July 29, 2014, 06:13:19 AM

Author Topic: 24-70L or 100-400L ??  (Read 6663 times)

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1428
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
24-70L or 100-400L ??
« on: June 09, 2011, 03:33:36 AM »

On the road again…

Goin' places that I've never been.
Seein' things that I may never see again…




I have the opportunity to spend July and at least some of August traveling, and of course recording images with Canon cameras. Given the uniqueness of the opportunity I’m going to add a lens, and that requires a decision. I’m soliciting useful thinking on the matter. There are at least a few people here whose opinions I would value.

Two SLR cameras are going along on the trip:

EOS T2i

EOS-1V (film)

A 5d would go along if Canon would unplug their keister and start selling some new products! As soon as the 5d3 is born I will get one and match it up with a 24-70 that I can either get now or later. But that match up can’t happen in the next few weeks.

Lenses making the trip:

EF-S 15-85
EF 50
EF-S 60 (macro)
EF 135L
EF 70-200L

While landscape is not my main interest, there will be lots of it along this trip:

Depart Calaveras County, CA and head up the coast. I know there are lots of images along that coast. Work the west coast up to Seattle. Turn right at Everett and set out on U.S. Route 2, the northernmost U.S. east-west highway. This crosses the whole northern tier, goes through Glacier National Park, the big sky prairies of Montana and ND and MN into Duluth with good views of Lake Superior. The old Burlington Northern rail line parallels much of Rt. 2 so there will be trains to shoot at various scenic places. Then it’s across the MI UP and into Mackinac. I want to go over to Mackinac Island and shoot the Mac bridge from there. Unfortunately, in July or August I probably won’t have the drama of fog, but it’s a great bridge and night shots may be impressive. Then it’s south down through MI and east through Ohio and then across the backroads of northern PA (Alleghenies) and into NJ where the trip ends – let’s say Cape May.

My real passion is candid portraits and “street photography,” such as it is in rural areas. So I’ll be spending time in the towns and getting images of the folk along the way.

As for the lenses. The 24-70 is a sure purchase at some point as I’ll make that a staple with the 5d3. For this trip, it doesn’t seem to add much as the 15-85 covers that range. (And the 15-85 I have has been tweaked by Canon and is capable of really great IQ.) But the 24-70 quality would be a great addition for the film work on the 1V. Otherwise I’m doing film landscapes with the 50mm.

The 100-400 adds a lot of range, but, unlike the 24-70, it was not something I planned to buy and own. In April, I rented one and was very impressed with the ease of use and IQ overall. It seems like it may be useful on this trip for long shots at trains and with some seascapes and especially some of the flat plains areas where such a focal length can create interesting effects. Anyway, I believe if I owned a 100-400 it would be used enough to be worthwhile. So I seriously consider getting it now. (A Canon refurb is $1359, a good buy and around the same price as the 24-70.) And a word to the big spenders – no, I’m not getting both! Oh, and the 24-105 is not a consideration; just don’t like it.

Thanks if you have some thoughts on this. It may help my decision process. Also, if anyone has suggestions of must see places/things/people along that route, let me know. My time frame is wide open, and I’m willing to go far and wide for good stuff.

So, do you choose the 24-70 and add better quality and range with the film camera for this trip and already have it when Canon finally graces us with the 5d3?

Or do you choose the 100-400 and add a whole new dimension? If I get the 100-400 now I still get the 24-70 when the 5d3 eventually shows up so the “either or” is only for this trip.

Finally, this is all just personal stuff. It’s been a long time since I was being paid to take pictures, and I won’t be doing that for this trip.

Thanks.
Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

canon rumors FORUM

24-70L or 100-400L ??
« on: June 09, 2011, 03:33:36 AM »

Flake

  • Guest
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2011, 04:08:00 AM »
It's a bit difficult to comment, there are three 50mm lenses in the range & you don't say which one, there are potentially five 70 - 200mm L lenses, but again you don't say which.  For certain I'd leave the 135mm at home, especially if the 70 - 200mm is an f/2.8

If it is an f/2.8 consider a 2x TC to get you to 400mm and save some weight, if you don't have the f/2.8 IS L II then I'd recommend you sell the one you have and buy one, possibly sell the 135mm too, there's only one stop between them.

I can't recommend the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 on the strength you might buy a FF camera in the future, especially as everyone expects there to be a replacement in the near future.  40mm - 112mm is not an attractive range in a carry round standard zoom, and it doubles up on the 15 - 85mm, the only benefit being the faster aperture.

The 100 - 400mm is a nice enough lens, but the IS could do with an update, it'll hold it's value and if you need the length then go for it.  Do remember there are third party offerings which offer even more reach for a little less money.

If I were in your position looking at your lens collection I'd be wanting a Canon 10 - 20mm or the excellent Sigma 8 - 16mm for the wide angle landscapes & city scapes.  Although the 15 - 85mm is good enough its strengths do not lie at the wide end, whereas the other two are superb performers.

7enderbender

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2011, 08:29:02 AM »
That's not an easy question because there are a few things going on here at the same time. One thing that sticks out to me is that you are now using two different formats so your lenses behave differently on your 1V and your Rebel. And once you go full frame with your digital camera as well you'll have to decide what to do with the EF-S lenses. Honestly, all this is exactly the problem why I never went near digital until recently when I finally decided to shell out some doe for a 5DII and a few EF lenses.

If, however, for your prefered shooting (e.g. street photography and portraits) you are happy with the "reach" you are getting from the EF lenses then you may have to rethink a few things. And you didn't say what your preferred lenses for any given situation are.

So given that I don't know your preferences I can only speak from my experience. For the long end, I decided against the 70-200 and went with the 200 2.8LII. Again, this is on full frame. Love this lens and wouldn't want to swap it for any of the zooms. The 135L you already have. The 24-70 is next on your list and that makes perfect sense when going full frame. In my opinion, you're pretty much set at that point. Leaves the question if you need wider than 24mm or if you want to add another high quality prime for your street photography like a good 50mm or 85. You already have a 50 so you may be set in that department already.

Am I biased towards primes? Yep. When I'm finally done filling my bag there will only be the 24-70 and perhaps the 16-35 as far as zooms are concerned. Add a 50, 85, 135 and 200 and you're done. Gives you a lot of choices even when travelling depending on how much stuff you want or can carry.

For a trip like your's I'd then take a full frame camera (what's your beef with the current 5DII?? And what do you expect from a 5DIII that you're lacking now??), a 50, the 24-70 and the 135. And a flash and a cheap macro extender. Done.

And to suggest something radical: I'd get rid of the Rebel and EF-S lenses, buy the 24-70 and stick it on the film camera and make the trip with a bag full of slide and B&W film...and/or trade the 70-200 for a 5DII or 1DsII.



5DII - 50L - 135L - 200 2.8L - 24-105 - 580EXII - 430EXII - FD 500/8 - AE1-p - bag full of FD lenses

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13594
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2011, 10:10:00 AM »
Sounds like a great trip!

First off, I'd echo Flake's comment - you have no ultrawide in your kit.  15mm on APS-C is 24mm on FF, which depending on your shooting style may be wide enough.  So, at that end you could get a 17-40mm f/4L to go on your 1V, or an EF-S 10-22mm for your T2i - the lenses are approximately the same cost.  Given the choice, I'd go with the 10-22mm on the Rebel.  Comparing 10-22mm on crop with 17-40mm on FF, the 10-22mm has less distortion, less vignetting, and equivalent resolution (worse in the center but better in the corners, and that's despite the huge resolution advantage of the 5DII's sensor that I'm using for comparison purposes).  The 10-22mm holds it's value well - after using mine for almost a year, I sold it for $50 less than I paid when I added a 5DII and 16-35mm II to my kit).

Personally, I do think you'll want something longer than 200mm in your kit.  While 200mm on a 1.6x crop will give adequate reach for candids and street photography, sometimes 400mm will be useful.  Also, longer lenses are very useful for landscape shooting - in particular for sunsets along the west coast.  If you have happen to have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, that lens does hold up well with a 2x II Extender.  The other 70-200/2.8 lenses suffer a substantial negative impact on IQ with the 2x, and if you have an f/4 version, you lose AF with the 2x extender (even on your -1V, which unlike 1-series dSLRs does not have an f/8-sensitive center AF point).

The 100-400mm is an excellent lens, as you've experienced.  It's great for landscape shots, and would also allow even more candid candids.

So, that's one possible solution - an EF-S 10-22mm and a 2x extender if your 70-200 supports that.  Else, given the choice between the 24-70 and the 100-400mm, for this trip I'd recommend the 100-400mm.  You've got the range of the 24-70mm covered by the 15-85mm.

Regardless of your decision, have a great trip!

Ps. if you don't have a good tripod, I'd prioritize that over another lens...
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1428
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2011, 09:01:48 PM »

Thanks for taking the time to comment. It's helpful, although I'm too cheap to make a decision quickly. I'll let you know what happens. Meanwhile, a few comments in response to questions & suggestions:

1. Yes, there's an obvious deficiency in the wide-angle range. It's not a priority for me. Though not the best IQ, obviously, the wide end of the 15-85 and the 24-70 are fine for anything I want to do. Maybe one day, I'll get a serious wide lens, but not right now.

2. This is a move and being done by car -- so everything goes. The only weight I plan on saving is the stuff I'm giving away and selling off before packing up and leaving. So, while not relevant to my lens decision, I also have some 35-mm rangefinders and a medium format film camera and for nutty fun I even have a range of old 110-film cameras, including a Pentax SLR.

3. My beef with the 5D2? No beef. I hate buying something today only to find out in a few months I could have a better one along with six months of free helicopter rides and a lifetime supply of lollipops. Since I don't have a compelling reason to get one today, I'm willing to wait out our Canon masters. Also,  I can see then what the overall DSLR and lens landscape looks like at that point.

4. Bag of film? I already have a refrig full of b & w and color reversals -- and all are going along.

5. Get rid of T2i and ef-s lenses? No, once I have the 5d3, they're backup with slightly different capabilities, and they produce images I'm satisfied with, and they perform adequately for me.

6. Tripod? Very good thought. Already covered. I almost never use flash so the tripod and a stick are always along for the ride.

Thanks for the good wishes. Again, I'll let you know when I decide. And if anyone wants the vicarious experience, I'll be documenting real time, probably via Web log.
Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

Heidrun

  • Guest
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2011, 03:28:36 AM »
24-70 , or 100-400.
I would say if you wanna take landcape and sports. The two of the is needed. These two are so different in zoomrange that you cant say that or that

aldvan

  • Guest
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2011, 05:58:33 AM »
Considering the lenses that you already have, I strongly suggest you the 100-400L. This is the lens that I use more travelling, something like a standard lens. Coupled with a FF it's able to cover a huge range of situations, less radical than it seems. And it is also lovable for small details and some occasional macro, due to an excellent bokeh. It couldn't have the most updated IS, but it is still possible shooting without a tripod at maximum extension in good light condition. The above is partially less true coupled with an APS-C sensor. In that case it becomes a little more radical lens, as with my 7D, but since you are planning to go for a FF in the future, it is a great choice. Although it isn't completely weatherproof, it is solid as a rock and the pump action is very fast to actuate. I'm afraid, furthermore, that a future replacement of the 100-400 will be fantastic but also hugely expensive...
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 09:04:47 AM by aldvan »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2011, 05:58:33 AM »

unfocused

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1919
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2011, 06:05:33 PM »
I know I'm late to the party but here is my free advice (and worth every penny):

I think it's a no-brainer. Go for the 100-400mm from the refurbished store. It's a great price and a great lens. For a trip like this, having something longer than a 200mm along seems critically important. You've already got the 15-85mm which is the same focal length at the wide end. And, at that wide end, you are losing less than one f-stop with the 15-85 vs. the 24-70.

But, here's the thing: lenses go in and out of stock quickly at the refurbished store. The 100-400 is in stock now but there is no guarantee that it will be in stock in a week or so, so I would not waste time agonizing over the decision or else you may be out of luck when you finally decide.

Frankly, you can use the lens for the trip and then, if you need to, sell it and probably not lose much if anything.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

ronderick

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2011, 11:18:27 PM »
Well, I'm REALLY Late here  ;D

But anyways, echoing unfocused here, the 100-400 is probably a good choice given the amount of outdoor areas u'll have to cover. While a bit heavy for ur T2i, I think it's a pretty good combo during the travel between towns.

Now, since u have the 1V, you should take advantage of the 35mm film: try to get ur hands on the 85/1.2L. While I think this lens has a focusing speed comparable to a turtle, it is one of the best portrait/low light lens.

I think if ur going to cover so many towns along the northern route, u want the top portrait setup when u meet those interesting people along the way. I'm sure zooms could be handled by ur 15-85 on the T2i.

PS: I sure hope u bring a flash, especially for those portraits taken with the sunset in the background.
Canon EOS 1D MKIV, EF 24-105mm F/4L, EF 70-200mm F/2.8L, TS-E 17mm F/4L, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
FujiFilm FinePix X100

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1428
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2011, 06:20:28 PM »

RESOLUTION:

I ordered the 100-400mm from Canon refurb today.

Thanks for the good comments and the clear thinking. The push from Unfocused helped as I've experienced that very thing with the refurb store.

As for the 85, 1.2 I'd love to have one and perhaps one day I will. Maybe I'll rent one for some part of this trip.

Thanks again.
Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

unfocused

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1919
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2011, 11:05:29 PM »
One last thing. You mentioned a "stick." Do you mean a monopod?

I've used one with the 100-400 and let me tell you it is very useful. Helps hold and steady the lens without being nearly as confining as a tripod. What I like about a monopod is that you can lean your rig up or down or to the side to adjust to the subject and compose the shot.

Anyway. Good luck and have fun.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13594
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2011, 08:28:48 AM »
I've used one with the 100-400 and let me tell you it is very useful. Helps hold and steady the lens without being nearly as confining as a tripod. What I like about a monopod is that you can lean your rig up or down or to the side to adjust to the subject and compose the shot.

Agreed - I use a Manfrotto 694CX CF Monopod with 234RC tilt head.  It's light and easy to carry on a hike.  I find that if I slightly loosen both the 234RC head and the tripod collar on the 100-400mm, just enough so they move but maintain some tension on them, it behaves almost like a gimball, allowing movement while maintaining support.  I often use that method to shoot BIF.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-70L or 100-400L ??
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2011, 08:28:48 AM »