Do I really need the 70-200 F4

I have the lens kit, 50MM1.8, 24-105L IS and 100-400L IS. Should I sell my 70-200F4 and look for a better wide zoom? Anyone have these lens and find that you still use the 70-200F4 much at all?

If i was you id sell the lens and go for a 10-22mm

Same as above; you've got just about the same F.L. coverage with the 100-400 at a nominally smaller aperture. The only reason I'd keep the 70-200 F4, if I were you, would be the portability/weight advantage. (As it stands, I absolutely love mine -but then again it's my longest lens)

Sell the 70-200 F4, dump the kit lens while you're at it and get an EF-S 10-22 or Sigma 10-20. You'll be all set.. they're two of the finest UWA zooms available.

it seems that you have yourself covered with the 100-400... so unless you like using it as a comfortable walk-around lens probably not...

sari

I could not see myself getting rid of the 70-200 f4 even once I do get the 24-105 f4 as it is my choice for hiking as the 100-400 is a bit heavier and bulkier.

Even though it hardly ever gets used, the 10-22 is indispensible for those times when you do need it, especially seeing you only go down to 24mm with your current kit. Even with 17 covered I somtimes find the need to go wider.

Thank you all for your help. I was thinking of the ef-s 10-22 I need to go to the shop and try one out to see if I like it.

MDoc wrote in post #2190709
Thank you all for your help. I was thinking of the ef-s 10-22 I need to go to the shop and try one out to see if I like it.

I would DEFINITELY do this. I tried the 10-22 before I bought my 17-40L and just didn't like it enough to choose it over the 17-40L. Many people on this site love the 10-22 and don't consider anything else to be wide enough. I agree, that for interiors, the 10-22 is a good choice, but I needed more of a walkaround and the 10-22 is too short for that. Also I like landscapes and at 10mm the subject is so small that I was concerned that I wouldn't get the detail that I like.

And for what its worth, I've got the 70-200L and the 100-400L too. Each has its uses, but the size and weight of the 100-400L limit its use IMO to those times when you need the extra reach. The 70-200 f/4 is much easier to carry and use. (Though I might upgrade to the IS version once the price calms down a bit!)

The 70-200 f/4 is a lovely lens, sharp as a tack, super quick to focus, truly a wonderful optic, and best of all is light enough to carry around all day and use unsupported. It's also a fantastic lens for candids and outdoor portraits, indoor is OK too with a little room and preferably a flash.

the 100-400 is a fair bit heavier, has that pump zoom thingy ( remember when all zooms were like that? ) and while it has IS, it's still a big heavy lens.

The only way I'd sell my 70-200 f/4 is if I suddenly got rich and got the IS version. the 100-400 really is meant for different purposes, and unless you simply NEVER use the 70-200 f/4 then there is no reason not to keep both.

Regarding choosing between the 10-22 and the 17-40, when I was in this situation, I decided that for only a little bit more cash I'd get far more use out of the 17-40. and being an L lens, once I had it in my hands, the quality jump from consumer lenses was staggering. I was smitten, and I still am. I use the 17-40 as my walk about, it's on the camera 95% of the time. I felt that the 10-22 was simply too wode for every day use as a walk about.

To be honest if I was in the market for an ultra wide, i'd take the sigma over the Canon any day - so much better value, and I already have that 20-22mm range covered nicely.