04-14-2011, 10:34 PM
[quote name='jjalbs' timestamp='1302815465' post='7649']
Wim
Thanks I had originally thought of the 24-70 but wondered about the low end being to long even though I have the 10-22 (lens changes). If I go that route I can maybe stretch the budget a little and get a prime lens in there somewhere or satisfy the Long end for wildlife with one of the long zooms or primes. Do you have any suggestions on quality and or utility of 100-400 vs 400 5.6 or 70-200 f4.
thanks
[/quote]
Since you have two bodies, that shouldn't really be a problem, if you ask me. Also, 24 mm on APS-C is a short standard lens, and personally I found I rarely had to go below that when shooting at parties, weddings etc., when I still had my APS-C cameras, except for group shots and the like.
You can also look at it in a different way, based on geometrical midpoint, especially as a zoom is often used as a prime which allows a little framing anyway. In that case a 24-70 becomes a 41 mm lens, with equal magnification factors from 24 to 41 as from 41 to 70. That means it would become a very short tele with extended framing abilities on an APS-C camera - an extremely useful lens for portraiture. That's really how to look at it, IMO. You could also look at teh 24-105 F/4 in that regard, which has a geometrical midpoint of exactly 50 mm, and hence is a true portrait zoom on APS-C. However, its bokeh is not as nice as that of the 24-70. Although I used it myself as a portrait zoom on APS-C, I found I preferred the 24-70 over it.
Changing lenses is what (d)slrs are built for, so I don't particularly think that that is a problem. As to "missing shots", as this is often meant when talking about having to switch or change lenses: the thing really is to be prepared and anticipate. There is no way anybody will ever to be able to take all shots of all interesting or worthwhile things happening, so when one is prepared for what could happen, and one accepts that occasionally something else does regardless, whatever lens is mounted, that doesn't really matter. I shoot mostly with primes, I only have 1 zoom left, the 100-400L, and I honestly do not miss them (and I did have quite a few).
As to 70-200, 400 and 100-400: the 70-200 is faster, aperture wise, and a little sharper than the 400 and 100-400L, which has to do mostly with that it is newer, shorter, and has a shorter zoom range factor. Above ~ 250 mm lenses do tend to get a little softer/less sharp, due to a lot of factors. This is a gradual thing which is unavoidable in optics, even with the more expensive stuff (although there generally is a very clear correlation with price and IQ/sharpness when it comes to long lenses). Having said that, the 70-200 F/4 IS is a bit sharper than the non-IS version, although the non-IS version beats it at close range (I mean using extension tubes here), where the IS one gets a little softer especially at the longer ends. The 400 is most likely a little sharper than the 100-400 at 400, but doesn't have IS or 100-399. Also, there are 100-400s about, which beat the 400. Then there is the zoom ability of the 100-400, which in its implementation makes it incredibly easy to zoom out to catch the object you want to photograph, and zoom in again to the detail you want. That is all a little harder with the 400 prime <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. If you only plan to do birding, the 400 is probably the way to go, if you want to do nature, wildlife, and even some macro, the 100-400 is the way to go. Also, the 100-400 is really quite good at (semi-)macro, something most people don't expect, and it beats the 70-200 F/4s at close range IME. Check my two pictures in the 100-400L lens review thread, [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/869-next-pz-lens-test-report-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is/page__p__7520#entry7520"]here[/url] <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
HTH, warm regards, Wim
Wim
Thanks I had originally thought of the 24-70 but wondered about the low end being to long even though I have the 10-22 (lens changes). If I go that route I can maybe stretch the budget a little and get a prime lens in there somewhere or satisfy the Long end for wildlife with one of the long zooms or primes. Do you have any suggestions on quality and or utility of 100-400 vs 400 5.6 or 70-200 f4.
thanks
[/quote]
Since you have two bodies, that shouldn't really be a problem, if you ask me. Also, 24 mm on APS-C is a short standard lens, and personally I found I rarely had to go below that when shooting at parties, weddings etc., when I still had my APS-C cameras, except for group shots and the like.
You can also look at it in a different way, based on geometrical midpoint, especially as a zoom is often used as a prime which allows a little framing anyway. In that case a 24-70 becomes a 41 mm lens, with equal magnification factors from 24 to 41 as from 41 to 70. That means it would become a very short tele with extended framing abilities on an APS-C camera - an extremely useful lens for portraiture. That's really how to look at it, IMO. You could also look at teh 24-105 F/4 in that regard, which has a geometrical midpoint of exactly 50 mm, and hence is a true portrait zoom on APS-C. However, its bokeh is not as nice as that of the 24-70. Although I used it myself as a portrait zoom on APS-C, I found I preferred the 24-70 over it.
Changing lenses is what (d)slrs are built for, so I don't particularly think that that is a problem. As to "missing shots", as this is often meant when talking about having to switch or change lenses: the thing really is to be prepared and anticipate. There is no way anybody will ever to be able to take all shots of all interesting or worthwhile things happening, so when one is prepared for what could happen, and one accepts that occasionally something else does regardless, whatever lens is mounted, that doesn't really matter. I shoot mostly with primes, I only have 1 zoom left, the 100-400L, and I honestly do not miss them (and I did have quite a few).
As to 70-200, 400 and 100-400: the 70-200 is faster, aperture wise, and a little sharper than the 400 and 100-400L, which has to do mostly with that it is newer, shorter, and has a shorter zoom range factor. Above ~ 250 mm lenses do tend to get a little softer/less sharp, due to a lot of factors. This is a gradual thing which is unavoidable in optics, even with the more expensive stuff (although there generally is a very clear correlation with price and IQ/sharpness when it comes to long lenses). Having said that, the 70-200 F/4 IS is a bit sharper than the non-IS version, although the non-IS version beats it at close range (I mean using extension tubes here), where the IS one gets a little softer especially at the longer ends. The 400 is most likely a little sharper than the 100-400 at 400, but doesn't have IS or 100-399. Also, there are 100-400s about, which beat the 400. Then there is the zoom ability of the 100-400, which in its implementation makes it incredibly easy to zoom out to catch the object you want to photograph, and zoom in again to the detail you want. That is all a little harder with the 400 prime <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. If you only plan to do birding, the 400 is probably the way to go, if you want to do nature, wildlife, and even some macro, the 100-400 is the way to go. Also, the 100-400 is really quite good at (semi-)macro, something most people don't expect, and it beats the 70-200 F/4s at close range IME. Check my two pictures in the 100-400L lens review thread, [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/869-next-pz-lens-test-report-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is/page__p__7520#entry7520"]here[/url] <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.HTH, warm regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....