Three "L" lenses I always carry... [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

View Full Version : Three "L" lenses I always carry...

KBeat

06-11-2009, 12:42 PM

There are lot of "What lens should I get?" threads here, and rather than answer them individually, I thought I'd list the three lenses I always have in my bag, and why. I hope other photographers will jump in and list their favorites as well, so those looking for lens recommendations will have a concise thread to read first.

I shoot with a 5D Mark II, so my preferences are based on using a full-frame sensor, although I'd used similar lenses with my 30D. Listed by preference:

1. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Hands down my favorite lens. It's fast, incredibly versatile, and consistently nets me more keepers than any other lens I own. Whether I'm shooting my son's baseball game, a Craftsman Bungalow, or a neighborhood rose garden, this is the first lens I grab. The only drawback to the lens is its weight and size. The non "IS" version is a bit lighter and less expensive, but the added flexibly of a 2.8 lens with three full stops of IS makes it a no brainer. Buy this lens, you'll love it!

2. 16-35mm f/2.8L This lens is simply fun. Put it on your camera and you start seeing things in a whole new way. This is my lens of choice for shooting showrooms and landscapes. I'll put it on my camera as I'm walking around and just look at things from odd angles. The lens constantly surprises me. The images are, of course, beautiful, with great bokeh and remarkable edge to edge sharpness even wide open. Keep in mind this lens was really made for a full-frame camera, so if you're using a 30/40/50D or the like, it won't give you the same experience. 25-56mm just isn't the same thing. That's a useful range for sure, but no longer what I'd call "wide angle."

3. 24-105 f/4L IS We've arrived at the difficult, and somewhat,controversial,choice. Yes, the 24-70mm f/2.8 looms large here. There's a lot to recommend about the 24-70, but I'll tell you why I prefer the 24-105 in my bag.

This is what I consider my "walk-about" lens. A "jack of all trades, master of none" lens if you will. If I don't know what I'll be shooting, or what I'll encounter, but want to have my camera around my neck ready for anything, I put this lens on the 5D. In this regard it has a huge advantage over the 24-70 in that it's significantly lighter. The weight is also a consideration in a bag with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens. I've got a bad back, and anything that reduces the load is welcome.

Do I miss 2.8? For sure, especially when it comes to motion in low light. However, the IS on the 24-105 gives me three full stops of stabilization, and I can hand hold 1/3 sec and still get tack sharp shots. A little longer even if I haven't had caffeine. [;)] That's remarkable really, and for a walkabout lens, meaning you rarely have a tripod, it's incredibly useful. And, as Bryan's review will attest, the 24-105 is no slouch when it comes to image quality. In fact, I use it for catalog product shots all the time, and find the sharpness and color to be outstanding.

Finally, the additional reach of the lens is something you'll appreciate far more often than you'd think. Without the overlap with my 70-200mm, I'd have to do far more frequent lens changes, something that isn't fun and drains the creative juices when you're shooting. There's no getting around it, 24-105 is a far more useful range than 24-70.

The 2.8 is really, really tempting, and there are times I wish I had it instead, but more often than not I'm happier with the 24-105mm f/4L IS.

FWIW, I also keep a 2x converter in my bag. It's light and easy to carry, and is great for those times when I really need the extra reach. The 1.4 is probably more practical with only 1 stop lost, but when I want reach, I really want reach!

I hope that helps some lens shoppers. I hope others jump in, as I love reading about others experiences and choices. I always learn something.

Keith B

06-11-2009, 01:28 PM

I'm actually slimming down right now on my "L" lenses. I need to recoup some of my investment and I've nailed down my range too.

I shoot mainly with a 5DmkII but occasionally pull out the 40D with the 100-400.

1) 16-35 2.8L II is my favorite/walk-around. I love 35mm, it is my favorite perspective and I really love the ability to jump out to 16mm at any given moment.

2) 70-200 2.8L IS is my second favorite. It is a great lens although my wrist start to ache after and hour or so.

3) 24 1.4L is in my bag, love the sharpness of the fixed. It use to be on my camera a lot more before the 16-35 II came along. I still love it because sometimes 2.8 isn't fast enough. It is a little bit wider than my preferred 35mm perspective but 24 is very useful.

I also have the 100-400 but I don't carry it in my main kit. I usually just take that out for air shows and outside sports stuff.

I am actually selling my 24-105. I actually really liked this lens, but I always found myself either shooting wide with it (which wasn't it's strong suit) or long with it, so I determined it wasn't a lens I needed any more.

markcoons

06-11-2009, 01:33 PM

I agree with Kbeat but still carry a slightly different group. I love my 70-200 non-IS but it is too heavy for my taste and I only carry it when I know I will need it.

My number one would be the 24-105 f/4L as my primary walk around. If I know I will be in a 2.8 situation then I will switch my 24-70 f/2.8 into it's place.

My second choice is my favorite lens, the Canon 135mm f/2L lens. Great for portraits and events. I carry a 1.4x converter in the bag to give me a little extra reach when I need it.

My third choice is not an L but is mighty darn close, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. This is my wide angle lens and produces images that rival the 24-70.

I use a 40D by the way.

Alan

06-11-2009, 01:36 PM

For me, also with a 5DMk2, it's:

17-40 f/4 L

24-105 f/4 L IS The camera has this lens on it most of the time. I agree that it is the most versatile lens when walking around.

70-200 f/4 L IS (I have the 2.8, but for most shots during the day, the slower zoom is fine, and the images are slightly sharper).

I also carry a 40D and for this reason, I include this lens: 100-400 L. This stays on the 40D for the most part, since it gives me a 640 mm reach on wildlife, etc. I throw in the 1.4 converter, just in case

That becomes 17-900 mm. This covers the entire range for me. A tripod is a necessity, and can help mitigate the need for faster lenses on certain shots, so this comes with me (collapsible so it's easy to carry).

Mark Elberson

06-11-2009, 02:32 PM

Only one 'L' but 3 lenses I always want in my bag are:

Body : Canon EOS 50D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5

KBeat

06-11-2009, 04:03 PM

I should have dropped the "L" from the thread title. Mine just happen to be "L" lenses, but any lenses you keep in your bag apply.

I keep a BG-E6 battery grip on my 5D Mark II. More than the extra battery life or portrait grip controls, I find it balances the camera much better when shooting with the heavier lenses. This is especially true for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens. If you haven't tried a battery grip (or shot with a 1D/1DS), you should try it. It really helps with hand fatigue for longer shooting sessions, even if it adds some weight to the camera.

Not in my bag or in my possession is the 85mm f/1.2L, but it's on the top of my wish list. I want to be able to take photos where the front of a person's nose is in focus, but the back of the nose isn't. (In the case of my nose I can probably achieve that with an F/4 lens, but I speak in terms of normal noses). [:)]

Sean Setters

06-11-2009, 04:16 PM

If we're dropping the "L" requirement, this is my current 3:

50mm f/1.4

17-55mm f/2.8 IS

70-200mm f/2.8 IS

I've been eyeing the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, though....Speaking of, BRYAN, what are the chances you can get your hands on one ofthe Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 lenses to test?

Dallasphotog

06-11-2009, 04:44 PM

Interesting to see everyone's choices. This is easier to read than the "what's in your kit" thread from a few months back. Seeing what everyone picks, makes me think I need more lenses...

I have to say these three go about everywhere with me.

1) EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

2) EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM

3) EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM

Keith B

06-11-2009, 04:52 PM

I should have dropped the "L" from the thread title. Mine just happen to be "L" lenses, but any lenses you keep in your bag apply.

I also have the Canon 50 1.4 and Canon fisheye 15 2.8 (well it is up for auction too).

Only lens on my wish list is 35 1.4L (II).

Daniel Browning

06-11-2009, 05:23 PM

I shoot full frame (5D2), so the three lenses I always have with me are:

1. 24mm f/1.4 II. I just love shooting wide angle. When I had the 24-105 and 24-70 on my camera, I almost always used them at 24mm. For me, the option to use thin DOF and ultra wide angle at the same time allows for some very interesting photographs. But even when I'm stopped down, such as f/2.8, I really appreciate the much higher quality of this 24mm over the zooms.

2. 70-200 f/4 IS. Unlike wide angle shots, I prefer my telephoto shots to have relatively deep DOF. I often shoot headshots at f/5.6 or narrower so that both eyes, ears, and nose will all be in sharp focus, while the background will still have a nice blur thanks to magnification. The image quality of this lens is outstanding. Here I really appreciate the flexibility of the zoom.

3. 50mm f/1.4. With the other two lenses and a 580 flash, I don't have room for anything bigger, so it's foruntate that my next most-frequently used angle of view corresponds to this small, light-weight lens.

Chuck Lee

06-12-2009, 12:07 AM

I've got a 5D and 40D. Three lenses always in the bag are:

1) 17-35 f2.8L (My favorite lens at this time.) Went on a field trip with my son's 3rd grade class today and this was the only lens I used.

2) 28-70 f2.8L (Good general purpose, candid portrait lens)

3) 70-200 f2.8L (Exceptional IQ and AF, Studio Portrait, Wedding, Sports, Wildlife, Air Show, etc. etc.)

I also carry a EF 100 f2.8 Macro and EF 50 1.4. The AW200 Slingshot's a good size bag. Still debating whether to add a 100-400 L IS or wait a bit to see if there will be a newer offering in this range.

I always carry at least one flash (Quantarray 9550 or Vivitar 285HV) with Cactus V2s wireless for the Vivitar, a Demb diffuser, gels, cloth, spare AA's, 77mm polarizer, release chord, zip lock bag, mem card reader, and extra 2G Sandisk II CF cards.

I use a duffle for all of the extra location shoot stuff, but everyday my Slingshot goes with me whether I'm planning on taking photos or not. Most of the time I take just the 5D and 5 lenses and strobe. Sometimes, I'll for go the strobe and tote the 40D along too. Use it with the 70-200 and the 5D with the other lenses. Did that this past weekend at the church picnic.

Keith B

06-12-2009, 01:42 AM

Daniel Browning

06-12-2009, 01:51 AM

Have you at least tried out the 16-35 II? Not as sharp or as fast as a prime but a versatile dream if you like wides. I love being able to go from mild-wide 35 to über-wide 16.

I've only played around with it a few times. I find that it's very difficult to get good compositions wider than 24mm. There's just too much background.

Keith B

06-12-2009, 02:16 AM

For personal stuff the wide end is usually just for fun. I get to shoot normal and then throw in a exaggerated angle just for something different.

It actually works really well for me for my paid gig. I shoot a lot of restaurants. 16 will let me get the whole place or I can use it to exaggerate lines to give give a place a larger appearance. Then I can zip in to 35 get real close to dishes of food, pull in some background. I usually bracket 2.8, 5.6 and 8.0 on the food to give the designer the choice of DOF.

Occasionally I get to shoot some fashion stuff. I love to get low and exaggerate leg length, emphasize shoes and such. Then I have the 24, 35 etc to give a normal perspective too.

Oh and building exteriors are fun at 16 too. Just rambling cause I love this lens.

Colin

06-12-2009, 02:42 AM

The only lens I almost always carry is the 24-105 f/4,followed most likely by the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Third would be a toss up between the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 180mm f/3.5 Macro.

The last outing I used the first two exclusively. The time before that, the last two exclusively...

I kind of failed not narrowing down to three, didn't i? Oh well....

Mark Elberson

06-12-2009, 10:17 AM

Still debating whether to add a 100-400 L IS or wait a bit to see if there will be a newer offering in this range.
<p style="CLEAR: both"]
<p style="CLEAR: both"]Rumors about a 100-400 L II have been around for a long time. I got mine back in January and at the point canonrumors.com had the new model coming out in February. Obviously it never came out but regardless, owners of the current 100-400 L love it so if you're thinking about it I would pull the trigger! Just think of all of the shots you'll miss waiting for the next release :)

<p style="CLEAR: both"]

I also carry a EF 100 f2.8 Macro and EF 50 1.4

Me too :) I use the <span id="btAsinTitle"]Canon Deluxe Photo Backpack 200EG which carries a ton of gear and quite comfortably too!

George Slusher

06-13-2009, 09:42 AM

"Always" is a long, long time. [:^)] What I carry depends upon what I'll be doing. Here's what's in my car most of the time, though. I can swap out various lenses depending upon the task.

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS

Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS
Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

Usually, the 17-85mm will be on my 30D in a Think Tank Speed Racer, along with the Sigma 10-20mm, 100mm Macro, and 100-400mm, plus a Canon 1.4x teleconverter (fits the 70-200mm f/4 and 100-400mm). That's my "standard" daytime nature set. If I'm carrying the Speed Racer through the woods & fields, I use the 17-85mm because the (superior) 17-55mm f/2.8 would leave too big a gap versus the 100-400mm. If I'm working out of my car, I use the 17-55mm and/or 70-200mm f/4 (sharper than the 100-400, as well as a LOT lighter!) for flowers, plants, landscapes, etc., but birds almost require the 100-400mm. If I were to be walking around downtown (which I don't, yet), I'd probably have the 17-55mm on the camera and the 70-200mm f/4 along.

I often take photos at equestrian events. Again, what I carry depends upon the situation. Outdoors, in good light, I carry the 17-85mm and either the 70-200mm f/4 or the 100-400mm, depending upon how far away the subjects will be. (A dressage show or jumping in a ring does OK with the 70-200mm f/4; wide-open, spread out courses may require the 100-400mm.) Usually, I also have a camcorder (Canon Optura 50) in the bag (Think Tank Change Up). The 17-85mm is to avoid the gap in focal length and to not have to change lenses so frequently. A Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L or 24-105mm f/4L might be even better, in that regard, as I seldom use a focal length shorter than 35-40mm, but I haven't invested in either of thoses. (The 17-85mm was a fairly early purchase as an upgrade to the 18-55mm (non-IS) kit lens.)

Indoor horse shows, like other indoor sports, can be a real challenge. (Horse arenas seem to be less-well-lit than, say, pro basketball arenas.) I have to pull out the faster lenses, plus the camcorder and 580EX flash:

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
One or more fast prime(s), depending upon the situation (e.g., how far away the horses will be):

35mm f/2
50mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.8
100mm f/2

Other situations may demand different set-ups. (E.g., the few times I shoot indoors with groups of people, I'll usually have the 17-55mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses.)

Benjamin

06-13-2009, 11:14 AM

TheRoff

06-13-2009, 11:55 PM

Ok, in my bag most of the time:

5DMk2 and 30D

70-200mm f/2.8L IS - Hard to carry around all the time, but I love the reach

24-105 f/4 - This one lives on the 5DMk2

EF-S 10-22mm - This one lives on the 30D and I love it.

Larry

piiooo

06-14-2009, 02:41 AM

Here's what I carry with my 50D:

1) EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

2) EF-S 10-22 f/4-5.6

3) EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS

All of the above have a 77mm filter thread which makes my life a lot easier.

4) 50 f/1.4

I carry a lens hood for each lens as well.

ShutterbugJohan

06-15-2009, 12:17 PM

I always carry the 16-35/2.8L and 100/2.8 Macro plus a 580EX II flash. Depending on what I'm shooting, I'll also take a 50/1.8 II, 28-135 IS, Tamron 70-300, or 580EX flash. The 70-200/2.8 is at the top of my wishlist. :-)

KBeat

06-15-2009, 01:27 PM

If the 16-35L, 24-105L and 70-200/2.8L are the three lenses you always carry along with your body, then you do carry a lot! (more like a 6kg backpack overall?) I only carry this much (quite a bit more than this actually) when I'm simply moving all my gear from one place to the other, i.g. going back home for my 4 months summer vacation. Otherwise, this is all I carry 95% of the time:

1V-HS + 16-35/2.8L II, 85/1.8

or

50D + 24-70/2.8L

This way I can just bring a Lowepro Nova 180 with me or a ThinkTank Speed Racer, I only bring my 70-200L when I need a telescope/emoticons/emotion-1.gif

Now you've done it, now you're going to make me discuss my camera bag. Finding the right bag was far more difficult than deciding on lenses, camera bodies, or just about anything else I use professionally. [:)]I swear I went through a half dozen or so from Lowepro, ThinkTank, Tamarac, Canon, and Crumpler before finally finding a bag that fit my needs. And, it was only just released.

The Crumpler 8 Million Dollar Home lets me store my 5D Mark II with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, hood reversed, attached. I can comfortably fit a couple of more lenses with the hoods, a 580 or 430 flash, and the various necessities we usually need. I sling it over my neck like a messenger bag, and I can do lens changes on the fly without having to put it down on the ground like a backpack. It's actually distributes the weight really well, and when I'm out shooting, the camera is generally around my neck so the weight of the bag and two lenses is minimal.

It could easily hold a four or more extra lenses, but then the weight would become a real issue.

Cory

06-17-2009, 03:02 AM

Keith B

06-23-2009, 02:24 AM

Ok I gotta change mine. Circumstances came up where I needed the 24+ zoom range and since I sold my 24-105 I ordered the 24-70.

The local Lexus dealer called Friday and asked me if I could shoot there unveiling event this week and I was thinking of trying to get by with the 16-35 II. Since they have a bunch of events coming up I decided not to play around and ordered the 24-70 (the range I claimed I never use).

So I now have the trifecta of 2.8 L lenses:

1) 16-35 II

2) 24-70

3) 70-200 2.8 IS

My 24 1.4L will be going on the auction block to help pay for the 24-70.

Colin

06-23-2009, 03:24 AM

Ok I gotta change mine......

So I now have the trifecta of 2.8 L lenses:

1) 16-35 II

2) 24-70

3) 70-200 2.8 IS

My 24 1.4L will be going on the auction block to help pay for the 24-70.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Well... That's pretty solid [:)]

Maybe I should get some fingernail polish and paint 'II' on my 16-35... Then we can match (once the 24-70 goes back for/returns frominspection/service)

Should we match our T-Shirts too?

Dumien

06-23-2009, 05:46 AM

in my bag, all the time:

Canon Rebel XSi
Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L
Canon EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6
430 EX II speedlite

and of course my 718B manfrotto tripod. Basically all I have as camera gear ;)

Mark Elberson

06-23-2009, 10:26 AM

So I now have the trifecta of 2.8 L lenses:

1) 16-35 II

2) 24-70

3) 70-200 2.8 IS
<p style="CLEAR: both"]
<p style="CLEAR: both"]I'm so jealous! It's the full-framer's dream kit!! Oh well, I have as close as I can get to the 1.6X FOVCF equivalent :)

Keith B

06-23-2009, 10:56 AM

So I now have the trifecta of 2.8 L lenses:

1) 16-35 II

2) 24-70

3) 70-200 2.8 IS
<p style="CLEAR:both;"]
<p style="CLEAR:both;"]I'm so jealous! It's the full-framer's dream kit!! Oh well, I have as close as I can get to the 1.6X FOVCF equivalent :)

If you saw how bad my savings account dwindled you may not be so jealous.

It's true though, everything seemed to change once I went FF. I had the 70-200 4.0 non IS and it seemed too long for anything I was shooting on my 40D so I sold it. Then when I got my 5D2 I missed that focal range. My 24 1.4L seemed perfect on my 40D and now is just too wide for most stuff. I had a 15 Fisheye for my wide stuff and now on the 5D it just seems ridiculous.

So since I've had the 5D2 I've essentially just wiped the slate clean and bought the right lenses. The only thing I want now is the 35 1.4 to fill the low light fixed void of the 24 on 40D.

Colin

I'm wearing a sky blue tee, tan shorts, black socks pulled up to the knee. Can you hang with that?

mpphoto12

06-23-2009, 11:08 AM

well for me considering my only 2.8 and "L" lens in the 70-200 non IS i find a reason to use it all the time lol its either that or the crappy kit lens so i have no choice after the large investement of the 70-200. now i need a new body and wide angle. but for a highschooler i have time lol this thread is helpful however

Colin

06-23-2009, 12:49 PM

Colin

I'm wearing a sky blue tee, tan shorts, black socks pulled up to the knee. Can you hang with that?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I'll check out the thrift store and see what I can do [:)]

Keith B

06-23-2009, 02:12 PM

Colin

I'm wearing a sky blue tee, tan shorts, black socks pulled up to the knee. Can you hang with that?
<div style="CLEAR:both;"]</div>

I'll check out the thrift store and see what I can do /emoticons/emotion-1.gif

<div>

look for some velcro running shoes if you want to cap it off right.
</div>

T Bigger

06-25-2009, 03:01 PM

I shoot with a 50d and the three lens I always carry are 1) EFS 10-22 this one should be a L lens.

2) EF 24-105 this my walk around lens love the IS.

3) EF 70-200 f4 IS this is the best zoom lens I have ever used.

Ajohnson

06-25-2009, 04:18 PM

Colin

06-25-2009, 05:04 PM

George Slusher

06-25-2009, 05:22 PM

I agree on your choice of lenses. I use the 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 16-35 f/2.8L, 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS & 600 f/4L. I find all of these lenses work great because I love landscape & wildlife photography. I use a CanonMark III & the 5D.I also keep a 1.25x converter in my bag. Keep up the good work. BestRegards.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Now, that's quite a bag! Does it come with its own forklift? [;)]

24-105: 1.5 lb

70-200 f/2.8L IS: 3.5 lb w/collar

16-35: 1.4 lb

100-400: 3 lb (I think that's without the collar & hood)

600: 11.8 lb

Mark III (1D or 1Ds?): 2.6 lb

5D: 2 lb (without the grip)
1.25x converter (not sure what you have--is it the Canon 1.4x extender?): 0.5 lb

That's a total of 26.3 lb, not including the bag (though I have trouble figuring out what bag could carry all that); batteries; tripod (you're not going to be handholding the 600mm very much) and ballhead or gimbal head (or monopod); maybe a flash + bracket + Better Beamer, etc.

What about tiny things? None of those lenses is especially good in terms of maximum magnification. The 24-105 would be the best on its own at 1/4.3x or the 70-200mm with the 1.4x extender (about 1/3.3x). One way to add macro capability (besides carrying another lens!) would be the 77mm Canon 500D ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-Close-up-Lens-Review.aspx) close-up lens. It would work with the 24-105 (at the upper end of its range), 70-200, and 100-400. Extension tubes are another approach that would also reduce the minimum focusing distance. (Bird photographers apparently like to use an extension tube with the 500mm or 600mm lens for small birds closer in.)

George Slusher

06-25-2009, 06:10 PM

So far, I've really liked most everything about every 'L' lens, with the exception of the 50mm f/1.2, for which I had a love/hate thing going on.

There seem to be a few EF-S lenses which, from an image quality standpoint, 'should' be in the 'L' family. However, for whatever reason, the build quality and full frame compatibility are other qualifiers.

Actually, I'd like the 'L' family to be more consistent between themselves too, in terms of form factor and weather sealing. if they all worked the same, that'd be nice. I didn't really like how the 35L had a different form factor than the 50L and the 85L. i didn't like how the 85L had different focusing than the 50L, and lacked weather sealing. I don't like that the 400mm f/5.6L doesn't have an IS version or weather sealing... if I'm buying 'L', I'd really like things to simply match :P

Part of the reason is that they came out at different times. Many L lenses came out before there were many (any?) real weather-sealed bodies. The 70-200mm f/4L does not have weather-sealing, but the later-arriving 70-200mm f/4L IS does.

I'm not sure what you mean by "form factor"--maybe the shape? Remember that the camera end of a lens is pretty much restricted in diameter. It has to fit on the mount and under the overhanging "snout" that houses part of the viewfinder and the built-in flash (the latter on the xxD and xxxD cameras). The 35mm f/1.4L has a shorter focal length and smaller maximum aperture than either the 50mm f/1.2L or the 85mm 1.2L. The laws of physics will say that the 50mm and 85mm must have larger front lens diameters than the 35mm, thus the bloated look. (Edit: the maximum effective aperture of the 35mm lens would be 25mm; for the 50mm, it's 41.7mm--1.7 times as big; for the 85mm, it's 70.8mm, 2.8 times as big.)

As for the 400mm f/5.6L not having IS or weather-sealing, those were Bryan's main negative points, as well. Problem is, the lens without IS is $1200 at B&H. The normal price of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is $1500--with the current rebate, it's $1400. Putting IS and weather-sealing on the 400mm f/5.6L might raise the price to as much or more than the zoom costs. (For example, the difference between the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS and IS versions is $500; for the f/2.8L versions, it's $650. In both cases, the difference includes weather-sealing, as well. The 100-400mm does not have weathersealing, either.) Few people would opt for an f/5.6 prime when they could get a f/5.6 zoom for the same price. The prime's image quality may be a bit higher, but its minimum focus distance is not as good as the zoom (11.8 ft vs 5.9 ft) and it weighs almost as much (2.8 lb vs 3 lb).

I considered the 400mm f/5.6L before settling on the 100-400mm. For my uses--horse shows, nature, the fixed-focal-length would be too restrictive. While some shots at outdoor shows might use 400mm, most would need a shorter focal length. Bryan has said that a 400mm lens is great for field sports--soccer (see the photos of his girls), football, etc. The problem with horse shows is that the horse is much bigger than a person--most are at least 7 ft long, nose to tail--even longer when moving, especially jumping. The focal length to frame a 10-year-old kicking a soccer ball, at the same distance, might get 1/4-1/3 of the horse. Also, one needs to leave "room" in front of a horse to avoid tension in the viewer, plus, there's often context to be considered, like including a jump the horse is going over.

alexniedra

06-25-2009, 08:59 PM

(For example, the difference between the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS and IS versions is $500; for the f/2.8L versions, it's $650. In both cases, the difference includes weather-sealing, as well.

But those aren't the only changes brought forward in the IS version. The optics were completely redesigned, a cicular aperture was used, and the minimum focus distance was made shorter.

The optics alone, in my opinion, account for a substantial part of the price differential over the non-IS version.

Few people would opt for an f/5.6 prime when they could get a f/5.6 zoom for the same price. The prime's image quality may be a bit higher, but its minimum focus distance is not as good as the zoom (11.8 ft vs 5.9 ft) and it weighs almost as much (2.8 lb vs 3 lb).

Although this is a choice that is made on an individual basis, I kindly disagree. Aperture and a "slight image quality improvement" are not the only determining factors in make one lens better than the other. In fact, I think that this image quality improvement with the prime is much better than just "a big higher" ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0& APIComp=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&F LI=7&API=1).

For many photographers, the image quality advantage of the 400 5.6 L far outweighs its disadvantage of zoom versitality and Image Stabalization. Minimum focus distance, in my opinion, shouldn't be considered a serious disadvantage of the prime. Extension tubes can help you focus closer, but to put it in perspective, nothing will make your lens any lighter, or have better sharpness right out of the camera.

Ajohnson

06-25-2009, 10:13 PM

I don't carry everything at the same time. It depends on what I am after to take pictures of. Most of the time I can take my blazer to where I want to take pictures with the 600. My 1.4x extender is a canon.

George Slusher

06-26-2009, 04:52 AM

But those aren't the only changes brought forward in the IS version. The optics were completely redesigned, a cicular aperture was used, and the minimum focus distance was made shorter.

The optics alone, in my opinion, account for a substantial part of the price differential over the non-IS version.

Good points. I would expect that Canon would do the same if it introduced an IS version of the 400mm f/5.6L. The difference in normal price between the 400mm and 100-400mm is $300 ($200 with current rebate), not $500-$650.

Although this is a choice that is made on an individual basis, I kindly disagree. Aperture and a "slight image quality improvement" are not the only determining factors in make one lens better than the other. In fact, I think that this image quality improvement with the prime </div>

Bryan pointed out pretty much the same thing in his review: the 400mm f/5.6L is sharper (somewhat) than the 100-400mm. One minor problem with your link--it compares the 100-400mm on the 1Ds Mk III with the 400mm on the 1Ds Mk II. The Mk III's higher resolution (21.1 MP, vs 16.6 MP for the Mk II) can make any lens look less sharp on a pixel-to-pixel basis, which is what those comparison images are. Change the camera on the 100-400mm to the 1Ds Mk II (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0& APIComp=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&F LI=7&API=1]is much better than just "a big higher".

For many photographers, the image quality advantage of the 400 5.6 L far outweighs its disadvantage of zoom versitality and Image Stabalization. Minimum focus distance, in my opinion, shouldn't be considered a serious disadvantage of the prime. Extension tubes can help you focus closer, but to put it in perspective, nothing will make your lens any lighter, or have better sharpness right out of the camera.
<div style="clear: both;) and the difference at f/5.6 become less. At f/8 ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3& LensComp=278&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&A PIComp=2), the difference is hard to see. (The difference might be even less apparent on my 8MP 30D or the 10MP 40D I hope to get soon.)

Image stabilization on the 100-400mm can result in better sharpness, perhaps even better than the 400mm f/5.6L. The photographer who has to hand-hold the camera can use a smaller aperture and/or lower ISO with IS, which may make up for at least some difference in sharpness and overall quality. Compare the 100-400mm at f/8 to the 400mm at f/5.6 ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3& LensComp=278&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&A PIComp=0) and see if there's a significant difference. The IS can give 1-3 stops improvement, depending upon the situation and the individual photographer.

Of course, small differences in sharpness on a chart may or may not mean much in real life. I can't compare the lenses, as I have only the 100-400mm. Do you have or have used both? About the only way I would know to compare them in realistic situations would be to have both on hand and use them to shoot the same subject, in the same situation and lighting, with the same camera, within a short time (minutes). I don't know if anyone has done that. Comparing images of different subjects, taken at different times, by different people with different cameras, would not be as helpful.

As for weight, by Canon's specs, they are 0.2 lb--3 oz--different. If one has to use a monopod or tripod with the prime vs hand-holding the zoom, that might make up for the weight difference. [A]

If you want the BEST image quality at 400mm, the 400mm f/2.8L IS ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=327&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&AP IComp=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI =0&API=3) would be the way to go. It would cost a BIT more, of course, and be a BIT heavier. [:D] (To save looking it up, the 400mm f/2.8L IS costs $6,800 and weighs nearly 12 lbs.)

The closer minimum focus translates into greater magnification--0.12x vs 0.2x, a factor of 50% difference. Yes, one can use extension tubes, but, to me, it's more convenient to just point the camera, plus an extension tube will "lose" light. (In reality, they cause the image to be larger, so the same light is spread over a larger area.)

The major advantage in image quality for the 400mm f/5.6L, to me, wouldn't be sharpness but less vignetting and distortion than the 100-400mm. On my 1.6x FOVCF 30D, vignetting is not noticeable in most shots, but it's very apparent shooting into a plain blue sky:

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Hawk/IMG_9162_800.jpg

I know that it would be worse on a full-frame body.

If the 400mm prime autofocuses faster, that would also be an advantage. I don't know if it does, however.

One minor point: "many photographers" implies some sort of estimate, versus "some photographers." I suspect, though without hard data, that the 100-400mm is more widely-used than the 400mm f/5.6L. I doubt that B&H would tell us how many of each they've sold, but, I can
give a count of the lenses sold on eBay recently. Between 6/11 and 6/25, 42 100-400mm lenses were sold by US sellers, 9 new (mostly by Beach Camera), 33 used. The used lenses sold from $1000 to $1378, average $1226. Every used lens was sold. In the same period, 5 400mm f/5.6L lenses were sold--2 new, 3 used. The used lenses sold for $912-1075, average $989.

Here's a graphic demonstration of why some (not necessarily "many")--e.g., me, might want the versatility of the zoom. All were taken with my 100-400mm and 30D at an outdoor horse show. The jumps were spread out over a very large area and I had to stand off to one side, instead of in the middle, so the distance varied a lot. Horses are fairly large. When jumping, their necks are extended and their hind legs and tail extend behind, making them over 10 ft long. You can't use the same focal length you'd use for shots of individual people playing soccer, football, etc. at the same distance--you'd get only part of the horse. I usually have to use even shorter focal lengths to ensure that I can get space in front of a moving horse, plus it makes following the horse less difficult. I can (and do) crop later to get better framing and effect.

The first three are scaled from full images (no cropping). The first was taken at 400mm and still needs cropping to take out a bit of the background behind the horse, leaving more space in front. (And, yes, I know about the obstruction. There was no where I could stand and get a clear shot of every jump. I put this one up mostly to show that I sometimes need 400mm, maybe more.)

(Note: Edited to finish a sentence and clarify.)

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Hunt derby/IMG_8555_tca_400_800.jpg

A few minutes later at 105mm. It could stand cropping to the equivalent of maybe 135mm. (I've done that for the rider.) (The horse was bucking. Normally, at that point in a canter stride, the hind feet would be under the horse's body and the head would be coming up.)

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Hunt derby/IMG_8569_tca_105_800.jpg

Then, a bit more than 4 minutes later, at 120mm. To give an idea of scale, the jump standards holding the poles are about 5 ft high. The horse, from ears to end of tail, is about 12 ft long. One reason that I had the zoom set to that point is that I couldn't be sure that she would take the higher jump--she might have taken the lower jump, about 10 ft closer.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Hunt derby/IMG_8591_tca_120_800.jpg

That needs cropping, as well; here it is at about the equivalent of 145mm. I wouldn't want to use a much longer focal length, as that wouldn't allow for context and imperfect tracking.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Hunt derby/IMG_8591_crop_tca_800.jpg

Here's what would have happened if I had used a 400mm prime lens--it would be a nice shot, IF I could get it. It would be very difficult to follow a horse and frame the shot this accurately. That's why I back off the zoom a bit more than the final shot will require. It's a lot easier to crop out than to add back in.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Hunt derby/IMG_8591_tca_400_800.jpg

In the space of about 15 minutes (lots more shots than these; these are among the better and I have permission to post them from the riders), I went back and forth between around 100mm all the way out to 400mm. Before they started jumping, with the riders and horses waiting for the start, I took photos with both my 17-85mm IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS, but, even with my 1.4x extender, the 70-200mm wouldn't have been enough for the jumping. (I could have used my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and 2x extender, but the images would have been worse.)

So, obviously, I'm not one of the "many" for whom some difference in image quality outweighs the versatility of the zoom.

alexniedra

06-26-2009, 09:12 AM

Alright, thanks - You cleared things up for me.

And it's clearly visible - The zoom versitality of the 100-400 L is a big deal for you. For some, the sharpness of the prime is. So it's all based on the needs of the photographer.

Case closed. [:)]

KBeat

06-26-2009, 09:36 AM

Mark Elberson

06-26-2009, 09:44 AM

Canon Rumors says the highly anticipated, often requested EF 24-70 f2.8/L IS lens may be on the way. If they're correct, my "three lens kit" just changed, and my credit card just took a hit. /emoticons/emotion-15.gif

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-cr1/
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

If that came true Keith B would be pissed(he just picked up a 24-70 f/2.8). Does Canon Rumors provide a "hit rate" on their website? They love to speculate but how often do they get things right?

Keith B

06-26-2009, 10:04 AM

If that came true Keith B would be pissed(he just picked up a 24-70 f/2.8). Does Canon Rumors provide a "hit rate" on their website? They love to speculate but how often do they get things right?

Depends. If the lens is going to jump $500-$600 in price, as in the instance of the 24 1.4 II, I'll be okay.

I would imagine that would be the reality (if not higher) if they are adding IS too.

KBeat

06-26-2009, 10:21 AM

Who knows Mark, I take all rumor sites, be they Apple, Canon, or whatever, with a can of Epson's. They did have the early line on the manual mode for video firmware update on the 5D Mark II, and have probably been right a few other times. An IS version of the venerable 24-70mm 2.8 is such a sought after upgrade that it lends the rumor a higher degree of credibility. Canon knows this lens would be a top seller, so there isn't any reason for them not to be working on one. I suppose it's all a matter of timing. I mean, if we see one in 2 or 3 years, were they right? Unless something hits the stores later this year, it's just another useless rumor.

Such an upgrade won't do wonders for sales of the 24-105 lens unless the price difference is $600+ or so as Keith mentioned.

engrmariano

06-26-2009, 02:38 PM

my 3 lenses are exactly the same as TS, 16-35/2.8L, 24-105/4L IS, & 70-200/2.8L IS. also the same body. [;)]

ShutterbugJohan

06-26-2009, 06:18 PM

Does Canon Rumors provide a "hit rate" on their website? They love to speculate but how often do they get things right?

They do provide a "hit rate" on their various sources. They rate them [CR1], [CR2], and [CR3]. [CR1] means a new source and [CR3] as a source that gets 95% right. This rumor's source is rated [CR1], which means "New source, never heard from before."

wickerprints

06-26-2009, 08:03 PM

<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"]The 24-70/2.8L is already a rather large and heavy lens, coming in at just over 2 lbs. I think the primary reason why Canon did not make it IS is because it would become even heavier. So if the rumors are true, either Canon dida complete redesign that would keep the weight reasonable, or it's going to be a 3-lb. lens. Those of us who have been clamoring for a 24-70/2.8L IS might think twice if it's heavy....just a thought.

richm

06-26-2009, 08:24 PM

So far, I have:

Canon 40d

70-200 2.8 IS

24-105 4 IS

and am leaning toward the 10-22 EF-S next. It is a fabulous, fun lens. I'm lucky that I've been able to borrow my bro-in-law's copy for a couple of trips and find it to be a lot of fun. I would try to have it for any trip to a city, as it provides some great city/museum/etc shots. I am not sure what's next for a body yet, either the xxd that replaces the 50d or a 5dmk2, so I haven't pulled the trigger. But I suspect full frame will be in my future, so I may wait a while.

KBeat

07-20-2009, 03:17 PM

So the word is Canon has discontinued my favorite lens: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.

Given the popularity of the lens, I assume this means we'll see version II of this lens shortly. Better IS, better optics, lighter weight? I'm curious how they're going to improve this already superb lens.

wickerprints

07-20-2009, 04:39 PM

No. There is no official word on the status of this lens.