Anton Largiader
Gold Member
Some new lenses have really shaken the traditional 24-70-200 300 400 focal length groupings. Change can be a good thing, I suppose, but maybe not easy (or inexpensive!).
I think the "old guard" lineup really was just 24-70-200 + 400. I gather the 300 wasn't such an integral part of the sports lineup for FF. Throw a 1.4 on the 70-200 and then go straight to 400. But I'll include the 300 because it has a role here.
The amazing 100-300 kicked off this dilemma. For field sports, I think it's pretty much a given that this can replace a 70-200 and a 300. I do occasionally have football sideline shots that get wider than 100 but usually they immediately become wider than 70 as well (since someone is about to crash into me) so that part doesn't really matter. But 70-200 is so fantastic in a gym; I don't think 100mm is forgiving enough. The 300 end would be nice but I feel like there's some law of the universe that says a sports shooter has to have a 70-200. I suppose if one has a $9500 100-300 then holding onto a $950 70-200 isn't a huge burden.
Canon was nice enough to bridge this 70-100 gap with the 24-105 f/2.8, due to be released in two more weeks. But I think very little happens under about 70 anyway. I really should look at my library to see what I have in that 70-ish range.
So I guess my question is, do you folks see 100 as being the new 70, or is it just this one outdoors-oriented lens that happens to end there? I'm trying to figure out if I should think of it as a 70-200 replacement or not.
I think the "old guard" lineup really was just 24-70-200 + 400. I gather the 300 wasn't such an integral part of the sports lineup for FF. Throw a 1.4 on the 70-200 and then go straight to 400. But I'll include the 300 because it has a role here.
The amazing 100-300 kicked off this dilemma. For field sports, I think it's pretty much a given that this can replace a 70-200 and a 300. I do occasionally have football sideline shots that get wider than 100 but usually they immediately become wider than 70 as well (since someone is about to crash into me) so that part doesn't really matter. But 70-200 is so fantastic in a gym; I don't think 100mm is forgiving enough. The 300 end would be nice but I feel like there's some law of the universe that says a sports shooter has to have a 70-200. I suppose if one has a $9500 100-300 then holding onto a $950 70-200 isn't a huge burden.
Canon was nice enough to bridge this 70-100 gap with the 24-105 f/2.8, due to be released in two more weeks. But I think very little happens under about 70 anyway. I really should look at my library to see what I have in that 70-ish range.
So I guess my question is, do you folks see 100 as being the new 70, or is it just this one outdoors-oriented lens that happens to end there? I'm trying to figure out if I should think of it as a 70-200 replacement or not.
