# Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..



## birdman (May 22, 2012)

I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget: 

24-105L
70-200/4 IS L

** I will have buy the two lenses above, in addition to currently owning: 1) 17-40L, 2) 35/1.4L, 3)100mm macro, & 4) 50mm 1.8 Mk 1

This is my budget to the max. I am selling my 28-135 & 70-300 IS (non-L) and may even sell my 100mm macro. Am I making a good decision, guys? Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms. This is the absolute best I can afford!! Thanks


----------



## wickidwombat (May 22, 2012)

they are both excellent quality zooms nothing to worry about there.
I would possibly consider replacing the 100mm macro with the 85 f1.8 (bargain lens)
if you dont shoot much macro that is since on ff fast 85mm are just stunning for portraits great bokeh
and that also gives you that low light ability you lose with the f4 70-200 (which is damn sharp at f4 BTW)


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 22, 2012)

Well, first, I think there is a big misconception that f/2.8 lenses are "better" than f/4 lenses. This couldn't be further from the truth. As one example, look at Bryan Carnathan's ISO Charts and compare the 70-200mm f/4L IS vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L. The f/4L IS is sharper at all f/stops center frame in all comparisons, despite the latter being an L lens as well and an f/2.8 lens. The problem is that people think that just because a lens has a wider aperture it peforms optically better and this is just not the case. Yes it would perform better in low light, but guess what, they make tripods. I've shot many, many low light images with f/4L lenses on a tripod. Shutter speed and aperture can both be traded off depending on f/stop. I think the 24-105mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses are superb lenses and I've shot some of my best photos with each! I am still amazed at how sharp the 24-105 is at f/4 during daylight. Those lenses are fantastic. Also, the 17-40 is fantastic. Even if you get the 24-105, keep it. I know this is not your scenario here, but I knew a pro who didn't buy the 16-35mm f/2.8L II because he saw better value in buying the 17-40mm f/4L and the 24 f/1.4L instead. Since you have a 35 f/1.4L, there's not much difference here. With your lenses, you will shoot fantastic images at a wide variety of focal lengths. If funding is available, I'd say try to keep the 100 macro too. If not, oh well, you're 70-200 will cover it.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 22, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Well, first, I think there is a big misconception that f/2.8 lenses are "better" than f/4 lenses. This couldn't be further from the truth. As one example, look at Bryan Carnathan's ISO Charts and compare the 70-200mm f/4L IS vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L. The f/4L IS is sharper at all f/stops center frame in all comparisons, despite the latter being an L lens as well and an f/2.8 lens. The problem is that people think that just because a lens has a wider aperture it peforms optically better and this is just not the case. Yes it would perform better in low light, but guess what, they make tripods. I've shot many, many low light images with f/4L lenses on a tripod. Shutter speed and aperture can both be traded off depending on f/stop. I think the 24-105mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses are superb lenses and I've shot some of my best photos with each! I am still amazed at how sharp the 24-105 is at f/4 during daylight. Those lenses are fantastic. Also, the 17-40 is fantastic. Even if you get the 24-105, keep it. I know this is not your scenario here, but I knew a pro who didn't buy the 16-35mm f/2.8L II because he saw better value in buying the 17-40mm f/4L and the 24 f/1.4L instead. Since you have a 35 f/1.4L, there's not much difference here. With your lenses, you will shoot fantastic images at a wide variety of focal lengths. If funding is available, I'd say try to keep the 100 macro too. If not, oh well, you're 70-200 will cover it.



The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 22, 2012)

i think bdunbar79 was talking about the mk1 which wasnt so great


----------



## Razor2012 (May 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i think bdunbar79 was talking about the mk1 which wasnt so great



He was...I was just saying how the II is the new king.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 22, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i think bdunbar79 was talking about the mk1 which wasnt so great
> ...



it is (as far as zooms go anyway)
but if budget limited a much cheaper 85mm prime will give equal if not better IQ
sigma 85mm f1.4


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 22, 2012)

Any test I've seen puts the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS ahead of the IS mk1 and almost equal to the f4IS.

I wanted the extra AF performance an f2.8 brings no matter your shooting aperture.

The need for this performance would depend on how much you need to squeeze out of the 5D2's AF.

It seems daft to sell your macro when you have lots of duplication elsewhere.

I would sell the 17-40 f4 and get a 16-35 f2.8LII and 70-200 f2.8L nonIS, you have a 50mm f1.8 int here to reduce the gap between the zooms and keep your macro.

But that's me speaking as a video guy and sometime sports shooter.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 22, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i think bdunbar79 was talking about the mk1 which wasnt so great
> ...



Hey, I'm not gonna argue there. I have the version II with IS and it beats everything or is just as sharp as everything I own for what I shoot. Great lens and worth saving the money and buying.


----------



## EOBeav (May 22, 2012)

Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2012)

birdman said:


> Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms.



Canon's f/4 zooms are excellent! If you need to stop action in low light and require the flexibility of a zoom, the f/2.8 is a better choice. If you're going to use the 70-200mm for portraits, again the f/2.8 would be a better choice. But for most applications, the f/4 is just fine, and is much easier on the arms and wallet.


----------



## Zo0m (May 22, 2012)

An used Tamron 28-75 2.8 seems an excellent option here. In Sweden they are 600 usd cheaper then used Canon 24-105. They also seem about equally sharp, you lose out on a 3-stop IS but get one f-stop in lens speed instead. You also get to keep 600 usd


----------



## NormanBates (May 22, 2012)

like paul13walnut5, I also don't see the point of the 24-105 when you have all those other lenses

* 17-40 f/4L (or upgrade to 16-35 f/2.8L)
* 35 f/1.4L
* 50 f/1.8
* 100 macro
* 70-200

looks like a great collection to me

I'd only add the 24-105 or 24-70 if I wanted to have a zoom so I could leave everything else at home, and for some reason I didn't deem the 17-40 good enough for that

as for the 70-200, I think I'd go for one of these:
* canon 70-200 f/4L IS if I want IS and a smaller lens
* tamron 70-200 f/2.8 if I need the speed
* canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II if I have money to spare and don't mind the extra weight

I don't think the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS is any sharper than the f/4L IS: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

the tamron is not ultra-sharp either, but it's a solid performer, bokeh is great, and it's a lot cheaper
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=470&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-200mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012GLHL2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337697947&sr=8-1&tag=similaar-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000EXR0SI


----------



## NormanBates (May 22, 2012)

I wouldn't say the tamron 28-75 is stellar... the new 24-70 f/2.8 is much better, but still no match for the (admittedly more expensive) canon L zooms
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=366&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


and even if you don't need the IS, the 70-200 f/4L IS is sharper than its non-IS brother:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
not to say the non-IS is bad at all... but for that price I'd go for the tamron 70-200 f/2.8, which is sharper and a stop faster
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=470&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2


----------



## Dylan777 (May 22, 2012)

birdman said:


> I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget:
> 
> 24-105L
> 70-200/4 IS L
> ...



I haven't try the f4 70-200 so no comments. 

Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II is one of the BEST zoom lens - IQ is amazing. Tacksharp even at 2.8, great Bokeh when needed.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 22, 2012)

Your choices look fine to me. I'm puzzled why you would sell the 100 macro since, on those rare occasions when I shoot a formal head & shoulder portrait, that is the lens I grab. (I also own an 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2 but I'm not a fan of minimal DOF portraits.) The macro lens is, if anything, too sharp for portraits but too much resolution is better than too little.


----------



## tron (May 22, 2012)

The f/4L zooms are excellent. I would keep the 100mm macro though...


----------



## kwwalla (May 22, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.



If you hand hold (event shooter), then the IS is priceless. Especially at the longer focal lengths! Will also help negate (to some degree) the slower apperature by allowing one to use slower shutter speeds.


----------



## preppyak (May 22, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> like paul13walnut5, I also don't see the point of the 24-105 when you have all those other lenses
> 
> * 17-40 f/4L (or upgrade to 16-35 f/2.8L)
> * 35 f/1.4L
> ...


Yeah, I was thinking the same, and depending on your usage, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS would end up costing you just slightly more than the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4's combined. You've got the wide covered with the 17-40. You've got the normal range covered with primes (35 and 50), and you've got the longer side covered with the 70-200 you get. Depending on how much macro you do, that would decide whether you keep that.

Another play, if you don't want to lug around the heavier 70-200 f/2.8, is to get the 70-200 f/4L IS, then take the $8-900 you'd have spent on the 24-105 and update your 50mm prime and get the 85mm prime. Then you'd be set for low light (primes), landscape (17-40), and portrait/travel (70-200 and primes).

Also, I owned the Tamron 28-75, and I now own the 70-200 f4L IS. There's really no comparison, I liked the Tamron, but I found the AF lacking and the image quality, while nice, doesn't match the L's. If you're other lenses are Canon, you'll notice the difference in color and contrast as well. I love the 70-200, it's on my camera probably 75% of the time.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 22, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.


 
The best argument for the f/4 IS version is that it uses a new optical formula, and is noticibly sharper than the non IS f/4 version.

The other reason is that you don't need a tripod for ordinary walk around shots. Around here, in at least one of my favorite popular photographic places, use of a camera on tripod is banned. And this is a out of the way city! http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/05/gardens-popularity-upends-its-calm/

Obviously, I avoid it like the plague on weekends!

I think that many areas in the USA that have a lot of people now ban tripods.

Nishinomiya Japanese Garden

http://www.mount-spokane-photography.com/Travel/Washington-State-Scenes/Spokane/i-CH636FX/0/X2/Canon-EOS-40D-IMG0962-X2.jpg


----------



## cliffwang (May 22, 2012)

Zo0m said:


> An used Tamron 28-75 2.8 seems an excellent option here. In Sweden they are 600 usd cheaper then used Canon 24-105. They also seem about equally sharp, you lose out on a 3-stop IS but get one f-stop in lens speed instead. You also get to keep 600 usd


I heard Tamron 28-75mm is good, but not great. The new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC is the king for now. The IQ is much sharper than Canon 24-70mm L MK1. You can google "Tamron 24-70mm VC review", and you will see good review. I personally is waiting for the Canon 24-70mm L MK2 and to see if I go with Tamron or Canon MK2.


----------



## bp (May 22, 2012)

I'd also say skip the 24-105. It's strength is being an all-purpose lens - good if you want to leave the rest of your bag at home - but if you typically carry multiple lenses with you, I'll bet you'd rarely use it. 

If you do add the 70-200 f4 IS (which is a fantastic lens, by the way - SO sharp), the only weakness in your lineup would be a lens with reach and wide aperture for low light. The 85 1.8 or the 135L might fill that gap and get used more than the 24-105, imho


----------



## scottkinfw (May 22, 2012)

The 70-200 f4L IS is a great lens. It has some major advantages of the 2.8 II- it is smaller, and weighs a lot less, making it much more portable. It produces wonderful, tack sharp pics with good contrast and color. You should be very happy with it.
I have a 17-40 f4L and it is fairly sharp at around f6 to 8, and so I don't love this lens, and I am replacing it with the 24-105L which comes in the 5dIII kit.

sek



bp said:


> I'd also say skip the 24-105. It's strength is being an all-purpose lens - good if you want to leave the rest of your bag at home - but if you typically carry multiple lenses with you, I'll bet you'd rarely use it.
> 
> If you do add the 70-200 f4 IS (which is a fantastic lens, by the way - SO sharp), the only weakness in your lineup would be a lens with reach and wide aperture for low light. The 85 1.8 or the 135L might fill that gap and get used more than the 24-105, imho


----------



## awinphoto (May 22, 2012)

Those are two fine lenses. There are those 2.8 snobs and it can be argued that 2.8's focus quicker, but I have those lenses and shoot professionally and haven't had to sweat about not having 2.8. Go for it.


----------



## 7enderbender (May 22, 2012)

birdman said:


> I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget:
> 
> 24-105L
> 70-200/4 IS L
> ...




Can't really go wrong either way, but I'm a bit confused - which may be my own perspective. Why add zooms? And what exactly are you trying to get to? Is it that you want all focal lengths covered and hence want the 3 f/4 zooms? That would make sense, especially given that you also keep at least one of your excellent fast primes.

I personally opted to not get any of the 70-200 zooms and instead bought the 200 2.8L II and the 135L. Both very very nice and quite portable. But so is the f/4 zoom. Maybe even skip the IS version unless you really need it. I personally find IS quite useless.

Another option would be to get a 24-70 (current version) and the 200 2.8L II. Should be about the same budget and then you have the speed and narrower DOF available if you need it.


----------



## EOBeav (May 22, 2012)

kwwalla said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.
> ...



But...but...If you use IS, then you're going to be able to reduce/eliminate camera-shake blur, but not necessarily motion blur. You might get away with handholding at 1/15 sec., but you're still going to capture any movement within that time. 

I recently shot an indoor play with my 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS), and I don't think I would have come out with better images had I utilized IS. Just something else to think about, I guess. I'm coming to realize that there are growing numbers in both IS camps: One swears by it, and the other believes it to be almost gimmicky.


----------



## preppyak (May 22, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> But...but...If you use IS, then you're going to be able to reduce/eliminate camera-shake blur, but not necessarily motion blur. You might get away with handholding at 1/15 sec., but you're still going to capture any movement within that time.


Yeah, but I actually find I use my 70-200 for a lot of landscape shots. I don't always have a tripod with me, but 1/10th or 1/15th is enough to blur a water falling. Or it might be the difference between shooting the landscape at f/4 or f/8.

I went with the IS version because it was sharper, but I think I've found some use for the IS here and there.


----------



## EOBeav (May 22, 2012)

preppyak said:


> Yeah, but I actually find I use my 70-200 for a lot of landscape shots. I don't always have a tripod with me, but 1/10th or 1/15th is enough to blur a water falling. Or it might be the difference between shooting the landscape at f/4 or f/8.
> 
> I went with the IS version because it was sharper, but I think I've found some use for the IS here and there.



Point taken, but I guess I shoot a little differently than that. I generally shoot my landscapes on my 70-200 between f/11 and f/16, and my flowing water shots with that lens usually run in the .5 to a full second range. I'm not going to get out and say my way is the best way, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 22, 2012)

While it's important to think about the "spread" of your various lenses, the decision should ultimately boil down to the individual lens and whether it will suit the purpose.

Personally, I find f/4 to be a serious limitation. I want lenses that perform indoors, outdoors, landscape, portrait, day or night. For me, an f/4 are outdoor/daytime/tripod lenses.

With regard to your potential lens spread, I would be aware of the potential redundancy between the following lenses:

17-40L
24-105L
70-200/4 IS L

The 24-105L is the odd-lens-out here... it doesn't pair up with either of the other lenses. But I do have it myself and I find it is very useful outdoors, during the day and especially if it is my ONLY lens in the situation. But otherwise, I find the f/4 limiting in indoor/night situations.


----------



## Northstar (May 22, 2012)

> The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.



+1

images are fantastic on th 70-200 IS ii- only thing I don't like about mine is it fits a little loose at the mount, which causes it to "jiggle" a very small amount if I'm walking...etc. I've read online that many others fit this way as well, so I just try to ignore it.


----------



## AJ (May 22, 2012)

Yes 24-105 and 70-200/4 IS are smart choices.

The f/4 zooms are very portable, very high-quality, and very convenient walk-around lenses. You'll also have some faster primes for those cases when you need shutter speed and selective focus.

I say go for it. I agree with the idea of keeping 100/2.8 if at all possible.


----------



## preppyak (May 22, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> Point taken, but I guess I shoot a little differently than that. I generally shoot my landscapes on my 70-200 between f/11 and f/16, and my flowing water shots with that lens usually run in the .5 to a full second range. I'm not going to get out and say my way is the best way, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.


Oh, I do too usually (f/8-f/11), especially with the water. At least in ideal situations. But, in a pinch, it's that I can get that shot without a tripod if I don't have one with me. Because 1/30th is that sort of dividing line. Without IS that isn't possible. I take my gear with my while kayaking, and I don't always want to lug my tripod with me.

Same is true of large volume rivers (Potomac at Great Falls comes to mind), where the water is going so fast that 1/15th is plenty to get what you normally need 1/2 second or more to get. I can work my way to frame shots I couldn't with a tripod and still get decent results. Still a niche use, but, worth the extra money for me.


----------



## Halfrack (May 22, 2012)

It's L glass on a FF camera - everything else is supporting equipment and personal skill.

You never mentioned what you'll be shooting so F4 L zooms are a great bang for buck.


----------



## birdman (May 23, 2012)

OP here. I see a lot of folks with various suggestions, all of which are greatly appreciated. 

My thoughts are this: 17-40; 35/1.4; 50/1.8 are the lenses I currently own AND would not consider selling. I need the 17-40 for wide angle, and frankly it never gets used past about 24mm. The 35L for low-light and street photos; same with 50/1.8.

I would replace my 28-135 w/ 24-105 because: 1) They are very cheap used now that it's been the kit lens for all (3) three 5d camera bodies. Many, many of those in the used/new market. 2) I may get another body, either a 40D or 5dClassic in the future. 

Lastly, it's not so much overlap as it is different needs. The 24-105 and 70-200 are BOTH very versatile FLs....paired to either FF or cropped bodies. I need IS because I have unsteady hands and don't use my tripod very much--only on landscape shots. I want to start doing modeling work, and hopefully that will come in time. I don't see how the 24-105 & 70-200 would be bad choices for that type of work either. The 100 macro NEVER gets touched any more. Haven't shot a single picture with it in nearly two years.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 23, 2012)

birdman said:


> OP here. I see a lot of folks with various suggestions, all of which are greatly appreciated.
> 
> My thoughts are this: 17-40; 35/1.4; 50/1.8 are the lenses I currently own AND would not consider selling. I need the 17-40 for wide angle, and frankly it never gets used past about 24mm. The 35L for low-light and street photos; same with 50/1.8.
> 
> ...



the 24-105 is great for studio work the reasons are as follows
1) its a sharp lens even wide open at f4 its good however
2) shooting studio you are typically shooting f8 - f16 sooo f4 is fine
3) IS is really handy on this lens (just remember to switch it off on a tripod
4) the zoom range 24-105 is great for a studio no lens changes at all and you can shoot everything
5) its not too massive, its a good size not too heavy and easily maneuvored 70-200 can be quite unwieldy at times the f4 less so than the 2.8 though

overall i think you plan to use the 24-105 for your general purpose lens is a good one

i had another thought though and i think someone else mentioned it too since the 24-105 give you pretty decent general coverage i suspect the 70-200 will spend most of its time at 200 if you are using it you will be chassing the reach
consider the 200 f2.8L II prime
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/A0475-Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-8-L-II-USM-Lens-F2-8L-Gt-5Wt-/390340094258?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item5ae2152932

since budget is a consideration save some coin its a bit more low key 1 stop faster (no IS though) and stellar IQ
of course you can save even more and get one second hand


----------



## Razor2012 (May 23, 2012)

Northstar said:


> > The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Was that right from the get go or it took a little time? I'll keep an eye on it, seems pretty snug right now.


----------



## Northstar (May 23, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > > The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.
> ...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 23, 2012)

One final point from me on this... if you want to know if somebody is a pro or not look at their pictures. If you want to know how much money somebody has spent, look at their kit. There isn't always a correlation twixt the two.

Good luck with which ever you choose, I thought there were good technical reasons for opting for f2.8's such as improved AF performance, but there you go....


----------



## dirtcastle (May 23, 2012)

birdman said:


> OP here. I see a lot of folks with various suggestions, all of which are greatly appreciated.
> 
> My thoughts are this: 17-40; 35/1.4; 50/1.8 are the lenses I currently own AND would not consider selling. I need the 17-40 for wide angle, and frankly it never gets used past about 24mm. The 35L for low-light and street photos; same with 50/1.8.
> 
> ...



From what you've explained here, your choice makes a lot of sense. 

If you'll be shooting models in controlled situations (strobe or daylight), then I agree that the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm f/4 will be extremely practical. If you don't need to completely blur the backgrounds of long shots... f/4 will get the job done (and 200mm f/4 does get some good blur at long distances). 

The only potential gap might be a longer, fast lens. If this became an issue, you could fill the gap with a 135mm f/2.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> One final point from me on this... if you want to know if somebody is a pro or not look at their pictures. If you want to know how much money somebody has spent, look at their kit. There isn't always a correlation twixt the two.
> 
> Good luck with which ever you choose, I thought there were good technical reasons for opting for f2.8's such as improved AF performance, but there you go....



Thank you! My advice is to look at and assess what you HAVE. It is up to YOU to make them work at a professional level. If you have a 17-40mm f/4L, then that is what you have, so make the best of it and get all the quality out of it that you can. You CAN make anything work for you if you are patient and make your best shots!


----------



## aznable (May 23, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.



also he sigma 70-200 beats the 70-200 f/4 is canon optically and it costs the same....maybe he just doesnt need an f/2.8 lens


----------

