October 21, 2014, 10:05:12 PM

Author Topic: Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..  (Read 8688 times)

birdman

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
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
5d2; 17-40L; 35L; 50/1.8 Mk. 1; 70-300 IS; 100mm/2.8

canon rumors FORUM


wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4519
    • View Profile
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)
APS-H Fanboy

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
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.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
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.
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4519
    • View Profile
i think bdunbar79 was talking about the mk1 which wasnt so great
APS-H Fanboy

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
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. ;)
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4519
    • View Profile
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. ;)

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
APS-H Fanboy

canon rumors FORUM


paul13walnut5

  • Guest
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

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
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. ;)

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.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

EOBeav

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
    • My Landscape Photoblog
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.
In landscape photography, when you shoot is more important than where.

Gear: Canon 5DmkII, 17-40mm f/4 L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/4.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14712
    • View Profile
Re: Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2012, 10:18:42 AM »
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.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Zo0m

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2012, 10:45:52 AM »
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 :)
Nikon D800, Nikkor 35 AF-S DX f1.8G, Sigma 85 f1.4 EX DG HSM, Sigma 150 f2.8 EX DG OS MACRO, Tokina 11-16 AT-X PRO f2.8 DX, Nikkor 28-300 f3.5-5.6G ED VR, Nikon SpeedLight SB-910
Formerly:
5D Mark 2, 550D, 12-24, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 50, 85, 550EX

NormanBates

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • www.similaar.com
    • View Profile
    • www.similaar.com
Re: Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2012, 10:50:08 AM »
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
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 10:58:54 AM by NormanBates »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2012, 10:50:08 AM »


Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4192
    • View Profile
Re: Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2012, 11:13:26 AM »
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

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.
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2012, 11:13:26 AM »