Lens upgrade?

[Jason6901]

Good day, Canon community. This is my first post. I am upgrading some equipment and would like some suggestions on lenses. I shoot some sports, wildlife and an occasional event. Although I have been paid for a few shots, I am an not a professional. I currently have  the 5d mk iv, 7d mk ii and my trusty 50d & 30d. The lenses I use are the 50mm f/1.4, 24-105mm IS L, 70-200mm f/2.8 L, and the 400mm f/2.8 IS L.

I am considering adding either the canon 100-400mm L II or the Tokina 24-70mm f/2.8. Does any one have any suggestions as to which lens I should add or if I am just wasting money at this point. By the way I also have the canon 1.4 II extender. 

Thanks for any suggestions!

[wq9nsc]

Jason,

Two lens I almost always have with me are the 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8 but since you already have the very good 24-105 F4 you MAY not get much use out of a 24-70.  Probably its greatest advantage over the F4 lens is if you shoot fast action in low light (i.e. indoor sports or night high school sports) and it would likely provide a little faster focusing in low light with its wider aperture.  But it doesn't have the IS of your wider range lens so if the low light action doesn't apply heavily then I wouldn't pick up the 24-70 F2.8 and if I did I would go for the excellent Canon version.

The 100-400 is a nice wide range zoom but you give up aperture for the convenience of this wide range lens and I don't think the image quality matches the Canon 24-70 and 70-200 in their respective ranges either but if a one solution lens to cover a lot of situations is important to you then maybe it makes sense.

You have a very nice telephoto prime although it is the heavy version!  I have the IS II version of the 400 which is a little lighter but still hefty.  Given the glass you already have, have you considered the quality of a fast prime instead of the two in your list?  The Canon 135 F2 is in the same price range as the 24-105 and although not as versatile it is one of Canon's stars with beautiful sharpness and is great for both sports and portrait use.  Or if you have ever thought about experimenting with macro photography, the EF 100 2.8 is in the lower end of your price range and adds an excellent macro capability your current glass doesn't offer and it is also a very good 100MM general purpose lens that is extremely sharp.  Or at the wide end consider a Canon 16-35, the F4 version is reasonably priced and the 17-40 F4 is dirt cheap at this point with B&H offering an instant $300 off on it.

Happy shopping 🙂

Rodger

[Jason6901]

Rodger,

Thanks for the suggestion, I had not considered a midrange prime. I will try and get my hands on one to rent before I make a decision. I am really enjoying the 400mm shoting sports but I have found I have to have my 70-200 handy when teh action is at my end of the field.

Regards,

Jason

[wq9nsc]

Jason,

You are welcome.  The 400 2.8 is a great lens and I use both it and its 300 2.8 little brother a lot for sports, the 300 is a bit easier to keep players in frame but the 400 is magic.  Typically I have either the 300 or 400 2.8 on the primary body and a 70-200 2.8 on the other and depending upon the event I will have a 24-70 2.8 on a third body.  Depending upon the sport, either the long prime or the 70-200 will have the most shots but a few require that wide angle.

Definitely rent before you buy to give it a try but I think the 135 F2 is one of the best values in Canon's better glass.  I have it and the EF 200 F2 and the image quality from the 200 is a bit better but that comes at a huge increase in price and the 135 F2 is a lens that performs well above it price point and is extremely versatile.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

"Does any one have any suggestions as to which lens I should add or if I am just wasting money at this point."

Of course we all have suggestions! Yes you would be wasting your money if you go the route you stated.

"Two lens I almost always have with me are the 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8"

Hearing what you shoot you should have these two lenses. That's a period, no argument!

"The lenses I use are the 50mm f/1.4, 24-105mm IS L, 70-200mm f/2.8 L, and the 400mm f/2.8 IS L."

Sell the 50mil and 24-105mm zoom plus the tel-con to help finance the two suggested lenses. Keep the 400mil.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Does any one have any suggestions as to which lens I should add or if I am just wasting money at this point."

Of course we all have suggestions! Yes you would be wasting your money if you go the route you stated.

"Two lens I almost always have with me are the 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8"

Hearing what you shoot you should have these two lenses. That's a period, no argument!

"The lenses I use are the 50mm f/1.4, 24-105mm IS L, 70-200mm f/2.8 L, and the 400mm f/2.8 IS L."

Sell the 50mil and 24-105mm zoom plus the tel-con to help finance the two suggested lenses. Keep the 400mil.

---

I'd keep the 24-105 and the 1.4X. The former is the ideal outdoor "walking around" lens on a full-frame camera, and the latter works very well with the 50-200 f/2.8.

I agree with Ernie on one point though: Today's zoom lenses are excellent, so lay off the mid-range primes until you're convinced, from actual experience, that you absolutely need one. That time may never come.

[Jason6901]

Thanks Bob,

I am going to try the mid range prime and the 24-70mm and see which works best. I appreciate teh suggestion.

Regards,

[Jason6901]

ebiggs1,

I am going to try both the 24-70mm and a mid range prime through a rental shop and see where I get teh best results. I think I would have been better served to have purchased teh 24-70mm f/2.8 when I bought the 24-105 f/4. It was just a little more than I had budget for at the time. I just went to full frame with teh 5d mk iv in December. It sure makes a difference. If I could make a little more money with my photography I would love to move into the 1D range.

Thanks,