Three "L" lenses I always carry...

[Keith B]

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 [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

<div>


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

[T Bigger]

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]

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 &amp; 600 f/4L. I find all of these lenses work great because I love landscape &amp; wildlife photography. I use a CanonMark III &amp; the 5D.I also keep a 1.25x converter in my bag. Keep up the good work. BestRegards.

[Colin]

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


At least they're pretty consistent about the filter thread diameter... mostly.


'

[George Slusher]

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 &amp; 600 f/4L. I find all of these lenses work great because I love landscape &amp; wildlife photography. I use a CanonMark III &amp; 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 &amp; 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 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]

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&amp;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]

(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".


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]

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]

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 [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&am p;FLIComp=0&amp;APIComp=0&amp;LensComp=278&amp;Cam eraComp=9&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLI=7&amp;API=1]is much better than just "a big higher"[/url].


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;"]</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 and the difference at f/5.6 become less. At f/8, 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 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 would be the way to go. It would cost a BIT more, of course, and be a BIT heavier. [] (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:





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&amp;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.)








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.)








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.






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.











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.






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]

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. []