Posted by simon marshall on September 28, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Hi,
Having deciding on purchasing a 70-200, after some thought maybe it would be wiser to instead buy the 24-105 f4L./ I currently own 17-40mm and 100-400L the reason for either the 70-200 or 24-105 is to fill the gap between the 40-100.
Posted by Steve Foss on September 28, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Simon, I think it depends on your shooting style/needs and which 70-200 you are talking about. If you occasionally need a fast lens for low light or fast action, picking up a 70-200 f2.8L will gain you a stop over the 17-40 and two stops over the 100-400.
For nature photography, I got along on a crop body with the 17-40 and 100-400 with nothing in between for three years before picking up a 70-200, and that wasn't to fill the gap but because I needed the low light capability for weddings. For my style of photography, the gap wasn't important. For a landscape photographer, I can see that gap being much more troublesome, and it's a gap the 70-200 fills only half way, so the 24-105 may make more sense.
It just depends. So what types of subjects do you shoot? What body do you shoot? There really are a fair number of factors that go into the decision.
Posted by simon marshall on September 28, 2008 at 11:31 AM
You're right Steve, I own a 1.6x crop (40d). I mainly shoot macro which has nothing to do with these lenses, for that I use an MP-E65 and 100mm macro. But I suppose the 2.8 is important mainly for portraits to blur BGs.
Posted by Steve Foss on September 28, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Ahhhh, a macro guy! Why even put the 24-105 or 70-200 in your bag?
Just kidding. Given (I think) that for you the only real reason to fill the gap would be to take advantage of a landscape or potential environmental portrait that you couldn't get with your current lineup, the 24-105 would make the most sense to me. And that's just to me, and just my opinion.
As for f2.8 and portraiture, all my portraiture except for certain wedding situations is outside, and my 100 macro makes a darn fine portrait lens in many outdoor situations, particularly when you can position yourself close to the subject and shoot with a distant BG. In fact, when I owned the 100-400 I did a fair amount of outdoors head-and-shoulders portraiture with it at 400mm and f8 (f8 to sharpen it up a bit) with the subject close and the BG distant and the BG was smooth and buttery if I put it far enough behind the subject. The compression of 400mm did really nice things with subject and BG.
Posted by simon marshall on September 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I will run through your advice as it does make sense.
Discussion
5 repliesHaving deciding on purchasing a 70-200, after some thought maybe it would be wiser to instead buy the 24-105 f4L./ I currently own 17-40mm and 100-400L the reason for either the 70-200 or 24-105 is to fill the gap between the 40-100.
For nature photography, I got along on a crop body with the 17-40 and 100-400 with nothing in between for three years before picking up a 70-200, and that wasn't to fill the gap but because I needed the low light capability for weddings. For my style of photography, the gap wasn't important. For a landscape photographer, I can see that gap being much more troublesome, and it's a gap the 70-200 fills only half way, so the 24-105 may make more sense.
It just depends. So what types of subjects do you shoot? What body do you shoot? There really are a fair number of factors that go into the decision.
Just kidding. Given (I think) that for you the only real reason to fill the gap would be to take advantage of a landscape or potential environmental portrait that you couldn't get with your current lineup, the 24-105 would make the most sense to me. And that's just to me, and just my opinion.
As for f2.8 and portraiture, all my portraiture except for certain wedding situations is outside, and my 100 macro makes a darn fine portrait lens in many outdoor situations, particularly when you can position yourself close to the subject and shoot with a distant BG. In fact, when I owned the 100-400 I did a fair amount of outdoors head-and-shoulders portraiture with it at 400mm and f8 (f8 to sharpen it up a bit) with the subject close and the BG distant and the BG was smooth and buttery if I put it far enough behind the subject. The compression of 400mm did really nice things with subject and BG.
Thanks.
Troup