Getting most bang for the buck with multiple lenses

[Harpo63]

Looking at future upgraded lens purchases and trying to glean as much info on these forums... is there any reason I should look at one group of lenses vs the other? I do mostly travel and landscape, wildlife, local scenes (I live in an area with alot of Amish- who are photo-shy, so lots of horse & buggies). I have a T2i with EF-S 18-135mm IS lens with plans later to upgrade the body.

1) EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM & EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM (@ $2,800)

2) EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM, EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM & 400mm lens above (@ $4,400)

Trying to cover a wide range without overlapping too much... will the f/2.8 make that much of a difference and give me more options? Which wide angle lens would I need to add to replace the 18-24mm I would give up by upgrading? The cost between the two groups makes me... gulp! Feel free to suggest alternate lenses that would give me a better range... Id just like to move towards the higher quality lenses

Thanks in advance

[Deleted]

I love the 24-70 f2.8L and would recommended it to anyone over the 24-105 lens. Do you need the 400mm reach?

[Harpo63]

Originally Posted by Deleted

I love the 24-70 f2.8L and would recommended it to anyone over the 24-105 lens. Do you need the 400mm reach?

Seems like what Im reading on this site... for wildlife, birds, airshows, etc... the 400 seems mentioned more over the 300... I figured a 200mm and a 300mm would have too much overlapping?

[Deleted]

I'm still making my way through the forum so please forgive me but, are they mentioning using the 400mm on a crop body? I know it's usually the norm for most birdwatchers and whatnot but there is the 1.6x factor in play. What about a 70-200mm f2.8L IS and a 2x TC? Just a thought. I know it's about the same price but the f2.8 is head over heals above the f4 lens. You'd also have two of Canon's holy trinity as well.

I could be wrong, and it may be allot of glass for what you want, but what is the price range you're looking to stay within?

[Harpo63]

Originally Posted by Deleted

I'm still making my way through the forum so please forgive me but, are they mentioning using the 400mm on a crop body? I know it's usually the norm for most birdwatchers and whatnot but there is the 1.6x factor in play. What about a 70-200mm f2.8L IS and a 2x TC? Just a thought. I know it's about the same price but the f2.8 is head over heals above the f4 lens. You'd also have two of Canon's holy trinity as well.

I could be wrong, and it may be allot of glass for what you want, but what is the price range you're looking to stay within?

Thanks for bringing that up... you're right, I now recall some comments about the crop body and a 400. I actually do have the 70-200mm f2.8L IS and the 2xTC on a wish list as another option. Maybe that would make the most sense combining that with the 24-70mm f2.8 to give me a good range. If I target the 70-200mm f2.8 and TC, I would simply have to wait longer to build up enough to purchase this and not have a telephoto for a longer time.

[sk66]

Of the lenses mentioned I'd probably get the 24-70 and the 100-400.
With focal length every time you double you get 2x the crop/ magnification.

Starting with a 50mm and 50* dia FOV: 100mm=25*, 200mm=12*, 400mm=6*
(not exact but close enough)

So you can see the difference between 200 and 300mm is greater than the difference between 300 and 400 (etc etc). Personally I would consider the 300mm minimum on a crop body (400mm effective on a canon 1.3 body) BUT, it's supposed to behave very well w/ TC's.

I'm not a canon guy so I can't get too specific.

I would consider the 24-70 f/2.8 a "keeper", and the 100-400 a very good entry point lens for wildlife .

For some I understand the 300 f/4 (w/ w/o TC's) is a "keeper" for BIF shots etc. Getting that instead of the 100-400 would get you two "keepers" but leave a sizable hole in your kit.

Another option for now, the 70-200 f/2.8, 300 f/4, 1.4 TC, and keep your kit lens....splits the price between the two kits and later upgrades won't be "replacements".

BTW, I would bet the 300 w/ 1.4x to be better than 200 w/ 2x.

[RichardTaylor]

@ Harpo63
I shoot with a 5D & 40D and shoot subjects similar to you + motor sport.

I also shoot with a Canon 24-105 and Canon 100-400 and Canon 70-200 F4 L. (non IS). I also have a couple of other of other lenses including fast primes to 135mm.

I don't own the 24-70 F2.8.

If you are upgrading to a full frame body both the lens combinations will be fine. If you are not then you will be lacking on the wide end (24mm is not real wide on a crop body). If you will be keeping your existing camera as well then you will be ok.

If you will be shooting moving subjects in low available light (no flash) I would go for at least one F2.8 lens other wise F4 lenses will be fine.

I would not go the TC route. I have a friend who was shooting motor racing with a Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS sometimes with a 1.4TC to give his some reach. He found it a pain swapping the TC in & out and now shoots with the Canon 100-400 all the time, when trackside, mainly because of its versatility.

I have a another friend who shoots motor sport with the Canon 400 F5.6 and while he loves that lens he is considering the Canon 100-400, again mainly because of its versatility.

Also keep in mind once you start carting three bigish lenses around it becomes a bit of a burden, if you are not working out of a motor vehicle. Two's fine but not 3.

I normally work with two bodies.
Unless shooting indoors in low light the 24-105 is always on the 5D
The lens on the 40D will depend on what and where I am shooting.
For real long it will be the 100-400, for events like parades etc it will be the 70-200 F4. If I am in a city where space can be tight it will be a 12-24.