do I need both? (sell my 70-200?)

[richard plumb]

a little while ago, I sold my canon 70-300IS to upgrade to a 70-200f4LIS. Like it quite a lot, nice fast autofocus. But didn't have the reach. So last week I bought a canon 100-400L IS. not had much time to play with it yet, but I think I'll like it a lot. Some example shots at the bottom of my red arrows thread here

So now I'm wondering if I need both?

I have a 24-105 for my walkaround lens so I have up to 105mm covered. for shots of my kids etc thats probably enough, or I can walk closer if I need that little extra range. So would the 100-400 cover all my long zoom requirements?

Does anyone have both the 70-200 and the 100-400? Ideally you have the f4 version, as the f2.8 has other charms whihc might mean you keep it (a stop faster being the main thing)

Just not sure its necessary. Don't need to sell it, but then I could spend the money on something else

[milkmanchris]

My tutor at Uni gave me the advice

Dont buy expensive lenses, just stand closer to what you want to photograph

.

Anyways back to your situation, I would have gone 70-200 2.8L and added the 1.4 converter, although hind sight is a wonderful thing

[richard plumb]

deliberately didn't buy the 70-200 2.8. firstly I'd want IS which was really expensive. Secondly I didn't need the 2.8 for the kinds of shots I do. and thirdly it seemed too big/heavy as a carry-everywhere lens.

I recognise its a cracking lens though.

[milkmanchris]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

deliberately didn't buy the 70-200 2.8. firstly I'd want IS which was really expensive. Secondly I didn't need the 2.8 for the kinds of shots I do. and thirdly it seemed too big/heavy as a carry-everywhere lens.

I recognise its a cracking lens though.

Not as heavy as carrying the 70-200 and 100-400 though

I'd probably sell the 70-200, you have the bases covered with the 100-400

Maybe opt for a 200 or 180 prime instead, marvelous things those primes

[richard plumb]

was considering a 135f2 which is supposed to be sweet. could consider a 180/200 instead. will need to look at it.

[milkmanchris]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

was considering a 135f2

Used this all the time at football, fantastic lens equiv to 216mm on a film camera.

Digital has turned us all a little greedy in the reach stakes me thinks.

I remember my 'interview' for PA, York v Macclesfield in the FA Cup, 1 body, choice of lenses, 100 pictures limit, no post processing, hand over the card at the end of the game (I went with the 135L that night)

[Jitetsu]

For a while I had exactly the same. 70-200 f/4 IS and the 100-400. I found that the 100-400 would come out when there was a very specific need such as an air show or some wildlife photography. However, if I was travelling then just the 70-200 and a 1.4x converter had me covered.

When I switched to Nikon I vowed to keep it very simple. 2 lenses and a teleconverter. I picked the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 and a 2x converter. Yes the f/2.8 is heavy but as the man says.. it beats carrying 2 long lenses. It gives me 24-400 on full frame and I can't really ask for more. The weight and length of it all is pretty brutal, especially for something like an airshow but for a few times a year it's better than having a lens that never comes out any other time and I won't leave gear at home when I travel.

I'm extremely greedy when it comes to reach. I never used a film SLR so i'm getting into it all with the idea that 600mm (a 400mm on a crop body) is perfectly reasonable when in reality it's just not going to be necessary very often and your keeper rate at 600mm may struggle. That's why i've picked what I have.

[denno75uk]

You maybe don't need it, but if you don't need to sell it, why bother. For now at least, why not just hang on to it until you know you don't need it, or you know what you want to replace it with.
Maybe worth doing your own tests at 100-200 with both lenses. If you think the 100-400 is a match for it, or close enough anyway, then get rid.