• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Lense swaps - Canon 24-105 & 100-400

h4rri

Active Member
Ok,

I am seriously considering selling my 24-105 f/4 L IS & 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS and replacing them with a 24-70 f/2.8 L & 70-200 f/2.8 [possibly IS] and a 1.4x or 2x TC.

My question is, has anyone experience of the 70-200 with a TC? I assume with a 2x I would be back to f/4 and potentially lose sharpness at the longer end. I find I don't use the 100-400 alot and would use the 70-200 more as this fits better into my used range. I would be concerned though about the quality of the resultant image at the long end with either TC.

Also would it be worth getting the IS? I would love it but don't feel it's worth the £450 difference in price :(

What would my lenses be worth? The 100-400 is 12 months old and has hardly been out of the bag. The 24-105 is new [it was replaced by Jessops and has been used indoors once since].

Would you say it was worth the money to change the lenses? I know it would be an expensive move but would rather have a selection of lenses I would use all the time than ones I use occasionally. I find myself using the 17-40 f/4 L more these days.
 

iGiDK

Active Member
What would my lenses be worth? The 100-400 is 12 months old and has hardly been out of the bag.

You can get a 100-400 for just over £800 via Kerso & Canon rebate so I'd prob guess 800 would be a figure to aim for, given that it's about £1k in UK


Would love a 100-400 but I think I might give the 1.4 TC a bash first on my 70-200 as that would take me near to 300mm (given the crop factor)
 

h4rri

Active Member
You can get a 100-400 for just over £800 via Kerso & Canon rebate so I'd prob guess 800 would be a figure to aim for, given that it's about £1k in UK


Would love a 100-400 but I think I might give the 1.4 TC a bash first on my 70-200 as that would take me near to 300mm (given the crop factor)

Ta, was about the price I was thinking. With the 400D the 70-200 would actually be a 112-320 anyway, if you add the 1.4TC it would be a 157-448 :)
 

petrolhead

Well-known Member
Difficult thing as already said you can get the 100-400 for about £800 new so i would think your looking at £650-£700. There is a 2 year old one on the POTN forum at the mo for £670
 

Radiohead

Well-known Member
I'd avoid the 2x TC - it degrades quality too much. The 1.4x TC is very good though, as is the Kenko alternative for a huge serving.

I've got the 24-70 and 70-200/2.8IS and they're both incredible lenses. BUT - they're both big and heavy, so as walkarounds they're a substantial proposition. IQ is beyond reproach though and the 70-200 so good for portraits that I now rarely use the 85/1.2L.

I'm keeping my 24-105L though - it's a great alternative as a walkaround and gives me important backup in the range I shoot the most. If I didn't shoot weddings I might well opt for the all-round ability of the 24-105 over the ultimately slightly better IQ of the 24-70mm.

As for the IS of the 70-200 - it helps, no doubt. The lens isn't a lightweight and the IS allows you to get away with murder with shutter speeds. I suspect that if you don't get it you'll always wish you had. A very useful £130 cashback available on it as well.
 

h4rri

Active Member
I'd avoid the 2x TC - it degrades quality too much. The 1.4x TC is very good though, as is the Kenko alternative for a huge serving.

I've got the 24-70 and 70-200/2.8IS and they're both incredible lenses. BUT - they're both big and heavy, so as walkarounds they're a substantial proposition. IQ is beyond reproach though and the 70-200 so good for portraits that I now rarely use the 85/1.2L.

I'm keeping my 24-105L though - it's a great alternative as a walkaround and gives me important backup in the range I shoot the most. If I didn't shoot weddings I might well opt for the all-round ability of the 24-105 over the ultimately slightly better IQ of the 24-70mm.

As for the IS of the 70-200 - it helps, no doubt. The lens isn't a lightweight and the IS allows you to get away with murder with shutter speeds. I suspect that if you don't get it you'll always wish you had. A very useful £130 cashback available on it as well.


Thanks, I know there is a considerable wieght gain but the IQ is important to me so would be a reasonable trade-off. While I'd love to keep both I simply can't justify the cost as I don't actually make any money out of the hobby :(

petrolhead said:
I would also concider the 70-200 f/4 IS

I did consider this but I want to get away from f/4 lenses hence the 2.8. I know the f/4 is lighter but that's not that critical to me.
 

Radiohead

Well-known Member
Thanks, I know there is a considerable wieght gain but the IQ is important to me so would be a reasonable trade-off. While I'd love to keep both I simply can't justify the cost as I don't actually make any money out of the hobby :(

You can't go wrong with the 24-70/70-200 combination. Add the 16-35/2.8 down the line and it's as good as it gets.
 

h4rri

Active Member
You can't go wrong with the 24-70/70-200 combination. Add the 16-35/2.8 down the line and it's as good as it gets.

Was looking at the 16-35, would have to lose the 17-40 for it but now doubt I will :)

*really* need to replace the missus's car though soon and she's getting real tetchy when I come with home a new lense and no new car LOL
 

denno75uk

Well-known Member
I assume with a 2x I would be back to f/4 and potentially lose sharpness at the longer end.

The X2 converter loses 2 stops so your 70-200 2.8 with a X2 would be a f5.6 wouldn't it?:confused:
 

Radiohead

Well-known Member
Was looking at the 16-35, would have to lose the 17-40 for it but now doubt I will :)

*really* need to replace the missus's car though soon and she's getting real tetchy when I come with home a new lense and no new car LOL

The 17-40 is a cracking lens so I wouldn't be in any rush to bin that.

It's just whether you can get to the 70-200/2.8IS and the 24-70 (both come in with cashback at £175 for the pair).
 

h4rri

Active Member
The 17-40 is a cracking lens so I wouldn't be in any rush to bin that.

It's just whether you can get to the 70-200/2.8IS and the 24-70 (both come in with cashback at £175 for the pair).

Yeah I'm loving that lense and wouldn't be in a rush to get rid of it. If I were to upgrade to the 16-35 I would need to sell the 17-40 :(

I'm not looking that far ahead at the moment, good news on the cashback too, didn't know it was on both lenses. Any idea when it expires?
 

h4rri

Active Member
*sob* well the lenses have been listed for sale. Guess we'll see if they sell or not then proceed from there. Should be happy about getting new lenses but can't shake the feeling that I am losing two good lenses and alot of £'s :(
 

h4rri

Active Member
I just got my 24-105 back and very pleased I am too!

ARE YOU SURE :devil:


No :(

You're getting the 24-70/70-200 then? IS?

Yeah, going for the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS

Was going to get the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/4 non IS and keep the 100-400 but it doesn't make economic sense and I don't feel I'd use the 100. Also saves alot of weight too. My kit is weighing in at 17 Kg's as it is :eek:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom