My current Problem

[rwphotography]

Hey everyone!!!

My issue and I know I can never get a definite answer. I'm buying a used Canon 5d Mark I. It comes with the 24-105L IS lens and at the same time I want to get a better zoom lens to add to my bag and I just can not decide between the 70-200mm L IS f/2.8 or the IS version of the 100-400mm lens.

I know everyone is going to be like "ohh boy, here's this question again!" :lmao:

But, I've been reading different threads and it all boils down to what I am going to be shooting. That's the problem. I'm mostly somewhere either in a forest doing a nature walk or on a bird tower for fun. At the same time, I'm working for myself mostly taking portraits and candid shots and some events.

I know the 100-400mm will not be good in low light situations thats why i'm leaning towards the 70-200mm. My first question is and i'm not comparing the two, Does anyone think I can get by for a couple of months using the 24-105mmL lens to take portraits and candid until I get the money for the 70-200mmL 2.8?

My next scenario is I know the 70-200mm is great and versitle. It's sharp,and is great in low light situations. At the same time, when I'm out taking nature shots as well as I love taking shots at airshows, I may feel like I wont get the shot I want because of the limited 200mm. I know I can get the 1.4 teleconveter, but I've heard mixed reviews on that route and thats a completely different debate. So my question to this scenario is should I just get the 100-400mm IS and not worry about the 70-200mm?

I've been at this for months and have done extensive research, and i'm still torn because these are two really great lenses and I just dont know what to do.

P.S.: I've heard about the push/pull on the 100-400mm and that is factoring into my decision as well.

HELP! :cry:

 

[icassell]

In your position, I would go for the 70-200 and the TC.

 

[krayola]

If you can only get 1 lens now, I'd ask yourself what subjects are the most important to you in the near future? Nature walks? Airshows? Portraits? Candids?

At an Air Show, there's lots of light, but the teleconverter will eat some of the sharpness... But at least that would work. Keep in mind that the 70-200 and 100-400 both lack the ability to work in cramped quarters (4.6' minimum focussing distance on the 70-200 and 5.6' on the 100-400) vs 1.45' for the 24-105.

 

[rwphotography]

If you can only get 1 lens now, I'd ask yourself what subjects are the most important to you in the near future? Nature walks? Airshows? Portraits? Candids?

At an Air Show, there's lots of light, but the teleconverter will eat some of the sharpness... But at least that would work. Keep in mind that the 70-200 and 100-400 both lack the ability to work in cramped quarters (4.6' minimum focussing distance on the 70-200 and 5.6' on the 100-400) vs 1.45' for the 24-105.

Yeah, its without a doubt I'm getting the 24-105. Its coming with the 5d. Some of the mixed reviews I got regarding the 70-200 with the TC is the lost of sharpness and that's what I would be afraid of. I just don't know.

Portraits and candid of course are going to be more important because that's making the money.

I guess I just answered my own question but just wondering if the 70-200 and TC would give me the same results

 

[Overread]

On the portats side the 24-105mm will certainly work well for them, it has a good focal range and won't leave you having to stand a long way back to get them.

AS for the 70-200mm f2,8 IS vs 100-400mm debate its a tricky one I have had myself.

The 70-200mm f2.8IS is a great lens and is the one I opted for. It's fast and sharp and I will happily use a 1.4TC on it (almost all the time) when shooting and it gives very little image dagradation and only takes away one stop of light - making it an f4 lens, so still good in lower lighting.
It does have its fall downs though, it does not take a 2*TC as well as a prime lens will and image degradation is far more noticable. Further it takes away 2 stops of light (giving you an f5.6 lens) so less good in lower lighting. I have some example shots here:
little birds photos test - a set on Flickr

HOWEVER these were taken with my 400D camera, whilst your going to be using a 5D, with a far surperior sensor. This does make a noticable difference when working with the TCs and another photographer on this site (though not around as much these days) uses the 70-200mm + 2TC combo (with a 1DM2/3 camera) and gets far better results than I can.

there is also a good comparison review here:
400V400

So as you can see it can give good results with the TC, but its not "as" good as the 100-400mm lens.

I made my choice because I do quite a bit of shooting in zoos and wildlife centres, places where a closer range of 70-200mm (+1.4TC mostly for me) works well. Further I also intend to expand into getting longer telephoto prime lenses, so the 70-200mm is not going to be my only lens.
Were I to have only one lens the 100-400mm would be more suited to your needs - though do make sure you get to test it before you purchase, this is because there are still some production problems with the lens and soft copies can get through quality control.

 

[Nolan]

The 70-200 mm would my choice.

 

[rwphotography]

On the portats side the 24-105mm will certainly work well for them, it has a good focal range and won't leave you having to stand a long way back to get them.

AS for the 70-200mm f2,8 IS vs 100-400mm debate its a tricky one I have had myself.

The 70-200mm f2.8IS is a great lens and is the one I opted for. It's fast and sharp and I will happily use a 1.4TC on it (almost all the time) when shooting and it gives very little image dagradation and only takes away one stop of light - making it an f4 lens, so still good in lower lighting.
It does have its fall downs though, it does not take a 2*TC as well as a prime lens will and image degradation is far more noticable. Further it takes away 2 stops of light (giving you an f5.6 lens) so less good in lower lighting. I have some example shots here:
little birds photos test - a set on Flickr

HOWEVER these were taken with my 400D camera, whilst your going to be using a 5D, with a far surperior sensor. This does make a noticable difference when working with the TCs and another photographer on this site (though not around as much these days) uses the 70-200mm + 2TC combo (with a 1DM2/3 camera) and gets far better results than I can.

there is also a good comparison review here:
400V400

So as you can see it can give good results with the TC, but its not "as" good as the 100-400mm lens.

I made my choice because I do quite a bit of shooting in zoos and wildlife centres, places where a closer range of 70-200mm (+1.4TC mostly for me) works well. Further I also intend to expand into getting longer telephoto prime lenses, so the 70-200mm is not going to be my only lens.
Were I to have only one lens the 100-400mm would be more suited to your needs - though do make sure you get to test it before you purchase, this is because there are still some production problems with the lens and soft copies can get through quality control.

Thanks for the info as well as the tests!!!
What I may do is just purchase the 70-200mm L f/2.8 now and save my money and by tax time next year I will get the 100-400mm. :lmao::lmao:

I guess my ultimate decision was being able to shoot in low light and possibly getting the 1.4 TC. I'm going to be moving from a kit lens on my old XSi and 28-135mm IS on my 50d to two L series lenses. I don't think i'm going to get much sleep once I get my new equipment.

My last question would be and I know it probably wont matter. But, when i'm doing an event, should I have the 70-200mm on my 50d or my 5d (when I get it of course) and should I put the 24-105 L lens on the 5d?

 

[HeY iTs ScOTtY]

to me it sounds like you already know what to do

 

[krayola]

My last question would be and I know it probably wont matter. But, when i'm doing an event, should I have the 70-200mm on my 50d or my 5d (when I get it of course) and should I put the 24-105 L lens on the 5d?

I'd say 24-105L on the 5d, 70-200 on the 50d.

 

[rwphotography]

to me it sounds like you already know what to do

Yeah I feel like I have made my decision. I asked someone real close to me that has no interest in Photography what I should do and they said go for what will make me money and not something to use during my leisure time for now.

My last question would be and I know it probably wont matter. But, when i'm doing an event, should I have the 70-200mm on my 50d or my 5d (when I get it of course) and should I put the 24-105 L lens on the 5d?

I'd say 24-105L on the 5d, 70-200 on the 50d.

Yeah thats what I was thinking about because from what i've been reading on the 5d, it's really good for portraits.

 

[rwphotography]

Thanks everyone for the information helping me make my decision!!!!!

 

[krayola]

to me it sounds like you already know what to do

Yeah I feel like I have made my decision. I asked someone real close to me that has no interest in Photography what I should do and they said go for what will make me money and not something to use during my leisure time for now.

My last question would be and I know it probably wont matter. But, when i'm doing an event, should I have the 70-200mm on my 50d or my 5d (when I get it of course) and should I put the 24-105 L lens on the 5d?

I'd say 24-105L on the 5d, 70-200 on the 50d.

Yeah thats what I was thinking about because from what i've been reading on the 5d, it's really good for portraits.

That and you get the equivalent of 112-320 out of the 70-200 on the 50d and can always pop the 70-200 on the 5d if you need.

 

[Derrel]

This is why Sigma invented the 100-300mm f/4 HSM EX lens; it's 100 to 300 millimeters, it is a constant f/4 aperture at every focal length; it covers full-frame as well as APS-C and APS-H digital, and it weighs around the same, maybe a little less, than the 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS,and is much more compact than the 100-400 L, which when zoomed out, is a rather ungainly lens.

It's better than using a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC, optically. It's faster than the 100-400 is. It handles better than the 100-400L does.

Again, this is a good lens when one needs compromise; it's a good lens for baseball,and also a good lens for people, especially on a FF body. Price is right too. Sigma even has a pretty good 1.4x converter that does a very respectable job with the 100-300 lens.

 

[LaserSailor]

I'd go for the widest aperture I can afford. Fast glass is always better than IS/VR technology. IMHO

 

[rwphotography]

This is why Sigma invented the 100-300mm f/4 HSM EX lens; it's 100 to 300 millimeters, it is a constant f/4 aperture at every focal length; it covers full-frame as well as APS-C and APS-H digital, and it weighs around the same, maybe a little less, than the 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS,and is much more compact than the 100-400 L, which when zoomed out, is a rather ungainly lens.

It's better than using a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC, optically. It's faster than the 100-400 is. It handles better than the 100-400L does.

Again, this is a good lens when one needs compromise; it's a good lens for baseball,and also a good lens for people, especially on a FF body. Price is right too. Sigma even has a pretty good 1.4x converter that does a very respectable job with the 100-300 lens.

I'm going to stick with the 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS and just complain about the extra length later

This will be my first L series f/2.8 lens so i'm going to be blown away regardless and just excited and anxious to get my hands on it.