Decided For Good Zooms Over Primes After All

It was no easy decision but I finally went for the 70-200 2.8 L IS

Reasons included:

I rented one last year for Vancouver Harbour and am hoping to photograph from small plane while in Tofino, also poss. whale watching, etc. where IS would be helpful. Tests suggested that it is significantly sharper than the 70-200 f4 in the corners and in fact is quite decent wide open (which the f 4 never was).

I quite often find myself in positions that I simply cannot move forward or backwards to crop by position so using a series of fixed focal length lenses is necessarily going to involve up to 20% cropping and will more than use up any sharpness advantage of primes. For when the focal length is spot on - well I guess I'll miss the prime, but I have to consider the total use pattern.

Anything that slows down the photography is going to cost me lost shots - contrary to the generally accepted view of landscapes taking time - I often have seconds to get a shot.

I remember all too well changing and rechanging lenses trying to find the ideal composition - that's a waste of time and increases dust exposure with each change.

I have found that very frequently that when I see a really good composition, that turns out to be absolutely the exact right spot to shoot from and any close or further while possible more often than not does not result in as good an image. Zooms let me nail that first shot, then I can move around looking to improve the shot if I have time, light, wind, etc. to do so.

I could certainly have purchased several primes for what I paid for the 70-200 2.8 L IS so we will have to see whether I made the right choice over time. It may even be that with the next generation 1D camera at 22 MP+ that only primes will be able to take advanage of its resolution, but I can't afford to replace my camera so it's a moot point for the forseeable future.

I sell my photographs and I have made good money with the lenses I already have, including the f4 70-200 which I will now send to Canon to have checked. I note that something rattles in it - nothing rattles in the new lens, hmmm...

I also settled on the 24-70 2.8 - I wanted the sexier IS 24-105 with it's better focal length range but at enough different focal lengths the 24-70 was significantly better than the 24-105 (including 85 and 105 compared to the 70-200)that it did not make sense for me. I'm going to miss that IS for handheld work - how often do I hand hold? - well there was that shot three years ago I think...

Picked up a 10 stop ND filter for these two lenses for my trip to the coast - one could argue that lots of people have done time exposures of the waves - but I haven't and I might still come up with a unique picture - and besides - I have always liked that etherial look so what the hell - I mostly photograph for myself.