (you don't get to say that much anymore). If that's bad logic, please let me know!

Thanks,
Jeff

ziggy53

Hi Jeff,

I don't think you have enough on the wide-angle side of things. Look at your current images and see if you have many in the 17-24mm range of your 17-85mm lens images. I'll bet you find many interior shots in that wide range.

Also throw in the 50mm, f1.8II, just because it's a bargain for low-light subjects (or the 50mm, f1.4 is that much better and still pretty reasonable.)

I guess for you my recommendations, in addition to your list, are the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8IS (just a very nice interior lens) and the Canon EF 50mm, f1.8 or f1.4.

You might also consider the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8IS with a 1.4x teleconverter, which is pretty usefull combination, instead of the 100-400L.

kdog

I'm thinking those two lenses plus the Canon 10-22, and you've got it pretty much covered. I've got the 10-22, 17-85 and 100-400. Some day I'll trade my 17-85 for the 24-105.

Regards,
-joel

h4rri

Consider the shooting you will do too, the 24-105 whilst being a competent lense would be lacking in the lower range on a crop body. I also think that limiting yourself to f/4 might bring complications.

I currently have the 24-105, 17-40, 100-400 and find them a little lacking in less than ideal lighting. I used the 17-85 on my 350D before the 5D upgrade and found it to be a superb lense. I wouldn't be too keen to sell up and replace it with the 24-105 if I were you. Have you considered keeping the 17-85 and getting a 24-70 f/2.8? Possibly consider the 70-300 instead of the 100-400? The IS on the latter is only good when off tripod and I find I don't use it a great deal [the lense or the IS]. I am seriously considering selling mine for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x TC to save weight and gain low light performance.

Just my two penneth worth but hope it helps

wolfejm

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. Clearly this is a matter of personal taste, and it seems I'll have to spend some money to develop my tastes a little more!

h4rri, I'm curious. Why don't you use the 100-400 more often? I'm not sure you're going to save weight making that switch, considering the 70-200 weighs more before adding the TC.

I have been considering the 70-300 too, but figured the build quality and extra 33% reach might be worth the upgrade. Then again, it knocks $900US off the project too.

h4rri

wolfejm wrote:

h4rri, I'm curious. Why don't you use the 100-400 more often? I'm not sure you're going to save weight making that switch, considering the 70-200 weighs more before adding the TC.

hadn't checked the weight out just assumed it would be less but I guess with a static aperture throughout the range the optics would be heavier.

Don't know why I don't use the 100-400 alot, wasn't a conscious decision I just seemed to stop sticking it on. It's quite a beast and not at all easy to handhold and I guess I don't go for the type of photography were it gets widely used.

Hopefully with the better weather on it's way I might use it alot more. If you do go for one it is a superb lense with both great reach and build quality. I am never disappointed with the images it produces either. Something like the 70-200 would fill a gap in my focal range if I dropped the 24-105 in favour of the 24-70 though so would be my reason for sale.

Oh and the push-pull zoom is a absolute pleasure to use

HiSPL

I would recommend a monopod to deal with any weight issues. The 70-200 2.8 IS is a bear to hand hold, but real nicely balanced on a monopod...

wolfejm

70-200 F4 IS w/ TC?
In an effort to control weight, at the cost of reach, how about taking a 70-200 F4 IS and putting on the 1.4 TC? I know this will drop image quality some. The whole reason I'm looking at the L lenses is for great image quality. How would images produced like this compare to images from the 100-400, or even the 70-300 IS? I'm just wondering if the TC will negate the IQ of the L.

kdog

wolfejm wrote:

In an effort to control weight, at the cost of reach, how about taking a 70-200 F4 IS and putting on the 1.4 TC? I know this will drop image quality some. The whole reason I'm looking at the L lenses is for great image quality. How would images produced like this compare to images from the 100-400, or even the 70-300 IS? I'm just wondering if the TC will negate the IQ of the L.

TCs always degrade quality, but even more so on a zoom. I do hear tell the 70-200 F2.8 takes a TC1.4 pretty well, but still not as sharp as the 100-400 in the lengths where they overlap. And of course, you only get 280mm with that combination. Not sure about the 70-200 F4 IS. That might actually work ok. The 100-300's do not take a TC well at all as far as I know.

I really love my 100-400 and it's probably on my camera more than anything else. For wildlife, it's absolutely the best choice in a Canon zoom. Plus I love it for compressed landscapes and panos, and people shots when you want to "reach out and touch someone".

For the me weight thing is a complete non-issue. I used it on a monopod for maybe the first week, then I never used the monopod again. You won't even notice the weight after a day or two of shooting. The larger issue is the conspicuity of the thing. Big white lenses with lens hoods draw a lot of attention. I may buy a 70-300 DO some day just for shooting in public places. So if you don't really need the reach, and if you can live with a little worse image quality, then one of the 70-300's might be a better bet.

I also have a 50mm F1.4 for low-light situations, although I could really dig some F2.8 zooms as well. But after a while it all starts getting ridiculous.

Cheers,
-joel

ziggy53

wolfejm wrote:

In an effort to control weight, at the cost of reach, how about taking a 70-200 F4 IS and putting on the 1.4 TC? I know this will drop image quality some. The whole reason I'm looking at the L lenses is for great image quality. How would images produced like this compare to images from the 100-400, or even the 70-300 IS? I'm just wondering if the TC will negate the IQ of the L.

I don't think you would like a TC on top of the f4 version of the 70-200mm. The lens drops to an effective f5.6 and autofocus may be (probably will be) compromised. The 1.4x TC works fine with the 70-200mm, f2.8L, and that's the only recommendation I am first-hand familiar with.

W.W. Webster

wolfejm wrote:

I'm curious what others think.

I'd think a 70-200mm, with or without a TC, would be a more versatile alternative than a 100-400mm. With the 1.6x crop factor for your body, an effective 640mm reach at the long end of 100-400mm seems a little excessive and unnnecessary for the typical shooting you've stated.

And have you considered a 24-70/70-200mm combo to squeeze a little more at the wide end?

wolfejm

One of the things I'm currently shooting is kite surfing. I can't say I'll always shoot this, but it's fun for now and there's lots of it to choose from where I live. Tried this with my 17-85 and the results were pretty lame. I tried it with the 70-200 + the 1.4 yesterday and the results weren't bad. I had trouble shooting into the sun, but that's a different story.

Anyhow, this one sport (and the thought of other shots on the water) are what's pushing me to the longer end of 300+. Almost everything else I considered for this lens is well within the 70-200 or even too close for that. I shot for my wife's childrens group in a parade this weekend with the 70-200 and it was too long. I had the same experience at a blues event. The lens was great for the stage shots, and difficult for everything else.

I do have one specific question: If I put the TC on the 70-200 F4, will that combo likely perform far better than the 70-300 IS in terms of IQ? I hate to spend $1500+ on a system that in the field will perform like a $600 lens, especially when the less expensive lens is more convenient.

For fun, here are a couple of the kite surfing shots
(280mm, and he was close to me)


Had to crop and process this quite a bit to get the shot even at 280mm (into the sun)



Typical of my shots with the 85