Selling 300 f2.8, 17-40, 100 macro, 100-400 for 500mm

Having another one of those moments so need some advice and options.

I currently have the following Canon lenses;
17-40 f/4
24-70 f/2.8
70-200IS f/2.8
100 f/2.8 macro
100-400IS f/5.6
300 f/2.8

I am thinking of keeping the 24-70 & 70-200 but selling the rest to fund buying a 500 f/4.

The reason for this is when I look through my photos the 24-70 and 70-200 get used a lot (for events such as weddings and also deer photography using 70-200 + 1.4x).

I did not do much macro or landscape photography last year, so I feel the 17-40 & macro lens will not get much use. These were bought more for "want" in the aim of doing more of this type pf photography rather than "need" is that I actually do this type of photography.

I want to put a bit more focus into my photography (pardon the pun) and concentrate on my favourite subject, wildlife such as birds and mammals you find in the UK, badgers, seals, foxes and deer.

The 100-400 is used now mostly for birds in flight as the 70-200 gets used more for up to 280mm.

I hired a 500mm for a week and had a great time, really found the focal length great.

The 300 f/2.8 is a great lens and works well with converters, but the heart and brains says I should have passed on this and worked towards a 500mm.

So am I a mad, losing it, need a good talking to, or am I actually making sense?

Chip in guys and girls, have some fun with my lens collection!

Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but to me your analysis of how you shoot determining what you need/want is about as good as it gets. Sell what you don’t use and get what you will use!

Makes sense to me.

Joe M.

jahern said:

Having another one of those moments so need some advice and options.

I currently have the following Canon lenses;
17-40 f/4
24-70 f/2.8
70-200IS f/2.8
100 f/2.8 macro
100-400IS f/5.6
300 f/2.8

I am thinking of keeping the 24-70 & 70-200 but selling the rest to
fund buying a 500 f/4.
The reason for this is when I look through my photos the 24-70 and
70-200 get used a lot (for events such as weddings and also deer
photography using 70-200 + 1.4x).

I did not do much macro or landscape photography last year, so I
feel the 17-40 & macro lens will not get much use. These were
bought more for "want" in the aim of doing more of this type pf
photography rather than "need" is that I actually do this type of
photography.

I want to put a bit more focus into my photography (pardon the pun)
and concentrate on my favourite subject, wildlife such as birds and
mammals you find in the UK, badgers, seals, foxes and deer.

The 100-400 is used now mostly for birds in flight as the 70-200
gets used more for up to 280mm.

I hired a 500mm for a week and had a great time, really found the
focal length great.

The 300 f/2.8 is a great lens and works well with converters, but
the heart and brains says I should have passed on this and worked
towards a 500mm.

So am I a mad, losing it, need a good talking to, or am I actually
making sense?

Chip in guys and girls, have some fun with my lens collection!

Click to expand...

Oh boy, I am so there with you!

So first off, why sell the macro and wide - the money they will bring isn't huge amounts. If you can afford to do this without selling them (eg. by waiting another month), I would say do that - you can always sell them later if you think you should. The 70-200/2.8 IS and 100-400 are lenses that you will have to pry from my cold dead hands! I'd say, keep these above all else - well, you know that already yes! The 24-70 is interesting... I plan to get a 24-105 and compare with my 24-70, then sell the 24-70 if the 24-105 cuts the mustard. f2.8 at that range doesn't make much difference in the DoF. The 50/85 primes would do very nicely if you need DoF control at this range, and much sharper too.

So, back to the 500... first, hand-hold you r 300/2.8 with both TC's and camera, and grip if you want to. See how it feels for a moment. Then take a bag of 1kg rice, and place it on top of your 300/2.8. See how this feels to hand hold. Check the minimum focus distance - is 4.5m too far? And budget for some tubes to compensate if you have to. Check your bag for size to hold the 500, both length an diameter with the hood. If after doing this and then thinking on it for a week, you still feel it's the right thing to do, then why not! To me however, it's a very tough call and I wrote a lot about it in another thread just now, that you may also want to read..... I'm err'ing towards a Sigmonster!

Excal

I would sell the 100-400 and keep the rest.

if you are selling them, where? !

The 500mm L lens is a tank.
I would rent one when you really need sharp pictures.
Have you tried the 1.4x L II TC with your 400mm? or 300mm?
It seems you already have that range covered with your current lens.
Yes the 500mm would be nice to say you have.
Would you really use it enough to justify the $pace and expense?
I have rented the 500mm and the 600mm.
They both are great lens but I would not buy for the reasons noted above.
Good luck !!

I have, or have had the 100-400, 400 F5.6, 70-200 IS, 70-200 F4, 17-40, and the 100 macro. Instead of the 24-70 I have the Tamron 28-75. My next two lens purchases will probably be the 135F2 and hopefully the 500 F4 soon after. Note that I only have 1.6x bodies and have no intention of moving to full-frame anytime soon. Some random thoughts and experiences if they are of any interest:

I had the 100-400 for about 9 months before buying the 70-200 IS and though I found that initially I used the 70-200 IS quite a bit (w/wout the 1.4x) after a while I would reach for the 100-400 almost everytime. After owning the IS version for nearly a year I ended up selling it and buying the 70-200 F4 version. Myself I found that the 70-200 IS version wasn't long enough without the teleconverter and wasn't much of an improvement over the 100-400 with the teleconverter attached -- though the 70-200 is slightly faster it was more cumbersome and not much sharper.

On a recent month-long trip to Costa Rica I brought the 400 F5.6, 70-200 F4, and 100-400. I debated back and forth about leaving the 100-400 behind, thinking that between the F4 and 400 I would make do. As it turns out the 100-400 was the most used lens. Though not as sharp as the 400, nor as fast as any of the 70-200 flavors it's just such a usefull lens.

My current plan is to sell the 70-200 F4 in favor of the 135F2 and just give up on the 70-200 range. For wildlife it's too short, for scenery it's too long, even the F4's size scares little children. The 100-400 is also very sharp in this range, especially stopped down slightly.

The 100 Macro I don't use very often but when it's needed it's such a nice lens and so much easier to use than any extension tube/close up lens combo that I'll probably keep it.

Though I've tried several copies of both the 24-70L and 28-70L nothing has wow'd me about them compared to the much, much less expensive Tamron. I find that for family gatherings it's an excellent lens and I have no interest in trading it for either of the much heavier L's. If you wanted to trim some weight and gain some money on the exchange replacing the 24-70 with the tamron would be an idea. At least one of the many sigma lenses in this range is supposed to be very good as well but I haven't tried any myself.

For the 17-40 I used to use it quite frequently but now prefer to take landscape panoramas rather than a single wide shot. I also have the Sigma 20 f1.8 and sometimes I think the prime alone would cover for the 17-40 then I listen to it wheeze as it tries to focus and think again.

In conclusion I'd think twice about selling the 100-400. It's just such a good all around wildlife lens. It's also excellent at panoramas -- at least on a 1.6x body -- distortion is very low and mine is equally sharp across the frame. If it were me I'd sell the 70-200 as I'm not really about that zoom range. I'd consider selling the 24-70 for a tamron or sigma. The 17-40 I'm luke warm on -- it's sharpest in the 20-35 range but that's the easiest range to replace.

Good luck and enjoy whatever you purchase...
Doug

so often handy but most usually as you said, too short for birding, too long for landscape. Its heavy too, my husband just bought the 2.8 IS for himself this christmas, and seems to now think he'd rather have the 70-200f4 and the 100-400IS.
--



http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony for Infrared, Canon 20D,
a few too many lenses...

Hi Excal,

I was very interested in your tread about having a 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4, even posted on it.

I rented the 500 f/4 for a week, once used to working with a big lens I found it great (but then who would not). Yes it is heavy and a bit difficult for taking flight shots handheld but still possible.

Moving to the 500 would be no problem as I already have a suitable tripod and head (sidekick) and bag.

Some interesting and useful comments posted so far, thanks for taking the effort.

After starting this trend last night I went away to picture my equipment with respect to selling. Two things struck me, how the hell did I acquire all these lenses without going bankrupt and it will be very hard to let go of them.

If I was to sell them, then I think the 100 macro and 17-40 would be easy to sell as there would be a large market for them, even the 100-400 is seen at lot on Ebay. However it is the 300 f/2.8 that I think will be the most challenging to move (and this is the most important to sell if a 500mm is the reason for all this). I cannot even think were to start with regards to selling this!

All the lenses are less than a year old with no marks so what should be looking for them, a certain % of the normal UK price?

Hello,

just one more thing, check out this great article by John Shaw of 'Close-ups..' fame on long lens choice:
http://www.photosafaris.com/Articles/LongLensChoice.asp
For the second hand market I'd sure try fredmiranda's forums.
All the best
--
The righteous part is straight as an arrow
Take a walk And you'll find it too narrow
Too narrow for the likes of me

Thanks for the link, very useful and interesting.

Hi there,

I agree with you, very tough decisions to make. Its a matter of finding out what you photograph most of the time and then basing your choice of lens around that. If you can justify the price and weight of the 500mm, and feel that you will use it a lot, by all means go for it.

Here's my take:
17-40 f/4
24-70 f/2.8
70-200IS f/2.8
100 f/2.8 macro
100-400IS f/5.6
300 f/2.8

I was once in your same shows, tho of course with fewer lenses, and had thought of trading up from a 300mm f/2.8L to a 500mm f4 IS. But eventually I decided not to, as I felt I would not be using the lens often enough to justify its enormous price tag. Oh well I'll keep on dreaming and hoping to own it someday...

Sorry, in my last para I meant to say "shoes" instead of "shows. Couldn't find any way of editing it. How embarrasing..

Don't worry about typos, I make more than most!

Hi,

I know a budding sport photographer who's in the market for a 300mm F2.8.

He's name is John Ashby. If you are interested I can pass you his details. Drop me an Email to [email protected].

Gareth Cooper
--
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams

Will send you an email after posting this.