The f/4 Pentacon

[JumboShrimp]

Leaving for a trip pretty soon, and wanted to assemble the best range, lightest weight, reasonable speed, and affordable outfit I could, and ended up with these five guys I dubbed "The f/4 Pentacon". Did not set out to select all of them with f/4 but it just sort of happened that way. No real questions or issues here, just thought it was interesting to share ...
8-15/4 L
16-35/4 L IS
24-70/4 L IS
70-200/4 L IS
300/4 L IS

 

[Famateur]

Cool! I was just thinking about these same lenses today. Just ordered the 24-70 F4L IS and the 70-200 F4L IS (arriving tomorrow!). Was thinking that someday adding a 16-35 F4L IS would round-out the range I would most often need. Would love to have the 2.8 versions, but cost (!) and then weight are a big deal to me.

How do you like your 24-70 and 70-200? Anxious to get my hands on them tomorrow and find out for myself...

 

[deleteme]

Saw the headline and thought you were going retro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacon

 

[DARSON]

Leaving for a trip pretty soon, and wanted to assemble the best range, lightest weight, reasonable speed, and affordable outfit I could, and ended up with these five guys I dubbed "The f/4 Pentacon". Did not set out to select all of them with f/4 but it just sort of happened that way. No real questions or issues here, just thought it was interesting to share ...
8-15/4 L
16-35/4 L IS
24-70/4 L IS
70-200/4 L IS
300/4 L IS

If only 200-400mm F4 Tele would be much lighter and more affordable you would have perfect quintet
By replacing 300mm F4

 

[JumboShrimp]

Cool! I was just thinking about these same lenses today. Just ordered the 24-70 F4L IS and the 70-200 F4L IS (arriving tomorrow!). Was thinking that someday adding a 16-35 F4L IS would round-out the range I would most often need. Would love to have the 2.8 versions, but cost (!) and then weight are a big deal to me.

How do you like your 24-70 and 70-200? Anxious to get my hands on them tomorrow and find out for myself...

Hello Famateur: Both the 24-70 and 70-200 are nice lenses to work with: light, pretty compact, sharp!, and they just naturally fit the hands. I think you'll like them.

 

[JumboShrimp]

Saw the headline and thought you were going retro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacon

Yes, a blast from the past. Gone but not forgotten.

 

[mrzero]

The proper term would be either pentad or quintet. But I probably would've called it The Pentaverate.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/So_I_Married_an_Axe_Murderer

 

[JonAustin]

Seems like a lot of lens swaps, unless you're also taking multiple bodies.

For travel, I would probably replace the 16-35 and 24-70 with the 24-105 (presuming you have one) and leave the 300 at home.

 

[mrzero]

Seems like a lot of lens swaps, unless you're also taking multiple bodies.

For travel, I would probably replace the 16-35 and 24-70 with the 24-105 (presuming you have one) and leave the 300 at home.

I wouldn't (at least as far as the wide/standard zooms are concerned). If you've made the decision to bring five lenses, I presume you know what you're doing, where you're going, and how you plan on using them. I never understand why people complain about changing lenses. That's the whole point of having a camera system like this. Sure, the 24-105 is good, but the 24-70 is great (in my experience) and so is the new 16-35 (according to most reviews). With the overlap between the standard and the ultrawide, I'm sure you can gauge which is more appropriate for the situation and manage accordingly, even if you only have one body.

As for the 300, it all depends on where you're going and what you're photographing, which we don't know. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, because I don't hear about it much and I'm curious for real-world opinions. It seems like a nice budget telephoto option for those of us who won't ever buy a great white.

 

[ScottyP]

Since the 5 are all f/4, shouldn't it be something like "the pentaQUADrigon" or the "quadro-pentaculous team" or something, to get both the 5 and the 4 in there somehow?

 

[ScottyP]

Quite a thorough coverage of all the focal ranges there. My only thing is I would feel a little naked without even one lens faster than f/4, even if it was just a little 35mm like the f/2 by Canon or f/1.4 by Sigma. If I was shooting living/moving stuff that goes indoors or that needs photographed at night. Would not matter for landscapes, etc., on a tripod.

 

[JonAustin]

Seems like a lot of lens swaps, unless you're also taking multiple bodies.

For travel, I would probably replace the 16-35 and 24-70 with the 24-105 (presuming you have one) and leave the 300 at home.

I wouldn't (at least as far as the wide/standard zooms are concerned). If you've made the decision to bring five lenses, I presume you know what you're doing, where you're going, and how you plan on using them. I never understand why people complain about changing lenses. That's the whole point of having a camera system like this. Sure, the 24-105 is good, but the 24-70 is great (in my experience) and so is the new 16-35 (according to most reviews). With the overlap between the standard and the ultrawide, I'm sure you can gauge which is more appropriate for the situation and manage accordingly, even if you only have one body.

As for the 300, it all depends on where you're going and what you're photographing, which we don't know. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, because I don't hear about it much and I'm curious for real-world opinions. It seems like a nice budget telephoto option for those of us who won't ever buy a great white.

Regarding lens choices for travel, it all depends on the OP's destinations, photographic objectives, etc., as you say. As for swapping lenses, that all depends on where you're doing the swapping. In the hotel room prior to an outing, sure. Out on a trail or in a crowded venue, not so much.

As for the lenses, I have the 16-35/4 and agree that it's great, but I have to have a specific wide-angle objective to take it when I travel. As for the 24-70/4 vs. 24-105/4, I'm on my 2nd 24-105, and appreciate the extra reach. While its image quality may be ever so slightly diminished in the 71-105mm range, it's completely on par with the 24-70/4 in the overlapping FL range, based on the reviews I've read. (Which is why I replaced my first 24-105 with another, rather than going the 24-70/4 route.)

 

[Sanaraken]

I did like the size and weight of the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4IS, but when I got the 24-70II and 70-200II. I sold the f4's. Now my go to lenses are 16-35 f4 and 70-200II. I kind of miss the 70-200 f4IS or get the 70-300L.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Pentacon was the name of an East German camera/lens manufacturer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacon

My first thought was why would a Canon owner want to adapt Pentacon lenses to his Canon camera ???

Never-mind

 

[IMG_0001]

Since the 5 are all f/4, shouldn't it be something like "the pentaQUADrigon" or the "quadro-pentaculous team" or something, to get both the 5 and the 4 in there somehow?

I like 'The quintet of 4'...

 

[JumboShrimp]

OP here, and I commend all you folks who commented on the "Pentacon" thingy. Actually it was chosen very much on purpose in reverence to the Pentacon brand of old. (I still like my initial choices, BTW, but much appreciate the commentary.)

 

[tyger11]

The f/4 Lenses of the Photocalypse!

 

[mrzero]

The f/4 Lenses of the Photocalypse!

The f/4 Horsemen of the Photocalypse?