Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Canon (EF 100-400 L + EF 24-105) or EF 28-300

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    159

    Re: Canon (EF 100-400 L + EF 24-105) or EF 28-300



    Mike,


    I would suggest option number one.





    peety,


    Out of curiosity, why do you never intend to own the 100-400? I know there are personal tastes/opinions, but I thought the 100-400 was considered a great lens and it is probably next on my purchase list.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    233

    Re: Canon (EF 100-400 L + EF 24-105) or EF 28-300



    I also vote for number one. The IQ is better than the 28-300. The 28-300 is certainly L quality glass, but to get that range comprises must be made.
    Quote Originally Posted by TucsonTRD


    peety,


    Out of curiosity, why do you never intend to own the 100-400? I know there are personal tastes/opinions, but I thought the 100-400 was considered a great lens and it is probably next on my purchase list.


    Ditto. The 100-400 is on my short list too.



  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,156

    Re: Canon (EF 100-400 L + EF 24-105) or EF 28-300



    Quote Originally Posted by TucsonTRD


    peety,


    Out of curiosity, why do you never intend to own the 100-400? I know there are personal tastes/opinions, but I thought the 100-400 was considered a great lens and it is probably next on my purchase list.
    <div style="clear: both;"]</div>


    I'm a multi-camera shooter, period. Silly trip with family? I'll take two cameras, at least. Work wants me to take a few pictures of datacenter network racks? I'll take two cameras. Golf tournament? Two cameras in others' hands for posed foursome shots, two cameras for me to shoot everything and everywhere else. You get the picture. So if I have at least two cameras and I'm shooting a lot of long stuff, I already have a 70-200/2.8IS. I can put a 300/4 or 400/5.6 on the second camera, and get as good if not better shots on the long end, while using my much better 70-200 on the shorter end.


    Although I don't do much tripod shooting, I see the value in it and have two tripods on the plan. The 100-400, in my opinion, is not a tripod shooter's lens, because of the drastic shift in balance point. I also hate the zoom tension clutch, as it requires two hands to adjust, but walks loose all the time.


    After I "duplicate" the wide/general/tele kit so my fiance can have good glass for her two cameras, I'm going straight to the 300/4IS. After that is the 85L, and the 400/5.6. "But peety, why buy the 300/4 and the 400/5.6 when you could just buy the 100-400?" She "gets" the 300/4 (she needs IS more than I do - I can manage shutter speed better than her), and I "get" the 400. Two more lenses later, I plan to get the 500/4 (yeah, I dream a lot).
    We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •