Canon Lens Combination - Advice Needed

[cgennoe]

Hello.
I have the Canon 5D Mark iv
And am considering the following lens combination:
(I shoot both sports & landscape)

EF 16-35 f 2.8 USM II
EF 24-70 f 2.8 USM II
EF 100-400 USM II
EF 400 f 2.8 USM II *with a 1.4 extender when needed
EF 85 f 1.4

Can you suggest alternative combinations or does this set reasonably cover most shooting situations?

Thank you.

 

[goooner]

If you will be shooting indoor sports, I would add a 70-200/2.8

 

[Overread17 5]

Honestly many things are very personal and depend on your own situation and shooting style. What works for one photographer might not work for others so sometimes you have to try things out and see what works. In general this works well if you start with less kit and then find out where the gaps/problems are for you and then see what can fill that void.

For sports, as an example, many might use two cameras, one with a 70-200mm f2.8 fitted and another with a 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8. They might even use a 500mm f4 if shooting at big events during the day. So a lot depends. The 70-200mm f2.8 is normally a pretty solid purchase for anyone; even landscapes can do well as you can zoom in to pick out features in a distant landscape instead of just showing everything in a wide angle shot.

But that sport setup is only one option; others might prefer a 200mm f2 prime; or other combinations. It also varies a lot on the sport you shoot and where you are when taking photos. For example in equine the 70-200mm is almost a must have whilst if you were shooting motorbikes or cars you might well need the 400mm far more often than not.

 

[cgennoe]

Honestly many things are very personal and depend on your own situation and shooting style. What works for one photographer might not work for others so sometimes you have to try things out and see what works. In general this works well if you start with less kit and then find out where the gaps/problems are for you and then see what can fill that void.

For sports, as an example, many might use two cameras, one with a 70-200mm f2.8 fitted and another with a 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8. They might even use a 500mm f4 if shooting at big events during the day. So a lot depends. The 70-200mm f2.8 is normally a pretty solid purchase for anyone; even landscapes can do well as you can zoom in to pick out features in a distant landscape instead of just showing everything in a wide angle shot.

But that sport setup is only one option; others might prefer a 200mm f2 prime; or other combinations. It also varies a lot on the sport you shoot and where you are when taking photos. For example in equine the 70-200mm is almost a must have whilst if you were shooting motorbikes or cars you might well need the 400mm far more often than not.

Thanks I'd like to keep my options as open as possible; although I mainly shoot hockey when it comes to sport.

The 70-200 f 2.8 IS - is considered a mainstay by many; but is the option of purchasing the 100-400 USM II instead of the 70-200 f 2.8 and combining that with the 400 f 2.8 a combination that many consider, for versatility?
The 100-400 USM II has received favorable reviews online> Thanks a lot again.

 

[Overread17 5]

From what I've read the 100-400mm is a fantastic lens; its only problem is its not f2.8. If you're shooting indoors or under lights at night or even on a dim day you will want that f2.8 aperture for light gathering to get solid exposures. The 5DMIV will give you more leeway on what ISO range you can use so you've got that as a bonus so you might get away with it. It really depends how well lit the venues are .

 

[sovietdoc]

Of course, it all depends on what and how you want to shoot.
If I were you, first, I would figure out for my shooting if I'd need 2.8 or if F4 would be enough. You have a new enough DSLR with good high ISO capability, it's something to consider.
Second, if I picked 2.8, for example, you need to figure out how specialized do you want to go for both sports and landscape.

I personally also shoot both of them, and I hate having 5 different lenses, because then it's always tough for me to choose which one to use. In my kit as you can see, I am only using 24-70 and 70-200, giving me the best most used focal lengths, keeping my kit light.
If money was no object, and if I didn't care about having multiple lens, my list would consist of
16-35
24-70
70-200
and whatever I could afford for the long zoom, either 100-400 or 200-400.

For some landscape shots, having the wide end of 16mm from 16-35 might look pretty good. But I have seriously in all my years of shooting very rarely found the absolute need for the 16mm shot. Sometimes I can just take two to three shots from 24mm and stick them in Photoshop, which now is super easy to do. Gives the same result, and costs a lot less. Plus I don't have to have a lens with me in my bag just for the one shot.

Again, same issue with the sports photography. 300-400mm zoom will give you a better closeup on a large stadium if you're sitting far away. But over the years I had good results with the 200mm lens which is RAZOR SHARP, and I am sure combined with Mark IV, which has better res to be able to crop if you need to, you could really get very good results if you just position closer.

It all comes down to your budget and how many lenses you want to carry around with you, some just for the 1 shot. I made a decision of going with the least amount of lenses and I really don't regret it.

EDIT:
I do notice that you're picking up the 100-400 lens for your zoom. I haven't personally shot with it, but I can almost guarantee that 70-200 has better IQ and sharpness. Canon's 70-200 literally has razor sharpness, so even for the mid to long zoom range, I would imagine IQ would probably be better than 100-400 zoom. Just something to consider, I am sure the reason you picked 100-400 is because it lens you keep one lens on during sport events for the longer reach, but that IQ from 70-200 is addictive.

 

[Derrel]

Hello.
I have the Canon 5D Mark iv
And am considering the following lens combination:
(I shoot both sports & landscape)

EF 16-35 f 2.8 USM II
EF 24-70 f 2.8 USM II
EF 100-400 USM II
EF 400 f 2.8 USM II *with a 1.4 extender when needed
EF 85 f 1.4

Can you suggest alternative combinations or does this set reasonably cover most shooting situations?

Thank you.

I think that the 70-200 f/2.8 Mk II would be better than the 100-400 Mark II. And Canon...don't they have an 85mm f/1.8 OR an 85mm f/1.2-L, and no f/1.4 model?

Anyway...a nice set of lenses alright !

 

[weepete]

I haven't personally shot with it, but I can almost guarantee that 70-200 has better IQ and sharpness. Canon's 70-200 literally has razor sharpness, so even for the mid to long zoom range, I would imagine IQ would probably be better than 100-400 zoom.

I think you are underestimating the 100-400 ii. It is an increadibly sharp lens and on a par with the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS ii.

Question is does the OP need f2.8 or the extra 200mm more. if he needs the f2.8 then buy the 70-200, if not buy the 100-400. Since the 400mm prime is already in the list it may make more sense to buy the 70-200mm as they'll get more coverage at f2.8.

 

[zombiesniper115 14]

Since you appear to be about to make a $10k+ purchase.
My suggestion is don't listen to anyone accept me. Why? I'm not going to give you a lens to buy.

Rent the lens/lenses you are considering....you can afford it and it's cheaper in the long run than choosing the wrong lens.

 

[benhasajeep48 46]

When I shot sports for the paper it was with 2 bodies and a 35-70 f/2.8 zoom, and a 300mm f/2.8.

You basically have the entire lens range covered with your current choices. But I agree with others on the 70-200 over the 100-400 initially. Especially if your buying the 400mm f/2.8 and 1.4x. If you need more zoom reach can always add the 1.4x to the 70-200 f/2.8.

Yes, the 1.4x will add a little softness but with a good 70-200 the pictures with it will be more than fine.

 

[beagle100]

covers most but for sports a 300mm 2.8 and /or 400mm 2.8 .... more background blur
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless