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


USA Landscape Photographer of the Year 2016 open to entries NOW!

Starting Out With Canon Lenses


kinfatric 11 550 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 13 10.4k United Kingdom
1 Apr 2006 3:01AM
Definitely the 17-40L for landscapes.
justin c 12 4.7k 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 12 271 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 11 550 9 Scotland
1 Apr 2006 4:20AM
sorry that would be a digital full frame, no crop
MikeA 11 1.3k 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 12 68 1 England
1 Apr 2006 12:13PM
17-40 and 100-400, both will cover most requirements.
billma 12 119 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 11 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.