Lens upgrade question: I am going to upgrade and buy 2 canon L lenses, I think. I want to get the 24-105 and 1 longer lens. I am looking at the 70-300 L and the 100-400 L and really...

RaydancePhoto

I am going to upgrade and buy 2 canon L lenses, I think. I want to get the 24-105 and 1 longer lens. I am looking at the 70-300 L and the 100-400 L and really not sure which one to get. I am also not opposed to other brands, so I would like your opinions on what lenses to get. I must have IS, not as steady as I used to be.

I shoot everything, I am not real big into birds etc, but do shoot them occasionally. I mainly do people and flowers. I have a couple good macro lenses. my favorite lenses right now are the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 50mm.

Going to sell my Tamron 18-270 and Tamron SP 70-300 VC and replace with the 24-105 and ?

notnoBuddha

I would go with the longer one as with the other combo you are paying for a lot of overlap annd losing the use of a longer lens, the 300 to 400 range.

RaydancePhoto

The more I read about lenses the more confused I get. Ken Rockwell says the 28-135mm IS Canon is his favorite over the Canon 24-105 L. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm He says the 24-105 is not worth the extra money.

I dont want to buy another good lens, I want to buy a great lens, so still leaning tword the 24-105

larrycumba

Between the 70-300 and the 100-400 if the sharpness is most important, I would get the 70-300. I have the 24-105 and like for indoor closeup at family gatherings. Keep wanting to get the 24-70 for the 2.8. I think I will wait and see how the Tamron version looks April 26th. I have a 28-135 and it is a good lens. I may be just brainwashed towards the L's. I never have tried them side by side to compare.

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

There is no right answer here. I like the Canon 24-105 L and use it often. To me it is a sure bet. You can find one for about $900 on line as several UHH members have posted recently (lists for $1,149).

I have the Canon 100-400mmL and find it OK but a little fuzzy past 300mm.

I use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and despite its weight (and price), find it to be very near perfect for so many tasks. I'm told it accepts a 1.4 teleconverter well, but I have not tried it.

Sigma makes great glass and at good prices, but I really love the solid feel and reliability of Canon L glass (if you can afford it). Many have trouble justifying them, but that is a matter of what you need, want, and your use.

nelsonsoper Loc: Christchurch New Zealand

Hi there

I have just bought the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lense and put a 2x mark 111 extender on it. Its amasing!!

Cheaper than getting the big lenses. So on my 7D it gives me great shots for sports and great for wild life.

No one will remember the price after a while but you will remember the great shots

Nelson

bee7474 Loc: Selah, Wa

I have both the 70-200 2.8 L is and the 100-400 L is. I prefer the 200. Think I will sell the 400 and try the 300.
Good luck and have fun shooting. Bee

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

For what you are doing I would also recommend this combo. A 70-200mm is actally a better portrait lens, city lens and people gathering lens than the other 2. With the 1.4x it will be a 280mm. I don't have experience with the 2x MkIII but everyone that I talked to hates the 2x MkII. The doublers make focusing slow or impossible. They make most shots soft. The 1.4x is much better but is not the same as the lens by itself. They will add a little reach when you need it though. You loose one stop with a 1.4x and two stops with the 2x. So that f2.8 is f4 with the 1.4x and f5.6 with the 2x extender.

If you did more birding and wildlife, I'd recommend the 100-400mm. I have this lens and use it frequently when I am exploring. I have a 70-200mm as well, but use it mostly on people or animals I know I am going to be close to like at the zoo. I used the 70-200 for really large animal like Elephant Seals too.

nelsonsoper wrote:

Hi there

I have just bought the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lense and put a 2x mark 111 extender on it. Its amasing!!

Cheaper than getting the big lenses. So on my 7D it gives me great shots for sports and great for wild life.

No one will remember the price after a while but you will remember the great shots

Nelson

rick21043 Loc: Ellicott City. Maryland

I have a ton of lenses up to the 800mm. There is some mis- information herein which should be cleared up.

The 2X lens extender works perfectly well with any lens that is 2.8 and back. F4 and above, you will not be happy.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

rick21043 wrote:

I have a ton of lenses up to the 800mm. There is some mis- information herein which should be cleared up.

The 2X lens extender works perfectly well with any lens that is 2.8 and back. F4 and above, you will not be happy.

If you like soft and slow focus!

rick21043 Loc: Ellicott City. Maryland

jeep_daddy wrote:

rick21043 wrote:

I have a ton of lenses up to the 800mm. There is some mis- information herein which should be cleared up.

The 2X lens extender works perfectly well with any lens that is 2.8 and back. F4 and above, you will not be happy.

If you like soft and slow focus!

Does this look like soft focus?

rick21043 Loc: Ellicott City. Maryland

rick21043 wrote:

jeep_daddy wrote:

rick21043 wrote:

I have a ton of lenses up to the 800mm. There is some mis- information herein which should be cleared up.

The 2X lens extender works perfectly well with any lens that is 2.8 and back. F4 and above, you will not be happy.

If you like soft and slow focus!

Does this look like soft focus?

Or this one

davejann Loc: Portland Oregon

jeep_daddy wrote:

For what you are doing I would also recommend this... (show quote)

I have heard from some usually reliable sources that the 2x mark III was developed precisely to deal with the problems in the MarkII. I have the 24-105 and sometimes wish I had gotten the 24-70 f2.8-no overlap with my 70-200 which is superb and more low light potential.

Dave

RaydancePhoto

I have been looking at the Sigma 120-400mm - with comparative tests, it looks as good or slightly better than the Canon 100-400.

One problem with me is that I live in the middle of nowhere, there are no camera stores within 150 miles. So trying these out is not an option for me. I may see if I can rent one for a week.

For my walk around lens, I still think the Canon 24-105 is the one I will get.

Rich Maher Loc: Sonoma County, CA

I have the 24-105 and the 100-400 with the 2x extender. Love them both. Yes the 100-400 with extender is slightly fuzzy around the edges at full power but I am not shooting for National Geographic and it is a lens I could afford. Bought them both used on ebay.