Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Starting Out With Canon Lenses

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    kinfatric
    kinfatric  9550 forum posts Scotland9 Constructive Critique Points
    1 Apr 2006 - 2:59 AM

    What do you think, a 17-40 F4 L wide angle for landscapes or the 24-105 F4 L. Long lenses: the EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM or EF100-400 f4.5-5.6 L. I've read that the 400L gives a sharper shot at the telephoto end rather than the f2.8 with a 2x extender, but as the 100-400 would be for the occasional shot only as I mostly do landscapes would the 70-200 be the better choice as its more of a mid range lens?.

    Alternatives to the above and advice sought on this subject pleaseSmile

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    1 Apr 2006 - 2:59 AM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    andytvcams
    andytvcams  1110396 forum posts United Kingdom
    1 Apr 2006 - 3:01 AM

    Definitely the 17-40L for landscapes.

    justin c
    justin c  104510 forum posts England36 Constructive Critique Points
    1 Apr 2006 - 3:08 AM

    I also find the 17-40mm an excellent landscape lens,although occasionally I find myself wanting something a little wider.
    The 100-400mm also makes a cracking landscape lens.

    Justin.

    iansamuel
    iansamuel  10271 forum posts United Kingdom
    1 Apr 2006 - 4:17 AM

    You don't specify what camera they would be used with - 35mm film or digital full frame or 1.3 or 1.6x crop?

    kinfatric
    kinfatric  9550 forum posts Scotland9 Constructive Critique Points
    1 Apr 2006 - 4:20 AM

    sorry that would be a digital full frame, no crop

    MikeA
    MikeA  91147 forum posts England
    1 Apr 2006 - 9:17 AM

    Try this link for a review of 100-400 vis 70-200 + x2

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

    MikeA

    albi
    albi  968 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
    1 Apr 2006 - 12:13 PM

    17-40 and 100-400, both will cover most requirements.

    billma
    billma  10119 forum posts United States
    1 Apr 2006 - 12:36 PM

    I have the 17-40 and 100-400 and the 28-135 IS (not L) to fill in the middle. This is just a great combination of glass to cover about anything.

    Sometimes I want something a little wider..rarely want anything longer. I don't use the 28-135 as much since getting the 17-40 but would take as my only lens on a long trip if I wanted to travel light. Never took it off the camera in Greece for two weeks last year.

    I also have the 100mm macro. However, with a 25mm extension tube the 100-400 and 28-135 really do great macro shots.

    I have a 1.4 and 2x converter for the 100-400 but don't really find them very useful.

    I will likely get the 70-200 2.8 and the 500 2.8 one day when the money is there.

    steve_kershaw
    1 Apr 2006 - 12:53 PM

    24-70 2.8
    70-200 2.8 is

    the 2 best zoom lenses on the makket (without question)

    + maybe a 1.4 extender

    i have the 10-22 but on the full frame maybe the 17-40, i have bought some primes, but the zomms above are equal (if not above)

    i fancy the 100-400 but there is so much bad press about this lens, and it will take up les than10% of my shots i have held off, no doubt i will be getting it or the 400 4.0 soon

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.