From 17mm to 640mm with only two L zooms

... and two cameras, one crop one FF.

17-40mm L zoom: from 17mm in FF to 64mm in crop
100-400mm L zoom: from 100mm in FF to 640mm in crop

Is this possibly the ultimate lens/camera combination for travel?

cfibanez wrote in post #7748807
... and two cameras, one crop one FF.

17-40mm L zoom: from 17mm in FF to 64mm in crop
100-400mm L zoom: from 100mm in FF to 640mm in crop

Is this possibly the ultimate lens/camera combination?

The utlimate? Nah..

First, It won't be good in low-light situations,

Second, you don't get the 40mm to 100mm range zone which is usually the most used range for portraits.

But you don't have a FF body so your figures are incorrect. If you are after a lot of coverage with few lenses, they do make some super zooms, even Ls.

Yeah, that 40-=100 hole is a killer.

Larry Weinman wrote in post #7748971
Yeah, that 40-=100 hole is a killer.

Well.... it's only a 67-100 hole, at least that was the point I was trying to make with the 2 body combination.

gasrocks wrote in post #7748831
But you don't have a FF body so your figures are incorrect. If you are after a lot of coverage with few lenses, they do make some super zooms, even Ls.

True, nor do I have either of these two lenses But the figures are still correct, aren't they?

When I go out on my "fun" shoots (walking around the park stuff), I have my 10-20 on my Xsi and my 100-400L on my 40D. I have my other lenses in my bag in case I need them, but I usually don't. You can get some nice "portaits" at 100mm if you need to.

http://evangordonphoto​graphy.com …?g2_itemId=5312​&g2_page=1

All of the shots starting with the deer were with this combo....

Why are we not discussing what you already have lens wise and what weakness you are noticing.

Not really the same - the FOV you get with the crop camera != 64mm or whatever you want to make it. Really you're just getting 17-40 and a the center part of the 17-40 and 100-400 the center part of the 100-400.

this just sounds silly. Would a 24-105 and 100-400 be a much more functional pair, your missing the WA if your on a crop, but id hate the suggested pair.

why not get the 28-300L?

gasrocks wrote in post #7749047
Why are we not discussing what you already have lens wise and what weakness you are noticing.

You're right. I guess I was jumping ahead of myself. I do a bit of travel photography and a WA plus a long tele has been my favorite combination for rainforest hiking and wild life. I am in the process of exchanging my 70-300 for the 100-400 and I have also been thinking on getting a FF body. So the possibility of keeping my 40D and using a two body combo stroke me as very atttractive. But may be I was totally off, which is just fine.

cfibanez wrote in post #7748807
... and two cameras, one crop one FF.

17-40mm L zoom: from 17mm in FF to 64mm in crop
100-400mm L zoom: from 100mm in FF to 640mm in crop

Is this possibly the ultimate lens/camera combination for travel?

when we went to africa last year i took 16-35L II + 100-400L + 50 1.4. my cameras were 1d mark III and 30d. i had to make some hard choices because of weight restrictions. it wasn't ideal but it worked for me .

ed rader

Get the 100-400L, add a second 1.6 body, go out with your 10-22 on one body, the 100-400L on the other, keep your 28 in the bag just in case (and/or the 24-105)...

Like I said, for my "fun" outdoor shooting, I love having an UWA and a long telephoto.