DionM
25th of January 2005 (Tue), 19:01
I'm looking to upgrade my lens collection.
Out of my current collection I think the 17-40 and 50 (and the 18-55) as the only two lenses I will keep. As my main use will be walkabout / travel whilst I would love the 70-200 f2.8 or the 100-400 IS I think they might be a bit heavy? Not to mention inconvenient to lug everywhere due to size.
I only really use the longer length for wildlife or motorsport (both in the bright sunshine, both where I can use a monopod, and both where I would not be carrying the lenses far) and where I think my current 100-300 is a little short.
In fact for most of my travels I have used my (now sold) 19-35 and 28-105; so I think the 17-100mm range suits me fairly well ... maybe just a little length would be ideal. I've rarely used the 100-300 when travelling, except for a few rare shots, and even then it was only a maximum of 200-250mm extension.
So while I love the 100-400, I don't think I would use it that much when travelling (if I don't use my 100-300 that much, would I use the 100-400 any more often?). Throw in its extra size and I wonder ...
And while I would love the 70-200 f2.8, I do wonder about its size and practicality as a walkabout/travel lens. The 200mm range would be ideal, and I would love the extra speed ... but at the cost of weight and size?
So what is practically screaming at me as a great choice is the 70-200 f4. It would marry great with my 17-40 and the 50; giving me quality coverage from 17-200mm. Which seems to fit in with my typical useage pattern. Plus everyone raves about it. In fact I nearly bought it instead of my 100-300 some years ago ... I wish now I had bought it instead. While I like my 100-300 ... it just isn't quite sharp enough I feel, and its performance is so-so when tracking birds etc.
What is left however is the 200+ range. While I suppose I could whack a 1.4x TC on the 70-200 f4, that gives me to 320. Not much longer than my current lens (and the same speed) but probably better quality?
Hence I am thinking of - once I have got the 70-200 f4 bedded down - and I know that I really want to get more length than my current 100-300; I would grab a Sigma 50-500. The 50-500 would be exclusively for wildlife, motorsport etc - places where I can use a monopod and I could restrict myself to just the 50-500 and my 17-40 to cover most occasions (50-500 on the track, 17-40 or 18-55 in the pits, for example).
So I guess I am weighing up the 70-200 f4 + 50-500 vs 70-200 f2.8 with 2x TC vs 100-400 IS.
Comments on some questions / issues I've raised?
PS: If only the 70-200 f4 had IS ... I'd buy it in a flash.
Out of my current collection I think the 17-40 and 50 (and the 18-55) as the only two lenses I will keep. As my main use will be walkabout / travel whilst I would love the 70-200 f2.8 or the 100-400 IS I think they might be a bit heavy? Not to mention inconvenient to lug everywhere due to size.
I only really use the longer length for wildlife or motorsport (both in the bright sunshine, both where I can use a monopod, and both where I would not be carrying the lenses far) and where I think my current 100-300 is a little short.
In fact for most of my travels I have used my (now sold) 19-35 and 28-105; so I think the 17-100mm range suits me fairly well ... maybe just a little length would be ideal. I've rarely used the 100-300 when travelling, except for a few rare shots, and even then it was only a maximum of 200-250mm extension.
So while I love the 100-400, I don't think I would use it that much when travelling (if I don't use my 100-300 that much, would I use the 100-400 any more often?). Throw in its extra size and I wonder ...
And while I would love the 70-200 f2.8, I do wonder about its size and practicality as a walkabout/travel lens. The 200mm range would be ideal, and I would love the extra speed ... but at the cost of weight and size?
So what is practically screaming at me as a great choice is the 70-200 f4. It would marry great with my 17-40 and the 50; giving me quality coverage from 17-200mm. Which seems to fit in with my typical useage pattern. Plus everyone raves about it. In fact I nearly bought it instead of my 100-300 some years ago ... I wish now I had bought it instead. While I like my 100-300 ... it just isn't quite sharp enough I feel, and its performance is so-so when tracking birds etc.
What is left however is the 200+ range. While I suppose I could whack a 1.4x TC on the 70-200 f4, that gives me to 320. Not much longer than my current lens (and the same speed) but probably better quality?
Hence I am thinking of - once I have got the 70-200 f4 bedded down - and I know that I really want to get more length than my current 100-300; I would grab a Sigma 50-500. The 50-500 would be exclusively for wildlife, motorsport etc - places where I can use a monopod and I could restrict myself to just the 50-500 and my 17-40 to cover most occasions (50-500 on the track, 17-40 or 18-55 in the pits, for example).
So I guess I am weighing up the 70-200 f4 + 50-500 vs 70-200 f2.8 with 2x TC vs 100-400 IS.
Comments on some questions / issues I've raised?
PS: If only the 70-200 f4 had IS ... I'd buy it in a flash.