Need help with 2-L-zoom-combo choices

I currently have a 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS, and I am thinking of upgrading to an L-combo.
I would like hear your opinion on the following combinations:

1: 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 4.0L IS (cannot afford the 2.8 IS)
2: 24-105 4.0L IS and 100-400 L IS

I use crop body, but I have a Sigma 10-20, so I am covered at the wide end.
With the first alternative, the obvious benefit will be faster lenses. With the second one, while I get slower lenses, I get 200mm extra reach. And I would love to have IS.

Welcome any advice you can give me. Thanks

seems that you have answered your own question. what kind of shooting do you do? are you willing to trade the extra 200mm for low light close-up?

-alex

thanks Rent,

I like to shoot a little bit of everything, so I know whichever combo I decide, I will in some point in time regret not having chosen the other combo.

I would however like to get opinion in regards to IQ and performance, and other members' experience with any of those lenses.

should have said Thanks, Alex. Missed the last word of you post, sorry!

Why not option 1, plus an extender, the 1.4X?

That gives you the same reach more or less as before, with better quality lenses, and the 1.4X on the 70-200 is barely a small notch down in IQ. It still is amazing.

If you are really worried about missing out on IS, I would maybe substitute the 24-70 with the 24-105. It still is two grades up from the 17-85.

Kind regards, Wim

I have a 24-105 and the 70-200 F4 (non IS) and the 100-400
I believe that the 70-200 F4 IS is the same size as mine
also have the 1.4 TC
also have the 10-22 for wide

the 70-200 and the 100-400 are really two different animals for two different purposes
if you are simply wanting the additional 100-300 range you wouldn't want to carry around the 100-400 lens it can get heavy after a while

I mainly use the longer telephoto lens for wildlife
and my shorter telephoto for the other purposes (street shooting, scenics, portraits etc)

both are great lenses..

I have the second combo (24-105 /100-400) and love it, both lenses are sharp and produce great images. To be honest, I doubt you will have any regrets with either combo as regards IQ etc., both will do a great job.

It really does depend on what you want to shoot and whether reach / aperture are more important to you. I find that the 100-400 can be a bit slow at f5.6 and I sometimes find myself bumping the ISO to 1600+ to get the shutter speeds I want.

However, I do quite a lot of shooting birds / animals and, in woodland for example, light can be quite dim. I am looking at some fast primes to deal with this problem.

Don't get me wrong, in most situations I find the 100-400 an excellent lens and it is probably used for more shots than all my other lenses put together. On many shoots I find my default lenses tend to be your combo 2 and I walk around with both of these mounted most of the time (I have two bodies).

Hope this helps.

gabrioladude wrote in post #3883874
if you are simply wanting the additional 100-300 range you wouldn't want to carry around the 100-400 lens it can get heavy after a while

That is a personal thing though. Yes, some people find it heavy to carry but many have absolutely no problem with the weight.

I've had the 100-400 round my neck all day today (on a 5D) plus the 24-105 on a 20D without any issues.

Tomorrow I am shooting an airshow and the day after it's drag racing. At the former, the 100-400 will be to my eye for five hours and at the latter I will be using it all day, about 9 hours or so. Handheld in both cases (IS is wonderful).

I realise that you may be unhappy with the weight of that lens, but I feel that you may be giving a false impression by telling the OP that he wouldn't want to carry it around because of it. You may be right of course, I can't speak for the OP, but the best thing is to say that it may be a little heavy for some people.

thanks everybody!

personally, I am leaning towards 24-70 and 70-200 combo, although I am open to all possibilities.
after all, I am still currently stuck with my non-L combo.
and who knows, if I am lucky, I maybe able to afford 70-200 2.8L IS

How about option 1.5: 24-105 and 70-200 w/1.4x telecon.
That is the lens combo I have, plus a Tokina 12-24.
I find a really haven't missed a f2.8 lens.

why not go 24-70 and 100-400 and only have a 30mm gap?

What I did was:

24-70mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8 IS
200-500mm Tamron.

Sure IQ isn't up to par with the 100-400 but when I need reach, I need reach and IQ isn't as important as 99% of my shots are made with the first two lenses. Another option would be a Sigma 50-500mm A.K.A. "Bigma"

MetalRain wrote in post #3885035
why not go 24-70 and 100-400 and only have a 30mm gap?

24-70 and 100-400 is route I went and I have no regrets. Good luck in whatever you choose!

PS. What about renting all of the lenses and try them out?

I have the 24-105, 70-200 f4 IS and the 100-400L.

Personally the 100-400L is used for zoos and such and it's a great wildlife lens. If you are not doing this type of shooting often then I would say stick with the 70-200 f4IS and get yourself a 1.4x TC.

You've got a crop body so it's not going to be too bad...I use my 100-400L on my 5D and usually it's long enough so...

If you scan your EXIF on current shots, what focal lengths are you NOT using?

You may be surprised by the results. I was.