Advice

[dimoko]

Hi guys, first time poster here, but i wanted some advice.

a few years ago a bought a 30D kit from B&H that came with a 17-85 HSM lens. Wasn't the best lens, but serviceable. Also bought a 70/200F4.L at the time, because i liked taking airplane pictures. A few years later i sold the 70-200 and got a 100-400L, needing the better reach for my airplane hobby.

Last year i bought a new 7D, and i have loved it so far, especially with my 100-400, but the 17-85 is probably seeing the end of its useful life, and i'd like to find something else.

I was thinking it would be time to get some L glass for my everyday use lens, but i don't really have a spare $1500 sitting around. What i do have is this 100-400 lens that is still worth quite a bit (at least until the new one comes out)

considering selling that, buying an 24-70 F2.8L (version 1) or a 24-105 F4, or maybe the new tamron 24-70. and perhaps a lesser quality long reach lens for airplanes. I'm always shooting in good light, but focus speed and accuracy is a big deal.

Was wondering if anyone has had any success with sigma/tamron/canon non-L lenses up about the 300mm mark? Would i regret not having the L for my occasional plane spotting?

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

If I were in your position I would downgrade the 100-400 to the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 IS. Not L but still good build quality and optical quality. I would then pick up a Version 1 24-70 2.8L. My only reservation on the version 1 is the weight. It is very heavy for the size/focal length.

I think the 24-70L or the 16-35L are my 2 favorite walk around lens...

 

[AmbientLight]

For shooting planes you should definitely not sell your 100-400. Just wait until you can add a 24-70 or 24-105 without selling the 100-400. If I were you I would not compromise image quality in the long focal length range by switching to a lesser lens.

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

For shooting planes you should definitely not sell your 100-400. Just wait until you can add a 24-70 or 24-105 without selling the 100-400. If I were you I would not compromise image quality in the long focal length range by switching to a lesser lens.

I agree... I read the word occasional and thought that this is not a priority... The IQ on the 70-300 is very good... you just lose the last bit of zoom.

But the question is which focal range is more important to you? wide-standard or tele?

 

[well_dunno]

How about keeping the 100-400 and going for an ef-s lens, like 15-85 when possible? It costs considerably less than 24-105 but is a good lens with a very handy range...

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

How about keeping the 100-400 and going for an ef-s lens, like 15-85 when possible? It costs considerably less than 24-105 but is a good lens with a very handy range...

The poster did suggest that the 17-85 IQ was just not cutting it any longer... I assume they are thinking L quality.

 

[Random Orbits]

How about keeping the 100-400 and going for an ef-s lens, like 15-85 when possible? It costs considerably less than 24-105 but is a good lens with a very handy range...

+1. 24-70 and 24-105 have more value for FF.

 

[dr croubie]

How about keeping the 100-400 and going for an ef-s lens, like 15-85 when possible? It costs considerably less than 24-105 but is a good lens with a very handy range...

The poster did suggest that the 17-85 IQ was just not cutting it any longer... I assume they are thinking L quality.

The EF-s 15-85 is just about as good as L quality, except for lack of weather sealing, ditto the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 (but that's getting into L-price territory).
Question is, if you keep the 100-400L, ditch the 17-85 and buy the 24-105 or 24-70, are you going to miss the 17-24 range? 24mm on crop is sort of wide, but not really wide enough for any useful landscapes unless you stitch. So before you start selling anything, decide if you want wider than 24mm; if you do, then get an EF-s, or get the 24-xL and consider as EF-s 10-22 as well.

So i'd recommend EF-s 15-85 + 100-400L.
Other options are 15-85 or 24-105, plus the 400 f/5.6L.
Or 15-85 or 24-105L, plus the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x extender to 420/4 or 2x extender to a fuzzier 600/5.6 if needs be.

 

[dimoko]

Thanks for. The response guys, one more bit of info, I have the sigma 10-20 for the wide angles and also have the 50mm 1.4.

I'm wondering if ibshould cash out on the 100-400 value while I can still get a good price for it.

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

Thanks for. The response guys, one more bit of info, I have the sigma 10-20 for the wide angles and also have the 50mm 1.4.

I'm wondering if ibshould cash out on the 100-400 value while I can still get a good price for it.

thats the beautiful thing about L glass... It holds its value very well... It is hard to find L glass cheap even if its not is perfect condition. Dont worry about that... you'll get good money for it... it can just be hard to find a buyer somtimes.

 

[IIIHobbs]

If I were in your position I would downgrade the 100-400 to the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 IS. Not L but still good build quality and optical quality.

I agree with this recommendation unless you fing that most of your airplane photos are take at 300mm plus.

To replace the 17-85 the 16-35mm f2.8 II is great lens on a crop body.