Thoughts on two new lens purchases

Hi guys and girls.

I will be purchasing a couple 'L' series lenses next month and i was hoping to get some feedback on what i am currently looking at picking up.

Currently i only have the 24-105 F4 L on my 5DIII and i love it but find that at the wide end it's not wide enough when i want it, and the zoom end is well, 105mm 8).

My first choice is definitely the 70-200 F2.8L IS II but i was also thinking of going for the 100-400 F4.5 IS II, however i'm now wondering if that's too much zoom.

Would it be a wiser decision geting the 70-200 F2.8, the Canon EF 2x III extender then plumping for something wider such as the 16-35 F2.8 L?

I know a decision could be swayed based on the type of photography i do, but i just want flexibility in my kit, i know i will lose a couple of stops on the Extender, but what is the general opinion of my choice, will i regret not getting the 100-400?

Any thought greatly appreciated.

Only if you really shoot long a lot of the time. If flexibility is what you're looking to add, I'd stick with the 70-200/16-35 combo. If you then find that you're still lacking, you could investigate throwing a TC on the 70-200; I just wouldn't make a TC part of an initial purchase plan unless it's something you concretely know you need.

with the prices of the original 100-400L, i'd go for that, compared to the cost of the TC, it's not that much more...TC is $430, you can probably find a used lens for $750

you could also go with a16-35f4IS to save a bit of money to afford the 100-400L straight up

Heya,

Are you just looking to expand your focal lengths, or are you looking to have some top tier choices for the focal lengths you already shoot at?

If you know you need 400mm, then by all means, the 100-400 MKII makes sense. But if you don't need 400mm, then the 70-200 F2.8L MKII makes more sense.

The 16-35F4L IS makes tons of sense if you need wider than 24mm.

Very best,

I would second Mal's comment regarding the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS. This lens will open up a lot of new subjects/compositions to you and, at it's current price, the images are very very good! My only concern is that you may no longer be happy with your 24-105 - it happened to me! I ended up getting the Canon 24-70 F2.8 V2! The 24-105 is great but the 16-35 F4 is just better IMO (sharpness colour etc, etc) so I wanted that quality at the slightly longer focal lengths, costly but I am happy.
Unless F2.8 is critical I wouldn't bother with the 16-35 F2.8 - the F4 is better than any of the 16-35 F2.8 Mk2's that I have tried.
As to the 70-200 vs 100-400 question I am probably the last person to ask! I had the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS for 5 years and barely used it! Just not my focal range.

What do you want to do with the longer lens, be specific. The 100-400 is a great wildlife lens, but not the best option for all around use. The 70-200 is more of an all arounder but short for sports or wildlife. The 2x isnt a good option or substitute for the longer zoom.

definitely prefer the 16 - 35 f4 IS to the f2.8 as have had both but if you need 2.8 then you need 2.8 - choice between the 100 - 400 v11 or the 70- 200 f 2.8 well only you can decide - if wildlife sports etc is your bag 100 - 400 but if portraits and more general plus night stuff is your scene then 70 - 200 i guess

all good choices thou so buy them all
cheers rob

16-35 f4 or even the 17-40. The original 16-35 2.8 was not highly regarded by all.

If you need a wider angle lens than the 24mm, how would a 70 or 100mm lens help you?

You are starting down that "slippery slope"

Both the 16-35L f/4 and the 70-200 are great lenses. The 100-400 is as well.

My guess is someday you will own them all.

Why not buy all of them? 16-35mm f4, 70-200mm f4L IS or f2.8L non IS and 100-400mm mk1 or 400mm f5.6 if you dont want too much zoom. Any 70-200mm with 100-400mm MK1/400mm f5.6 will have similar price with single 70-200mm 2.8L IS II/100-400mm II

I will be picking up two lenses, i just don't have anything wider that my 24-105 at the moment hence why i was asking about my choice of 16-35.

8)

What is your primary photography interest? Knowing this key question would probably alter my responses below, so I'll try to keep focused on focal length. Aperture will change based on your needs (wedding/event pro would need f/2.8 glass, for example).

24-105
16-35 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS

Light weight versatility that comes in under the cost of the 70-200 f/2.8 II. If you need low light shooting, either add primes in the desired focal length, a flash, or tripod. F/2.8 zooms won't get you that (really) low light capability vs. the f/4, so save yourself the money.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17876983
What do you want to do with the longer lens, be specific. The 100-400 is a great wildlife lens, but not the best option for all around use. The 70-200 is more of an all arounder but short for sports or wildlife. The 2x isnt a good option or substitute for the longer zoom.

This echos what I've experienced. I've had the 70-200 f/2.8 II for years now and just recently added the 100-400. What I've found is that the 100-400 is AMAZING for wild life shooting in good light, but outside of that its focal length and aperture is more limiting for all around use. Basically, I have to make it my priority to shoot longer, and it changes how you do photography vs. just picking up a general purpose focal length lens and going to town. It's the same with ultra wide (aka 16-35), I have to change my perspective and vision in order to make full use of what it brings to the table. Again, depending on what you want to shoot, this may not mean anything because some people are ultra-wide wizards, or maybe they live at >300mm (check out the 100-400 II review thread!).

So, while the extender route may not be the best choice, it would be the cheaper route, and that would allow you to see if having that 400mm reach is right for you. I'm actually having the same debate right now, but instead went the zoom-first route For me, outside of shooting birds and wildlife, I honestly can't see myself using the 100-400 all that much, whereas my 70-200 gets used rather frequently for portraits and the occasional event. In this case, this is the one f/2.8 exception I make for my collection; and you wouldn't think that 30mm of range (70 vs 100) makes a difference, but for some reason it does!

Depending on how long it takes you to acquire the proposed lenses, I would get the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II before a 100-400 as it is a more useful focal range (IMO) and it pairs well with Canon's extenders.

Tapeman wrote in post #17877483
Depending on how long it takes you to acquire the proposed lenses, I would get the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II before a 100-400 as it is a more useful focal range (IMO) and it pairs well with Canon's extenders.

While I agree with you it's hard to make the case that a 70-200 has a more useful focal range when the 100-400 duplicates the range and more. It's really not focal range but max aperture, weight, and bulk.