can i do without 70-200 is 2.8?

J

jc450d

Messages
91
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
hi
thinking of changing my set up.Currently have 10-20 sigma,28-75 2.8 Tamron,30 1.4 sigma 50 1.8 and a 70-200 2.8is. I enjoy doing portraits,candids done 2 weddings and landscape.
Was thinking of buying a 17-50 2.8 Tamron and a 24-105.I would need to sell the 10-20,28-75 and 70-200 to fund .
I can live with losing the ultra wide but having issues with parting with the 70-200.Being honest the 70-200 is'nt on the camera a lot but when i do the images are sharp and hardly need any processing.Its a fantastic lens.
My question is would i get the same images with the 24-105 and would i regret selling tke 70-200?
sorry for waffling thanks in advance
 
The 24-105 would get far more use, but you will miss the reach.
The F4 70-200 is very good too, if you can manage with the non IS version much more affordable.
 
70-200 is your best lens, and 24-105 is certainly nowhere near as good (but pretty good on its own right). You could do with chopping sigma prime, and canon prime as they are the worst of their breed. anyway, that's a pretty certain NO to your question.
 
4wd said:
The 24-105 would get far more use, but you will miss the reach.
The F4 70-200 is very good too, if you can manage with the non IS version much more affordable.
Click to expand...

i'l check the f4 70-200 thanks
 
daugirdas said:
70-200 is your best lens, and 24-105 is certainly nowhere near as good (but pretty good on its own right). You could do with chopping sigma prime, and canon prime as they are the worst of their breed. anyway, that's a pretty certain NO to your question.
Click to expand...

:plus1:

The 70-200mm f2.8 a very versatile lens. The 24-105mm a useful lens, more suited to a full frame camera as a walk around lens, but if you want to do a wedding, especially indoor shots you'll struggle with the f4. So with daugirdas on this and the answers NO.
 
I'd do what your thinking, but keep the 70-200 you have as you are very happy with it. I'd save up and upgrade in stages instead. Sell the other lenses you were thinking about, buy what you can and the go from there ...
 
I would consider changing out the 40d for a full frame body. I changed the 40d out for a 5d and dont regret it for a second.

Your 28-75 would become a useful wide angle and the 70-200 becomes a lot more useful than at 112-300.

Sell the other 3 to fund a 17-40 to cover super wide duties.

My 2c.
 
jc450d said:
...would i regret selling tke 70-200?
Click to expand...
Make an statistic overview of your used focal length:

00-D300s-brndvidde.jpg


A lot easier to see, where you prefer to be... the above graph justified the 12-24 lens :D
 
Jan, was that chart produced manually or was it automated? With several (if not tens) of thousands of photographs to analyse WRT focal length, a manual compilation of such a chart could be time consuming.
 
Thanks very much for the link Jan.
 
milspec78 said:
I would consider changing out the 40d for a full frame body. I changed the 40d out for a 5d and dont regret it for a second.

Your 28-75 would become a useful wide angle and the 70-200 becomes a lot more useful than at 112-300.

Sell the other 3 to fund a 17-40 to cover super wide duties.

My 2c.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. I moved from 40D to 5D (mark 1) and since then the 40D has seen hardly any use. I kept it as a backup but I've since got a 5D mark II, so the 40D is going and the 5D mk 1 is my backup.

I also have the 28-75 and it's pretty damn good. And yes, 70-200 on full frame is very useful, and produces lovely images. Couldn't get on with the 70-200 on the 40D as I'd need to be in the next county to find the range useful.

I have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 as well (which I assume is what you meant by Sigma 50mm 1.8?) and on FF that lens is lovely. As long as you've got a good one and it focuses properly - I adore mine and use it all the time.

It seems like you already have a nice little lens collection going, all of which are FF compatible (I think?). By moving to FF you should find a) your images look nicer, b) you'll get much better high ISO performance (3200 on the 5D looks like 800 on the 40D from my experience) and c) you may find your existing lenses much more usable due to the shift in the effective range.

You can get an original 5D pretty cheap now, and if you don't get on with it could sell it for what you paid for it. From my experience, and for my uses, the 5D is much better than the 40D.

*Edit: Sigma 10-20 not FF compatible. My bad.
 
Last edited:
Jan K. said:
Make an statistic overview of your used focal length:

00-D300s-brndvidde.jpg


A lot easier to see, where you prefer to be... the above graph justified the 12-24 lens :D
Click to expand...

All is good and well, but what if that 1% of photos can still make a lot of business sense? For example, I may only need to use 85mm prime once a month or less, but when I do its always a real winner. The chart would make me sell it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top