filling in the 16-35, 100-400 gap...

[slacker]

Hypothetical situation... you've recently sold a home in California that has appreciated amazingly in the brief time you owned it and you're getting a phat tax return soon.

You have access to a 16-35L, 18-55, 100-400L IS lenses, and a 1.4 TC between you and a friend who sold you his old dRebel so he could upgrade to a 20D, knowing full well when you get hooked on a hobbie you get hooked real bad.

You're not a pro, but appreciate 'good' stuff and are not afraid to spend within reason for quality, performance, longevity, value-retention, etc... you'd wait and save a bit longer rather than buy something twice.

Ideally you'd love to fill the gap between the 16-35 and 100-400 with just one lens. You have access to the 28-135 IS, but that's after playing with the 16-35, 70-200 F4 and 100-400 IS... the 28-135 doesn't give you that good tingly feeling and still have an opportunity to return it for a refund. The 28-300 does't grab you either because of your access to the 100-400.

You spend lots of time outdoors, you take pics at outdoor club outings and now your gear is being asked to be used at a few weddings this summer.

You are gravitating towards the Canon 24-70 2.8, but are drawn to the 70-200 IS because it is the more expensive of the two since the recent windfall will not be available again.

You are an admitted gear/gadget fiend.

You can only get one, do you get the 24-70 2.8 or 70-200 IS, or is there another lens to consider?

Thanks.

[ed2day]

Given that you have the 100-400L, I'd go with the 24-70L. I'd miss the 35-70 gap more than 70-100 gap. Or since it's a one time windfall--get BOTH!

[joeseph]

I'm in a similar situation except there's no impending budget!

In your case I'd be going for a 24-70L although not sure for me wether the 20D or the 24-70L will be the next spend

[KevC]

24-70/2.8 for sure. Or you can save some money and get the 3rd party equivelents. They're very good. The Sigma 24-70 (or 24-60) or Tamron 28-75.

With the money you've saved, get the 70-200/4L or the Sigma 70-200/2.8 :D

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Right now I'm thinking just get the 24-70L and the 70-200mm f/4L for the same price as the 70-200 IS, but I get the impression that you already have, or have access too that lens? So your looking to upgrade from the 70-200 f/4L to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS or get the 24-70L right?

If that's so and you already have the 70-200 f/4, then I would definately go get that 24-70L!!!!! The 70-200 is a better focal length for outdoor slightly further away portrait shooting anyway. Most of the time you'd probably be using shorter focal lengths indoors. So there's no need for the f/2.8 on the 70-200 lens. The f/4 works fine outdoors. Only useful thing would be the IS, but woopty doo......

[ScottE]

Scrap the 100-400 and get a Sigma 50-500. Then get the Canon 24-70. Now you have complete coverage from 16 mm to 500 mm with overlap when you are uncertain which lens to use with only three lenses.

On a 20D you still don't have a real wide angle lens so you still need to get a 10-22.

I don't give a damn about tingly feelings, lens barrel colour or L brand names. The quality of the photos are all that count.

Scott

[slacker]

If the 50-500 Sigma had IS (or Sigma's equivalent) I'd consider it. I love being able to handhold the 100-400 at the long end and still get sharp images, so it's a keeper.

Hmmm. I am thinking more about the 24-70 now, with more group outings and weddings coming up this summer it most likely would get more use.

Thanks for all the input!!

[condyk]

The Sigma 80-400mm OS has ... erm, OS rather than IS!

I would maybe go the Tamron and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 route if I felt long wasn't my main interest. If largely outdoor shots, I may go for the Canon F4 version as more portable.

[ScottE]

If the 50-500 Sigma had IS (or Sigma's equivalent) I'd consider it. I love being able to handhold the 100-400 at the long end and still get sharp images, so it's a keeper.

That is the consideration. Is the longer focal length more important than IS? I use a tripod for most of my telephoto shots so I chose based on the focal length. There have been a few times I wished I had IS, but many times I was glad I had as much focal length as possible.

Scott

[Belmondo]

Scrap the 100-400 and get a Sigma 50-500.


---and a hernia. They don't call it Bigma for nothing.

FWIW, I'd never give up the 100-400 for the 50-500. You're giving up too much.

Try an intermediate prime like the 85mm f/1.8 or something, but keep the 100-400.