HUGE Dilemma

[Greg Campbell]

24mm on a full frame is tantalizingly close, but is (IMO) not quite wide enough for chasing - you need to keep the 17mm.

As always, the question is: "How much loot do you have to spend?"

How about 'trading' the 24~105 for a 75~300 zoom? I know this isn't as much reach as you might like, and it leaves a small gap in your coverage (no biggie, IMO). Not ideal, but might it be good enough for now?

 

[Darren Addy]

As you build your kit you will want to cover a wider focal range. Trading lenses, at this point, doesn't do that for you. You open up a big gap, that I guarantee you will want to fill again. We often want everything at once, but you have an incredible setup for a 16 year old. Saving you money towards the telephoto of your choice wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Keep in mind that shooting with telephotos bring their own set of challenges. The higher magnifications magnify everything, including any camera shake. The lens you are looking at is impressive pro equipment and has IS built in, but for sharp wildlife, odds are you will also need to have it on a tripod. (Have a good steady tripod?)

I believe that if you added the 100-300mm lens to your arsenal, you would still find that it spent the least amount of time on your camera, of the three lenses you would then have.

 

[Patrick Martin]

Adam, I think the biggest question you have to ask yourself, and share here, is what are you shooting mostly now. If most all of your shooting is going to be chase related, then sticking with the 17-40 will be a good route. If you are currently shooting things where the 105 is just not long enough, then going the 100-400 route will be a good choice. Most of the feedback you will get here will be to go UWA, but you need to keep your setup in the context of everything you are shooting.

On a full frame chasis, the 24-205 and 100-400 combo is nothing short of extraordinary for coverage, IQ, flexibility, and is still wider than a 17mm on a crop body on the wide end. If you have good post processing skills, you can always merge a pair of images taken with your 24-105 to achieve an UWA view. Although with that being said, my widest currently on my crop body is my Sigma 17-70, although I am in the process of acquiring a 10-20. Good luck whatever you decide.

 

[Larry J. Kosch]

Crop Body?

Adam,

I've only been chasing for 2 years, but without a doubt, a super-wide lens is what I use 99% of the time. (I only shoot stills, no video) When I chase, I have three bodies locked and loaded. One has a 10-22, the second one has a 24-105, and the third one has a 70-200 2.8 IS. Looking back through my photo library, all of my shots have been with the 10-22 except for a few. (I shoot w/ a crop body)

Bryan

For those photo guys that are not familiar with the "crop body" term:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VBnp

I used to work with a 35 MM camera in my previous profession as a sports photographer/journalist. Thanks for a learning moment!

 

[Adam Adkins]

I have decided to keep my 17-40L. I will have to find a way to get the 100-400L but I just don't know how. And the 5D mark ii is VERY good at high ISO sensitivities - I can shoot at 6400 with almost no visible noise - at best I could get those results at ISO 400 with my XT. This will come in handy big time storm chasing! If anyone has a 100-400 for sale... let me know!

 

[Patrick Martin]

If you are not already a member of this Canon forum, I recommend you join. There is a classified section for members only where you can get good deals on used items from the other members. I've found it to be much safer/reliable then fleabay or craiglist. Also, there is a ton of useful information shared there on just about any type of photography you can think of.

 

[Greg Campbell]

I have decided to keep my 17-40L. I will have to find a way to get the 100-400L but I just don't know how. And the 5D mark ii is VERY good at high ISO sensitivities - I can shoot at 6400 with almost no visible noise - at best I could get those results at ISO 400 with my XT. This will come in handy big time storm chasing! If anyone has a 100-400 for sale... let me know!

You're 16, already have a very nice camera body, and are pining for a $1600+ lens?

As you point out, high ISO is entirely usable. You don't need a super fast lens. May I gently suggest you 'settle' for an X-300mm f5.6 off fleabay for a few hundred bucks. Go shoot pretty pictures. Be happy.
Only when you can consistently make "WOW!" telephoto images will you have real need of faster/longer glass.

You'll save a lot of money, and take better pictures along the way, if you remember that all the L lenses and megapixels on Earth will not improve the aesthetic of your images in any way! Strive to become a creative Photographer, not a soulless Gear Junkie / Pixel Peeper!

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I have decided to keep my 17-40L. I will have to find a way to get the 100-400L but I just don't know how. And the 5D mark ii is VERY good at high ISO sensitivities - I can shoot at 6400 with almost no visible noise - at best I could get those results at ISO 400 with my XT. This will come in handy big time storm chasing! If anyone has a 100-400 for sale... let me know!

I was about to offer up the other direction. I have the 17-40, 10-22, and the 100-400 for my crop sensor XSi. Since having the 10-22 the 17-40 is almost never on, especially when chasing. I only put it on for lightning sometimes, and even then not a lot.

The thing is you really can get by without that ultra wide view like 10mm on a crop for chasing if you want. All you have to do is hop in the car and drive 2-3 miles or so further east(really easy and fast). The only real good thing the 10mm does for me is allow me to shoot video where I normally would, with a close intercept option open, and still be able to get structure still shots. Anyway, not having the ultra wide angle option isn't the end of the world for chasing. It would be for a lot of things, like optics like Jim mentions though. And it's damn nice to have that available while chasing if you shoot video too.

If you wonder for chasing, you might gain some idea looking at my accounts. 2004 only had the 18-55mm kit lens on a crop rebel. 2005 and 2006 just had the 17-40 on a crop rebel. So all those never had any ultra wide. The only one I really wish I had the 10mm for was Hill City 2005 after the fact. I was already a couple miles east of the tornado(right at 2 for the end of the first) and could get a lot of the structure. If I'd driven 2 more quick miles east I'd have been able to get it all. But yeah, adding more distance will add more "air" to haze out. It's just the one chase back then I really wish I had the 10-22 for. Not that I didn't get a bunch of the structure, but it would have been cool to get the entire bowl shape around to the left.

That said, I think I'd be really annoyed with the 100-400 on a full frame. I just rented a 600mm with a couple teleconverters. I was only just on the edge of happy with the 1.4x on that for 840mm...and that was on the crop. If it were me I'd really consider that 400mm prime route and get the 17-40. That or not be terribly concerned not having the ultra wide yet. Just thinking about all these ins and outs makes me glad I have a crop sensor, 10-22, 17-40 and a 100-400 lol. But yeah having that 5Dii would be nice. Damn electronics world. When shooting general fog scenes and whatnot I'm often highly annoyed not having the 24-105mm range.

As crowded as chasing gets anymore, driving further out can be desirable....placing an ultrawide in the too wide category. But yeah, sometimes road options limit you at the time, and you might have to be close when the storm is going nuts. Decisions decisions. Swap the 5Dii for a 7D lol. Then get a 10-22, sell the 17-40, keep the 24-105, and add the 100-400. The 17-40 and 10-22 I think are about the same price, minus whatever you didn't get selling the 17-40. That is the direction I'd take personally. Until I see another of those crazy 5Dii time lapse movies online.

 

[James Langford]

You're 16, already have a very nice camera body, and are pining for a $1600+ lens?

As you point out, high ISO is entirely usable. You don't need a super fast lens. May I gently suggest you 'settle' for an X-300mm f5.6 off fleabay for a few hundred bucks. Go shoot pretty pictures. Be happy.
Only when you can consistently make "WOW!" telephoto images will you have real need of faster/longer glass.

You'll save a lot of money, and take better pictures along the way, if you remember that all the L lenses and megapixels on Earth will not improve the aesthetic of your images in any way! Strive to become a creative Photographer, not a soulless Gear Junkie / Pixel Peeper!

This is very good advice Greg!

 

[Darren Addy]

Three "problems" (problems some of us wouldn't mind having).

1) Full frame cameras will reveal the imperfections of less-than-great lens optics, because you are going to use the corners that the same lens on a crop camera will cut off. (So a cheap-o telephoto may work GREAT on your crop camera, but not be so great on a full frame.)

2) Image Stabilization is a genuine benefit, particularly on the telephoto end of things. And IS lenses cost a lot more.

3) He needs an EOS compatible mount and so there aren't a metric buttload of cheap quality vintage glass options like there for, say... Pentax DSLR shooters.

Does that mean that you can't make good images unless you have those things? No. In fact, starting off without IS might make you a better photographer, technically.. because you will need to think about (and understand) the relationship between sharpness, shutterspeed and stability (including mirror slap). Give a person who understands that an IS lens and they are Golden.

But I do think that the "dilemma" here is caused by not being satisfied with anything less than the very best and wanting it NOW.

 

[Adam Adkins]

WOW lots of responses! Thanks! I personally would have gotten a crop frame sensor but I got the 5dii and 24-105 via the canon photography in the parks competition. And unfortunately my zoom lens was dropped (not by me) on to the concrete. Ooops. But - you are right, I would like to have the zoom ASAP because wildlife and birds are a BIG chunk of my photography and without a telephoto zoom I feel lost. Mike - I have read all of your accounts thoroughly and have noted the lenses you had at the time. The only reason that did not convince me that 24mm would be OK is because the moment you got the 10-22 that was pretty much the only thing you shot with - indicating to me that it is FAR more convenient to have a super wide angle. And looking at your valentine, NE/SD supercell account, I think that an even WIDER angle would have been useful, and I don't think you would have gotten nearly as much of the storm without out the 10-22. And... I would sell the 5Dii to get the 7D, but I think ISO performance is very important when storm chasing and you cant beat the ISO performance of the 5Dii. Plus, the full 1080HD is very nice (you can shoot pictures and video at the same time!). The 400 prime is a good suggestion. I just don't want to lose the 100-399mm range. I will do my best to find a good deal on a used lens.