100-400f/4.5L vs 400f/4L

[TitusvileSurfer]

I have a 24-70 f/2.8 and don't miss IS with it.
I also have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and thank the stars for the IS part!! It really starts to pay off after 100mm or so. That said I would take a f/2.8 70-200 without IS over an f/4 with it. I would not take an f/4 without it. In conclusion I think the 200mm f/2.8 would be a great lens but would personally miss the IS a whole bunch.

 

[t5Nitro]

*sigh* not again. I'm back to a lens ordering kick. :lol:

I've been watching some videos and the 85mm f/1.2L prime is AMAZING.
Why would I want the 24-70 if I would have that lens aside from the wide angle purpose? Would it be better to have a wide angle and the 85mm 1.2 prime or does the 24-70 serve another purpose the 85 prime won't? Yes, I absolutely love the 24-70, but wouldn't this lens be better? Or would it just be a complimentary lens to join it if I needed anything less than that? The 24-70 could serve as the primary wide angle lens I suppose.

Basically I just want the best possible walk around lens I can buy if this makes sense. A lens going to go on the camera 95% of the time.

 

[MSX-Jeff]

I love my 100mm f/2.8, it's on the camera all of the time...if only it were a 1.4 or 1.8

 

[t5Nitro]

Actually I've been reading since my last post. It looks like the lens performs to it's best in the wide open range and is a very slow focus, including manual focus. Someone stated he had to turn the focus ring three times to focus from the foreground to an object in the background.

So, this says, and other's on reviews have stated, not a sports or action lens. So I answered my own question on this lens would be complimentary to a 24-70 for that purpose! I think...

 

[Recty]

If you're looking for a walk around hardly ever have to take it off your camera kind of lens, check out the 50mm prime. Great pictures, lightweight, wide aperture and it's CHEAP compared to other glass.

I recently got one and I love it.

 

[IPT]

the 50mm i sgreat. I personally use the 24-105 as my walkaround lens. If you are going to be doign "wildlife", especally birds...400mm would be nice if not required. Either via a sensor crop, a tele, or the lens itself. Personally, as a pure "wildlife" lens, I would LOVE to have the 400mm. If I remember though the F4's were HUGE and spindy. I get by with the 300 and the tele, but there are times I would dig a 400 and the tele (full sensor body).

 

[BlueCorn]

It's impossible to decide this stuff based on what other folks do. You're shooting style is yours alone. The rental plan is probably your best bet. My "walk around lens" is my 24-70, which I couldn't imagine selling but that doesn't mean that it's right for everyone.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I got to use a 24-105 today!! Baby sea turtles were running the gauntlet on the beach!!
A complete stranger was kind enough to trade my 70-200 for his 24-105 for a few minutes.
(I own a 24-70)

 

[IPT]

and...what did you think?