Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Starting Out With Canon Lenses


kinfatric 10 550 9 Scotland
1 Apr 2006 2:59AM
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

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

andytvcams 12 10.4k United Kingdom
1 Apr 2006 3:01AM
Definitely the 17-40L for landscapes.
justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
1 Apr 2006 3:08AM
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 11 271 United Kingdom
1 Apr 2006 4:17AM
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 10 550 9 Scotland
1 Apr 2006 4:20AM
sorry that would be a digital full frame, no crop
MikeA 10 1.2k England
1 Apr 2006 9:17AM
Try this link for a review of 100-400 vis 70-200 + x2

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

MikeA
albi 11 68 1 England
1 Apr 2006 12:13PM
17-40 and 100-400, both will cover most requirements.
billma 11 119 United States
1 Apr 2006 12:36PM
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 10 2.3k 4 United Kingdom
1 Apr 2006 12:53PM
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

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.