Reading mode: Light Dark

speed vs portability

Go to last post
P

Pointandshootg9

Well-known member
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hypothetically speaking:
What would be a better choice:
a) Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II
b) Canon 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 IS

I could probably buy both lenses in option b for the price of option a. I get a wider focal range and somewhat lighter lenses that will allow easier travel.

On the other hand, option a has a 1 stop advantage which in low light situations could mean a sharp vs blurry shot.

In a perfect world, I would get the 24-105 f/4 AND the 70-200 f/2.8. But at some point I have to draw the line and save money for something else.

These would be used on a 5d mkii. I own a Tamron 28-300 which is light and portable but autofocus and max aperture are disappointing. My main subject is my 2 yr old with existing light indoors. But I also like travel photography a lot. It is unlikely that I will take the f/2.8 anywhere far. It is too big to fit in the suitcase. I also like some macro (flowers and bugs mostly) and occasionally landscape.

So you can see my dilemma: speed vs portability.

I could try secret option c: Canon 70-300 non L lens which is cheap and light but it still is another 600-700 dollars which I would prefer to spend on a higher quality lens.

I did think of Sigma and Tamron. Frankly after seeing how my Tamron performs, I'm sticking with Canon. Don't get me wrong. Tamron ain't bad but Canon is really much better.
 
For travel and kids photos, I'd opt for the 24-105 and the 70-200 f4. I have a 70-200 f2.8 and I find it is too large to wield effectively when trying to photograph fast moving kids. Although the fast lens is nice for available light conditions, the lens is just too big for me to use it for grab shots of my grandkids as they play in the house. I usually use the 24-105 and add flash if I need to. As you said the size and weight of the f2.8 argue against taking it on long trips, but I hope you were not serious about putting any valuable piece of camera gear in a suitcase!
 
Thanks for the advice.

I do put it in my suitcase but keep in mind, I travel light and never ever ever check my bags. I always take a carry on.

The more I think about it, the more I think getting the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4 IS is a better idea than the f/2.8. It is just too big.

Really. Thanks for the very helpful post. It is nice to see someone giving helpful advice on this site. More and more you see people who just put up negative comments and like to argue. That gets really old quickly.
 
Probably B , if you buy refurbished from Adorama , they give you a 1 year warrenty and use AMEX- they add a year .
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25
 
I'd go with b) because it isn't just an issue of portability, but also focal range! Choice b) gets you all the way to 24mm, versus choice a) which only gets you to 70mm. Also, with the combination of IS and high ISO speeds, you probably won't find yourself as limited as you think you will. Don't be afraid to crank up the ISO speed. Today's cameras can take it, and still deliver great results. With a bit of NR in post, you'll still get a great looking image.

The other factor to consider is that the 70-200/2.8L is a visually LARGE lens that sticks out like a sore thumb. Not the best for travel or keeping a low profile. I have the 70-200/4L (non-IS) which I bought long before the IS version was introduced. I love it. It's light, compact, not as noticeable as the much larger 2.8L. It's an excellent lens for travel! I just wish it had IS. But that won't be an issue for you.
Pointandshootg9 said:
Hypothetically speaking:
What would be a better choice:
a) Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II
b) Canon 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 IS

I could probably buy both lenses in option b for the price of option a. I get a wider focal range and somewhat lighter lenses that will allow easier travel.

On the other hand, option a has a 1 stop advantage which in low light situations could mean a sharp vs blurry shot.

In a perfect world, I would get the 24-105 f/4 AND the 70-200 f/2.8. But at some point I have to draw the line and save money for something else.

These would be used on a 5d mkii. I own a Tamron 28-300 which is light and portable but autofocus and max aperture are disappointing. My main subject is my 2 yr old with existing light indoors. But I also like travel photography a lot. It is unlikely that I will take the f/2.8 anywhere far. It is too big to fit in the suitcase. I also like some macro (flowers and bugs mostly) and occasionally landscape.

So you can see my dilemma: speed vs portability.

I could try secret option c: Canon 70-300 non L lens which is cheap and light but it still is another 600-700 dollars which I would prefer to spend on a higher quality lens.

I did think of Sigma and Tamron. Frankly after seeing how my Tamron performs, I'm sticking with Canon. Don't get me wrong. Tamron ain't bad but Canon is really much better.
Click to expand...
 
I think that a more interesting choice (to me) for high-quality weight vs speed trade-offs in the 70-200 range would be something like:
1. 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM

2. 70-200 f/4L IS USM
135mm f/2.0L

3. 70-200 f/4L IS USM
100mm f/2.8L IS Macro

1. will give you all-in-one package with excellent IQ, speed and IS. It is also heavy and expensive.

2. Will give you hand-held IS zoom for low light shooting of relatively slow-moving motives, and a high-speed lense for fast-moving subjects/stand use.

3. Lower cost.
 
It seems weight is a big issue for you, and since you're not happy with your Tamron, the 24-105L and 70-200 f/4LIS should give you good range an light weight. However, I just wanted to point out that there is no right/wrong choice here, only personal perferences. My kids (ages 2-8) are my focus as well. However, I always carry with me a 5D2/grip, 70-200II, 24-70L, 35L and 580 II everywhere, all day. Since I go wherever and whenever they go, I actually finding myself in in need of large apertures and high ISO quite often (much more than I had expected). Again, just personal preferences. Good luck.
Pointandshootg9 said:
Thanks for the advice.

I do put it in my suitcase but keep in mind, I travel light and never ever ever check my bags. I always take a carry on.

The more I think about it, the more I think getting the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4 IS is a better idea than the f/2.8. It is just too big.

Really. Thanks for the very helpful post. It is nice to see someone giving helpful advice on this site. More and more you see people who just put up negative comments and like to argue. That gets really old quickly.
Click to expand...
--
Regards. Anders
 
24-105 and 200mm f/2.8 prime
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top