Walkabout and Tele lenses

N

Neverender

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
No
Hey guys,

I'm in the market for two new lenses, a tele for wildlife work and a studio-come-walkabout replacement for my over-loved 28-135 IS. The total budget comes in at about £1400, and for that I've drawn up to possible combinations:

-Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and Sigma 120-400 OS EX HSM
or
-Canon 24-70 L f/2.8 / Canon 24-105 L f/4 IS and 70-200 L f/4.

The Canon option is obviously the more attractive from an IQ point of view, though the 70-200 is going to be rather short. It has been suggested (thanks Raymond) that I look at getting the cheaper Sigma 24-70 and the Canon 85 f/1.8, but without a constant aperture and with current Sigma prices it doesn't really grab me as cash worth saving in the longrun.
It should be noted that although I shoot a 50D right now, I'm looking to move to a 5D within the next year, so ideally EF-S would be avoided.

I'd be really interested to hear people's thought on where you think the £1400 budget is best spent!
 
On the tele end you should also consider the Canon 70 - 300 IS USM. Image quality is excellent. The only drawback is it's not built like an "L".

On the wide end you might also want to consider the Canon 17 - 40 L f/4. This will give you an equivalent FOV of 28 - 64 on your 50D and will give you a true wide angle when you get a 5D.

I have a 5D and the 2 lenses above and the combination is an ideal walkabout setup with a lot of reach and very high overall image quality. Mind you the corners on a 17-40 get a bit soft on a 5D.

I also have the 24-105 IS and that almost becomes a single-lens solution on the 5D. On a crop camera such as the 50D I find it doesn't go wide enough, but if you're not into wide angle, it may not be a problem for you.

If you go for the 24-105 and the 70-200 combination you will probably find the extra reach on the 70-200 is not all that much but you will be carrying around a lot more weight.
 
what about the Canon 100-400 IS and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
 
Second hand you could squeeze a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 (non-IS) out of 1400. I managed with a couple of quid to spare six months back. A 2nd hand 1.4 tc adds 180ish and gets you to 280mm on the long end which is decent with the cropped sensor. I doubt any combo could beat the IQ and you are covering 24-280mm.
 
Thanks for the responses guys, some good food for thought already.
I already have the 17-40L, which rarely comes off my camera. Given the 24-70L is within my reach, I'm reluctant to save money on the HSM Sigma and take the hit on depreciation and IQ that goes with it, and the older, non-HSM Sigma seems too cheap and cheerful to me.
I'm going to get onto my local store and see if they can give me a quote that makes the 24-70L/70-200L combo too good to turn down.
 
If you are going full frame, the choice is easy. I think you've found it - 17-40L 4, 24-105L 4, 70-200L 4 IS, 100-400L. Perfect :thumbs: In terms of range, you could even miss out the 70-200 but in terms of practicality, the 100-400L is a lump. Extender on the 70-200 is an alternative, as it the very good and much cheaper 70-300 IS.

If wildlife is important, you should maybe think twice about full frame. Getting quality and reach on full frame is very expensive. 1.6x format, or 1.3x on the 1D3, has an unbeatable advantage there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top