Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..

[birdman]

I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget:

24-105L
70-200/4 IS L

** I will have buy the two lenses above, in addition to currently owning: 1) 17-40L, 2) 35/1.4L, 3)100mm macro, & 4) 50mm 1.8 Mk 1

This is my budget to the max. I am selling my 28-135 & 70-300 IS (non-L) and may even sell my 100mm macro. Am I making a good decision, guys? Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms. This is the absolute best I can afford!! Thanks

 

[wickidwombat]

they are both excellent quality zooms nothing to worry about there.
I would possibly consider replacing the 100mm macro with the 85 f1.8 (bargain lens)
if you dont shoot much macro that is since on ff fast 85mm are just stunning for portraits great bokeh
and that also gives you that low light ability you lose with the f4 70-200 (which is damn sharp at f4 BTW)

 

[bdunbar79]

Well, first, I think there is a big misconception that f/2.8 lenses are "better" than f/4 lenses. This couldn't be further from the truth. As one example, look at Bryan Carnathan's ISO Charts and compare the 70-200mm f/4L IS vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L. The f/4L IS is sharper at all f/stops center frame in all comparisons, despite the latter being an L lens as well and an f/2.8 lens. The problem is that people think that just because a lens has a wider aperture it peforms optically better and this is just not the case. Yes it would perform better in low light, but guess what, they make tripods. I've shot many, many low light images with f/4L lenses on a tripod. Shutter speed and aperture can both be traded off depending on f/stop. I think the 24-105mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses are superb lenses and I've shot some of my best photos with each! I am still amazed at how sharp the 24-105 is at f/4 during daylight. Those lenses are fantastic. Also, the 17-40 is fantastic. Even if you get the 24-105, keep it. I know this is not your scenario here, but I knew a pro who didn't buy the 16-35mm f/2.8L II because he saw better value in buying the 17-40mm f/4L and the 24 f/1.4L instead. Since you have a 35 f/1.4L, there's not much difference here. With your lenses, you will shoot fantastic images at a wide variety of focal lengths. If funding is available, I'd say try to keep the 100 macro too. If not, oh well, you're 70-200 will cover it.

 

[Razor2012]

Well, first, I think there is a big misconception that f/2.8 lenses are "better" than f/4 lenses. This couldn't be further from the truth. As one example, look at Bryan Carnathan's ISO Charts and compare the 70-200mm f/4L IS vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L. The f/4L IS is sharper at all f/stops center frame in all comparisons, despite the latter being an L lens as well and an f/2.8 lens. The problem is that people think that just because a lens has a wider aperture it peforms optically better and this is just not the case. Yes it would perform better in low light, but guess what, they make tripods. I've shot many, many low light images with f/4L lenses on a tripod. Shutter speed and aperture can both be traded off depending on f/stop. I think the 24-105mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses are superb lenses and I've shot some of my best photos with each! I am still amazed at how sharp the 24-105 is at f/4 during daylight. Those lenses are fantastic. Also, the 17-40 is fantastic. Even if you get the 24-105, keep it. I know this is not your scenario here, but I knew a pro who didn't buy the 16-35mm f/2.8L II because he saw better value in buying the 17-40mm f/4L and the 24 f/1.4L instead. Since you have a 35 f/1.4L, there's not much difference here. With your lenses, you will shoot fantastic images at a wide variety of focal lengths. If funding is available, I'd say try to keep the 100 macro too. If not, oh well, you're 70-200 will cover it.

The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.

 

[wickidwombat]

i think bdunbar79 was talking about the mk1 which wasnt so great

 

[Razor2012]

i think bdunbar79 was talking about the mk1 which wasnt so great

He was...I was just saying how the II is the new king.

 

[wickidwombat]

i think bdunbar79 was talking about the mk1 which wasnt so great

He was...I was just saying how the II is the new king.

it is (as far as zooms go anyway)
but if budget limited a much cheaper 85mm prime will give equal if not better IQ
sigma 85mm f1.4

 

[paul13walnut5]

Any test I've seen puts the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS ahead of the IS mk1 and almost equal to the f4IS.

I wanted the extra AF performance an f2.8 brings no matter your shooting aperture.

The need for this performance would depend on how much you need to squeeze out of the 5D2's AF.

It seems daft to sell your macro when you have lots of duplication elsewhere.

I would sell the 17-40 f4 and get a 16-35 f2.8LII and 70-200 f2.8L nonIS, you have a 50mm f1.8 int here to reduce the gap between the zooms and keep your macro.

But that's me speaking as a video guy and sometime sports shooter.

 

[bdunbar79]

i think bdunbar79 was talking about the mk1 which wasnt so great

He was...I was just saying how the II is the new king.

Hey, I'm not gonna argue there. I have the version II with IS and it beats everything or is just as sharp as everything I own for what I shoot. Great lens and worth saving the money and buying.

 

[EOBeav]

Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.

 

[Loswr]

Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms.

Canon's f/4 zooms are excellent! If you need to stop action in low light and require the flexibility of a zoom, the f/2.8 is a better choice. If you're going to use the 70-200mm for portraits, again the f/2.8 would be a better choice. But for most applications, the f/4 is just fine, and is much easier on the arms and wallet.

 

[Zo0m]

An used Tamron 28-75 2.8 seems an excellent option here. In Sweden they are 600 usd cheaper then used Canon 24-105. They also seem about equally sharp, you lose out on a 3-stop IS but get one f-stop in lens speed instead. You also get to keep 600 usd

 

[NormanBates]

like paul13walnut5, I also don't see the point of the 24-105 when you have all those other lenses

* 17-40 f/4L (or upgrade to 16-35 f/2.8L)
* 35 f/1.4L
* 50 f/1.8
* 100 macro
* 70-200

looks like a great collection to me

I'd only add the 24-105 or 24-70 if I wanted to have a zoom so I could leave everything else at home, and for some reason I didn't deem the 17-40 good enough for that

as for the 70-200, I think I'd go for one of these:
* canon 70-200 f/4L IS if I want IS and a smaller lens
* tamron 70-200 f/2.8 if I need the speed
* canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II if I have money to spare and don't mind the extra weight

I don't think the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS is any sharper than the f/4L IS: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

the tamron is not ultra-sharp either, but it's a solid performer, bokeh is great, and it's a lot cheaper
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=470&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-200mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012GLHL2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337697947&sr=8-1&tag=similaar-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000EXR0SI

 

[NormanBates]

I wouldn't say the tamron 28-75 is stellar... the new 24-70 f/2.8 is much better, but still no match for the (admittedly more expensive) canon L zooms
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=366&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


and even if you don't need the IS, the 70-200 f/4L IS is sharper than its non-IS brother:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
not to say the non-IS is bad at all... but for that price I'd go for the tamron 70-200 f/2.8, which is sharper and a stop faster
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=470&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

 

[Dylan777]

I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget:

24-105L
70-200/4 IS L

** I will have buy the two lenses above, in addition to currently owning: 1) 17-40L, 2) 35/1.4L, 3)100mm macro, & 4) 50mm 1.8 Mk 1

This is my budget to the max. I am selling my 28-135 & 70-300 IS (non-L) and may even sell my 100mm macro. Am I making a good decision, guys? Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms. This is the absolute best I can afford!! Thanks

I haven't try the f4 70-200 so no comments.

Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II is one of the BEST zoom lens - IQ is amazing. Tacksharp even at 2.8, great Bokeh when needed.

 

[Bob Howland]

Your choices look fine to me. I'm puzzled why you would sell the 100 macro since, on those rare occasions when I shoot a formal head & shoulder portrait, that is the lens I grab. (I also own an 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2 but I'm not a fan of minimal DOF portraits.) The macro lens is, if anything, too sharp for portraits but too much resolution is better than too little.

 

[tron]

The f/4L zooms are excellent. I would keep the 100mm macro though...

 

[kwwalla]

Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.

If you hand hold (event shooter), then the IS is priceless. Especially at the longer focal lengths! Will also help negate (to some degree) the slower apperature by allowing one to use slower shutter speeds.

 

[preppyak]

like paul13walnut5, I also don't see the point of the 24-105 when you have all those other lenses

* 17-40 f/4L (or upgrade to 16-35 f/2.8L)
* 35 f/1.4L
* 50 f/1.8
* 100 macro
* 70-200

looks like a great collection to me

I'd only add the 24-105 or 24-70 if I wanted to have a zoom so I could leave everything else at home, and for some reason I didn't deem the 17-40 good enough for that

as for the 70-200, I think I'd go for one of these:
* canon 70-200 f/4L IS if I want IS and a smaller lens
* tamron 70-200 f/2.8 if I need the speed
* canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II if I have money to spare and don't mind the extra weight

Yeah, I was thinking the same, and depending on your usage, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS would end up costing you just slightly more than the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4's combined. You've got the wide covered with the 17-40. You've got the normal range covered with primes (35 and 50), and you've got the longer side covered with the 70-200 you get. Depending on how much macro you do, that would decide whether you keep that.

Another play, if you don't want to lug around the heavier 70-200 f/2.8, is to get the 70-200 f/4L IS, then take the $8-900 you'd have spent on the 24-105 and update your 50mm prime and get the 85mm prime. Then you'd be set for low light (primes), landscape (17-40), and portrait/travel (70-200 and primes).

Also, I owned the Tamron 28-75, and I now own the 70-200 f4L IS. There's really no comparison, I liked the Tamron, but I found the AF lacking and the image quality, while nice, doesn't match the L's. If you're other lenses are Canon, you'll notice the difference in color and contrast as well. I love the 70-200, it's on my camera probably 75% of the time.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.

The best argument for the f/4 IS version is that it uses a new optical formula, and is noticibly sharper than the non IS f/4 version.

The other reason is that you don't need a tripod for ordinary walk around shots. Around here, in at least one of my favorite popular photographic places, use of a camera on tripod is banned. And this is a out of the way city! http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/05/gardens-popularity-upends-its-calm/

Obviously, I avoid it like the plague on weekends!

I think that many areas in the USA that have a lot of people now ban tripods.

Nishinomiya Japanese Garden

http://www.mount-spokane-photography.com/Travel/Washington-State-Scenes/Spokane/i-CH636FX/0/X2/Canon-EOS-40D-IMG0962-X2.jpg