I've just been approved (WAF) to add a 24L, but I was then asked what I'm going to do with the 85L. The wife is not a fan of the 85L, due to a combination of slow focus and fast kids. Plus it's a bit long for indoor low light anyway, and I'm thinking the 24L is going to be MUCH better for this.
So my thought was to trade the 85L for a 100-400L. I used to have a good many zoom's, and I miss having one when we go on vacation.
Will I miss my 85L too much?
I shoot for fun, all style's excepting studio work. Kids are fast approaching outdoor team sports age as well.
Well, all your alternatives are quite different so there is no which is better answer. I like my 85 f1.8 for indoor kids if the 24-105 isn't fast enough. The 24L doesn't seem like a kids lens but would improve on the 24-105 at 24. There is a new 24 f2.8 IS that has been announced at half the 24L price. If f1.4 isn't critical you may want to wait and see how that is reviewed.
The 100-400 is my most used lens after the 24-105 but may be a bit slow in both aperture and focusing for kids sports. It certainly adds range you don't currently have. Since you are not L expense averse, you might consider the 135 f2 or perhaps one of the 70-200s.
You might get more ideas if you give us an expanded explanation on what you want additional lenses to do. I have a lens wish list and try to add one lens a year. That way I can afford good lenses like you have without breaking the bank.
I have an 85 mm f/1.8 and the 100-400 L. Both are outstanding lenses, brilliant and very useful. I would not sell them for an 85 f/1.2. Nor to I anticipate upgrading the f/1.8 to f/1.8 until after about $25-50 K worth of acquisitions ahead of it.
I'm a huge fan of shots that take advantage of a narrow DOF, combined with a nice creamy bokeh. I've got back and forth enough on getting either the 24L or the 35L, and I think the 24L will be most useful for me.
I'm just trying to decide if I should lose the 85L. Wondering if anyone else has made a similar decision, one way or the other. I've owned a 70-200 f/2.8, and a 200 f/2.8 prime, but on my old crop body. I don't feel like 200 is going to be enough on a full frame.. Thanks!
24 can be really wide for chasing kids...but it all depends on your style.
If i were you (and i was ) i would take my 24-105 and stick it at 24 a go take indoor pictures of the kids.
That will give more or less what you will do with the 24L, despite the bokeh. The 24-105 has equally fast AF.
For me, i discovered that i preferred the 35-40mm FOV, so i went with the 35L. Never looked back, brilliant lens.
To complement this i now have a 80-200 f2.8 which i also love. Beautiful pair.
I will now sell my 24-105 to purchase the 85L . I am sucker for narrow DOF.
Regarding "long" lens, i find that 200mm is enough for 95%, of what i do cause the Pipe its sharp enough (can crop a little). Longer than 200mm it has to be a lens over 400mm (500/600 preferably) and that is uber expensive. Still not there yet. I would like to take pictures at distant birds that do not let me get closer, but until i can purchase a 300 f2.8 or a 500 f4...that is not going to happen.
Last Christmas I shot the big family party (annual mob scene, 40+ people) using the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, and the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0. All night-time room light, no flash. Pretty much used the 21 for the kids, and the 35 for the grownups. It was sort of a manual focus experiment, and I was very happy with the results.
I'm sold on wide angle as the answer for fast moving kids indoors. You get everything, and the context for everything. Nice pictures that tell the story. And for family-type pictures which aren't going to be enlarged to huge sizes, you can crop if you want to and get the view you would have got with a longer lens, but more judiciously framed. The manual focus isn't even much of a factor, because so much is in focus all the time. A Canon 24mm f/1.4—2 stops faster than the Zeiss and with autofocus—ought to put you right in the zone. The Zeiss is a nice lens too.
I also agree with those who suggest selling the 85L, and replacing it the 85mm f/1.8. If you are on a budget, why tie that amount of money up in one lens, while ignoring an alternative as good as 85 f/1.8? The difference will fund any of several possibilities that would make a big hit on the team sports assignments—not to mention that the 85mm f/1.8 is itself a pretty good lens for indoor sports. Basically, you can swap your 85L for the 85mm f1.8, plus a 70-200 f/4 IS, and maybe even put money in your pocket.
The 100-400 is a very versatile lens, and is great for the money but IMHO, the 70-200 f/2.8 would probably be the most versatle for what you want to do, it couples well with both the 2X and 1.4 T.C. and @ f/2.8 is pretty "fast" because you will eventually get into a venue that has poor lighting for photography. plus for stuff like baseball & football the thin DOF can really add snap to a picure.
Keep the 85L (the 85 1.8 is a very close second, and focuses way faster) if you must & save for the 70-200 sounds like you still have some time.
if you want a travel zoom seems like the 70-300L should be on the list to consider... good luck! oh, one other piece of advice which I got here on FM which I've used a number of times with great success... if you are able to rent a lens in your area, do this first... what you learn might surprise you.
if you want a travel zoom seems like the 70-300L should be on the list to consider... good luck! oh, one other piece of advice which I got here on FM which I've used a number of times with great success... if you are able to rent a lens in your area, do this first... what you learn might surprise you.
I agree, the 100-400L is not a general purpose lens. The 70-200Ls are much more versatile for general photography. Those who buy the 100-400L do so for specific reasons, wildlife, aviation, birds. I have both a 70-200 and the 100-400. I put the 70-200 on whenever I can and only use the extra reach of the 100-400 if that is what is needed. The 100-400 is heavier, larger, slower to operate, and requires a bit of a learning curve compared to the 70-200. The 70-300L is worth considering IMHO, but the slower apertures need some consideration.
For a vacation lens, I'd second the 70-200f4LIS. Also look at the 35f2, 28 1.8 and 85 1.8 if you still want some fast primes without breaking the bank.
You could switch the 85L for the 50L. It's a more general purpose lens and your wife might like it more for indoor use, and you might find yourself not needing the 24L.
Also works well for outdoor sports.