Was it smart to buy 2 lens's instead of getting cheaper lens's and better bodies?

[alfa147x]

So my best friend and I shoot every thing together so when ever had a shoot something (wedding, party, ect...) he would you the 75 - 300 and I would use the 18 - 55
Last week he bought the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM and I bought the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

What it a bad idea to buy 2x $1000 + lens's to mount on these bodies ?

~alfa

 

[alfa147x]

Also how would one test for Lens Flare on the 24 - 105 ?

 

[OdiN]

Better to invest in glass than bodies.

The 20D and 30D are both still very good cameras.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Better to invest in glass than bodies.

The 20D and 30D are both still very good cameras.

thats what I was thinking just had to reinsure the bud

 

[jpeyton]

While both those lenses are really nice, if you were investing in better glass to shoot events, I would've gone with some f/2.8 lenses instead (like the 24-70 f/2.8 L + the 70-200 f/2.8 L).

That's what some professional wedding photogs told me, anyways.

 

[OdiN]

I would agree to go for f/2.8

However, with the IS on the 24-105, it is a good event lens. I used one for quite some time and loved it.

 

[alfa147x]

I did rent the 24 - 70 but the DOF was too much for my liking as well as the contrast looked so much better on the 24 - 105 as i shoot at f/8ish so the extra cost wasn't worth it IMO

also RIP Quantaray 75-300 f/4.0 Text

 

[Deadtrees]

It was a wise move considering how FF war is taking place pretty soon.

 

[alfa147x]

would you go with the 70-200 f/2.8 L + a 2x tc or the 100 - 400 ?

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: alfa147x
would you go with the 70-200 f/2.8 L + a 2x tc or the 100 - 400 ?

70-200 IS

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: alfa147x
would you go with the 70-200 f/2.8 L + a 2x tc or the 100 - 400 ?

70-200 IS

The 70-200mm f/4 L IS is the sharpest of the Canon 70-200mm family.

But there are many situations (available light event photography) where you are more than willing to give up a little sharpness to get that extra stop or two of light, or that ultra narrow DOF.

I had a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS; great lens. Heavy, though. And I wish Canon would make their telephotos black again; pros usually like drawing LESS attention to themselves.

 

[alfa147x]

I like lens's that look like space shuttles

 

[n4bby]

Originally posted by: alfa147x
as i shoot at f/8ish so the extra cost wasn't worth it IMO

that's where you're going wrong. you need to shoot wider open.

i know many professional photogs, including a few of my coworkers (i work at a stock photo site), and i can't remember the last time i saw them shoot f/8. most of the time we're shooting our L primes between f/1.4 and f/2.

that said, if you're going to shoot at f/8, you don't really need to buy an L lens as most lenses look ok stopped down that much. much of the advantage of L's is at large apertures. if you're not using them wide open, you're frankly wasting your money.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: alfa147x
would you go with the 70-200 f/2.8 L + a 2x tc or the 100 - 400 ?

70-200 IS

The 70-200mm f/4 L IS is the sharpest of the Canon 70-200mm family.

But there are many situations (available light event photography) where you are more than willing to give up a little sharpness to get that extra stop or two of light, or that ultra narrow DOF.

I had a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS; great lens. Heavy, though. And I wish Canon would make their telephotos black again; pros usually like drawing LESS attention to themselves.

I know the F4's tend to be sharper, but he has weddings in his venues... I think the need for 2.8 outweighs sharpness in this case. And it's not like it's crap, heh.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Better to invest in glass than bodies.

The 20D and 30D are both still very good cameras.

Even a 10D would work. Unless you were making poster size prints. Plus you can always keep the glass and slap it on your new 5DMKII!

 

[n4bby]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

I know the F4's tend to be sharper, but he has weddings in his venues... I think the need for 2.8 outweighs sharpness in this case. And it's not like it's crap, heh.

agreed - speed trumps whatever minor sharpness advantage the f/4 would have. besides, sharpness is overrated.

the only reasons not to always opt for the faster lens are simple - size and cost. (no, IS is not a real substitute for speed.)

 

[moks78]

Originally posted by: alfa147x
Last week he bought the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM and I bought the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM
alfa

Did your friend try the 100-400mm already? Is it a good copy...sharp fm 100 to 400mm. I've read that it's a hit or miss getting one that is tack sharp all throughout the range. They say most copies are sharp up to 300mm only.

Don't own one so just reading the reviews but I'm planning on getting one this month.

 

[n4bby]

i had a 100-400L for a while, was a gift from my old boss. i found it to be very underwhelming and sold it immediately. unless you absolutely need the long end, better off with a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x tele.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: n4bby
i had a 100-400L for a while, was a gift from my old boss. i found it to be very underwhelming and sold it immediately. unless you absolutely need the long end, better off with a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x tele.

Agreed. Aperture's too slow and it's not nearly as sharp as a 70-200.

 

[moks78]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: n4bby
i had a 100-400L for a while, was a gift from my old boss. i found it to be very underwhelming and sold it immediately. unless you absolutely need the long end, better off with a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x tele.

Agreed. Aperture's too slow and it's not nearly as sharp as a 70-200.

That's what I heard and read on reviews. I need the coverage for airplane shots so I'll check mine when I get it...hopefully, I'm getting a sharp copy.

You need to get used to the push pull type zoom on this lens or you really won't appreciate what it can do.

 

[cputeq]

Bodies come and go - Good glass is forever.

That said, the 100-400 for events is just ludicrous, unless you're talking about *sporting* events in good light Way too slow and honkin' huge to lug around indoors at a wedding, etc.

Seriously, event lenses?

85mm f/1.8
17-50mm f/2.8

 

[chiew]

Glass > Body

That said, I did upgrade from a XTi to a 40D. I didn't regret it since it had better ergonomics and handling. It helps to balance my larger lenses too (24-70L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS). I don't think I will upgrade to another crop body; my next body will be full frame.

 

[idiotekniQues]

my god i love having f 2.8