Lens to compliment a 24-105

<p>Thought I would ask the experienced photographers on photo.net to help with a decision. </p>

<p>I need a telephoto zoom to accompany the 24-105 I currently have. I shoot full frame and the lens will be used primarily for landscapes. I've been debating between the 70-200 (any version) or the 100-400. I realize there is some overlap with the 70-200, however I owned one of those in the past and absolutely loved it for landscapes.</p>

<p>The 100-400 seems to compliment the 24-105 better, I guess I'm just uncertain as to the quality of the images with this lens compared to the legendary 70-200.</p>

<p>Any insight would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>Can't see why you'd need a 100-400 for landscapes. If you like the 70-200 focal length, buy the best one you can afford. The 2.8 IS II is best, followed by the 4.0 IS, followed by the 2.8 non-IS followed by the 4 non-IS, but ALL of them are very good.</p>

<p>I'd buy the 100-400 for myself, but I'm more interested in wildlife than landscapes</p>

<p>I have both the 24-105 and the 100-400. For the latter you need the Black-Rapid-type strap. On a recent trip, I ended up using only these two lenses.</p>

<p>BTW, every time they meet, the 100-400mm says how handsome the 24-105mm is. It couldn't be more complimentary, in fact. ;)</p>

 

<p>Just to add a bit of variation I paired up the 24-105 L with the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS. I wanted (optically) a bit more reach and (physically) a bit shorter than the 70-200 L IS and less weight than the 100-400 L IS. </p>

<p>70-200. And if you're using it mainly for landscapes the f/2.8 version would be money wasted. The 70-200 f/4.0L IS is the one to go for in your situation (in my opinion), especially if you carry your gear any distance. The f/2.8 is a seriously heavy lens to cart around and the extra stop of light gathering power means nothing for landscapers.</p>

<p>Bob...actually I probably would use the 100-400 for wildlife as well as landscapes.</p>

<p>Jaime...the 70-200 f/4 IS is precisely the one I was thinking about.</p>

<p>Bob Adkins posited:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Can't see why you'd need a 100-400 for landscapes."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's one reason...<br /> <img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/3838-2/GraniteCreekBridgeArchSurf20100102.jpg" alt="" width="422" height="640" /><br /> I could share <em>many </em>others. ;-)</p>

<p>Both lenses can complement the 24-105. I've been known to pair the 24-105 with a 17-40 and a 70-200 for long back-county landscape photography trips. The f/4 version of this lens is relatively compact and "light" (for this type of lens) and produces wonderful image quality. The 100-400 produces very fine image quality as well, aseflong as you know how to control for camera/lens stability and so forth, and it does cover those longer focal length ranges.</p>

<p><em>All </em>of the 70-200mm L lenses are excellent and any of them can produce very fine image quality suited to making very big prints. While one (e.g. - the 70-200mm f/2.8 L II) will measure a bit better than others in this series, that does not reflect poorly on the others at all. For example, the f/4 version (and I have both the IS and non-IS flavors) can both produce truly excellent quality, and I've never felt that either wasn't up to printing on my Epson 7900. (24" wide carriage.) For landscape, there might not be any real advantage to having the f/2.8 aperture, and if you carry the lens on your back or over your shoulder you are likely to appreciate the smaller bulk and lighter weight of the f/4 models.</p>

<p>I think it really comes down to a question of how you shoot (both as to subject and to methodology) and which lens better suits your style of shooting.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I didn't say you <em>couldn't</em> use a 400mm for landscapes, but it's hardly the lens you're likely to reach for first and the 70-200/2.8L II USM is a better (sharper) lens than the 100-400, not to mention faster and more versatile.</p>

<p>I can recommend the 100-400 to compliment the 24-105. I own both and wrote reviews of them here:<br /> slidescanning123.com/canon-lens-reviews/<br /> As far as the 100-400MM being too long for landscape, I'd say it's better to have the reach and not need it than to need it and not have it.<br>

<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9304430-lg.jpg">Wheelabrator Saugus RESCO Canon 100-400MM</a></p>

<p>Bob, it depends a lot - as I noted - on personal style. It turns out that my most used landscape photography lenses are the f/4 70-200mm zoom and the 100-400mm L. I am fortunate to count as friends some fairly well known west coast landscape photographers, and quite a number of them will tell you that their favorite focal lengths are long rather than short. </p>

<p>So, it really comes down to how the preferences of the individual photographer, and I'm confident that either of these focal length ranges could provide an excellent complement to the 24-105, with the choice depending entirely on what the individual photographer prefers.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>70-200/2.8L II USM is a better (sharper) lens than the 100-400</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just remember that this is only true up to 200mm. If you're interested in wildlife there's something to be said for another 200mm of "reach."</p>

<p>Although an old design, the 100-400 has won my heart over the last year. A goodly percentage of my shots with it are over 200mm. Most of the remainder are at 100mm; 200mm shots are rare.</p>

<p>I shoot full frame and love the 70-200 f/4 IS for landscapes. In tight spaces, particularly waterfalls and streams, I get a great deal of use out of the 17-40 f/4 L. But for broader, more open landscapes, I virtually always use the 70-200. I also use it a lot for isolation shots of waterfalls and other tighter landscapes that I shoot in full with the 17-40. On the relatively few occasions I want something between the range of those two for landscapes I use the 50mm f/1.4, which is all I have between 40mm and 70mm.</p>

<p>As for as shooting landscapes at over 200mm, I carry a 1.4X TC that boosts the 70-200 to 280mm but rarely need to use it for landscapes. I've used my 400mm f/5.6 a few times for landscapes but have sometimes found that at the long distance I'm shooting to the subject, atmospheric haze can cause disappointing IQ. It's not a problem with the lens, because it's very sharp for birds and wildlife, and I have it securely mounted with the tripod collar on a very good tripod and ballhead, and use a remote shutter release. In the right light and atmospheric conditions I've gotten good results for landscapes with the 400mm f/5.6, but with the bulk of the lens and the small likelihood that I'd use it, I almost never carry it on hikes. </p>

<p>Shooting a lot of landscapes typically goes hand in hand with many miles of hiking, sometimes in difficult terrain, which means carrying water, snacks and a layer of two of clothing plus a tripod (usually) and camera equipment. So weight and portability of the camera equipment is important. I wouldn't trade my 70-200 f/4 IS for the f/2.8 IS version even if they were the same price because I have little to no use for the extra stop of light and do not want the extra bulk and weight. </p>

<p>Since you already have the 70-105mm focal range covered and like to shoot wildlife in addition to landscapes, the 70-200 versus 100-400 is a tougher call. It may come down to what kind of hiking you do, what will fit comfortably in your camera bag/backpack and how much weight you're willing to carry.</p>

<p>I wrote <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2010/10/24/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-landscape-photography-lenses-part-i">something about landscape lens options</a> that might be interesting to some reading this thread.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Glenn, you've been offered lots of good advice, and as always, I resonate very strongly with what G Dan has written. (He and I think a lot alike.) However, I think we all have an incomplete picture. When you say you want to photograph wildlife, are you talking about little birds or buffalo? And at what distance?</p>

<p>If your wildlife demands are rather extreme, such that neither 200 nor 400 mm is really long enough, and extensive cropping will be required, you might want to consider buying two lenses, not one. Consider a long prime (possibly with a TC) for birding, for instance, and one of the 70-200 family for your landscape work.</p>

<p>FAIW, I own/use both the 70-200/4IS and the 70-300 non-L IS. The 70-300 is more of a hiking lens for me -- smaller and lighter. It's a very affordable lens, so it's easy to add to one's collection. The image quality is quite good as well, at least up to 200mm.</p>

<p>BTW, don't worry about the 70-105mm overlap. IMO, it's very good to have some overlap. First, it keeps you from having to change lenses so much. And second, very few lenses are good at their extremes. You're probably better off with a 70-200 at 100mm than either a 24-105 or a 100-400 at 100mm.</p>

<p>I haven't used the 100-400 for landscapes, but it's a lens that sits on one of my cameras all the time. I haven't seen the 70-200/2.8 IS II, but have the Mk I (and the /4 non-IS) and both of those lenses perform more than adequately, and produce publication quality images whenever they are used.<br>

The real deciding point is going to be on how long you want to go, if you are regularly cropping images to get the viewpoint you want, then perhaps 100-400 is the way to go. See if you can borrow one for a weekend.<br>

But be aware that if you have one of those two on your shoulder for any length of time, it's going to get very tired. I've shot three days of polo over the last 10 days and feel it.</p>

<p>I don't care to weigh in on the debate ensuing here (except to say that <em>any </em>lens can be used for landscapes, and that composition should dictate lens choice), but I can unequivocally recommend the 70-200/4 L IS as a complement to your 24-105.</p>

<p>A Canon F4 300mm L if you have a 1.6 crop camera.</p>

<p>JDM - My 'complements' for your sharp eye for diction! ;) And I second the nomination for the 100-400.<br>

Regards,<br>

Eric</p>

I think that the 100-400 might be the best compliment of all if you are restricting yourself to one additional lens. That said, I haven't used

one, so I can't vouch for its performance. My suggestion is based on reputation and the focal length range.

 

I have used all of the following to compliment my 24-105 for landscape shooting.

 

70-200 f/4L IS - sharp, compact, and convenient

 

100mm f/2.8L IS macro (I think it's a II version) - ultra sharp and very little distortion

 

16-35 f/2.8L - nice lens, but a little soft in the corners. Accepts filters.

 

TS-E24 f/3.5L II - it's da bomb!

 

Happy shopping!

<p>100-400 on the longer side.<br>

Any one of these for the wide side (in order of cost):<br>

Nikon 14-24 F2.8<br>

Canon 16-35 F2.8<br>

Sigma 12-24 F3.5-4.5?<br>

Rokinon/Samyang 14 F2.8</p>

 

<p>The 100-400 is a less than petit, somewhat awkward lens. Be sure you try one for a day or two before buying. On the whole the 70-200 F4 is a joy to carry around and brilliant to use. I've used both lenses plus the 70-200 F2.8 extensively and my preference is for the 70-200 F4. Once I got the 400 F4.0 DO I never used the 100-400 again. Good luck and btw you should think about a 50mm at some point but that's not for this discussion.</p>