advice for new lens？please

[evebabe1981]

I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel

1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)

2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?

3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography

advice anyone? thanks ^^

 

[Jim Saunders]

Can you rent lenses for your trip? I'd go with a 16-35 f/4 and a 24-70 f/2.8 II; the 70-200 f/4 IS is worth a serious look if you need some reach but not f/2.8.

If you can afford to keep it after buying a 70-200 f/2.8 I'd keep the 200 prime; the 70-200 is terrific but it gets heavy after a while. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is as good as it gets and at similar apertures I'd put it up against the primes any day, but f/1.4 is something you can't fake.

Jim

 

[rpt]

It would help if you described what you would be shooting.

I find my 24-105L very useful. I have used my 40mm, 70-200 and 100-400 extensively too. It is all about what you need to click and how far you are from it. My last travel was with the 24-105 and the 100-400 and the 1.4 multiplier. The 100-400 got used the most as I was shooting birds...

 

[Dylan777]

Already said tooo many times, both 24-70 f2.8 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II are MUST HAVE lenses in the bag. Add 1.4x TC III, you'll be safe for many situations. Assuming you shooting with latest FF body of course(6D, 5D III etc...)

 

[evebabe1981]

I can only afford 1 lens now (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4) unless i sell my Prime.

i do most street photography 80% still life 15%

Can you rent lenses for your trip? I'd go with a 16-35 f/4 and a 24-70 f/2.8 II; the 70-200 f/4 IS is worth a serious look if you need some reach but not f/2.8.

If you can afford to keep it after buying a 70-200 f/2.8 I'd keep the 200 prime; the 70-200 is terrific but it gets heavy after a while. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is as good as it gets and at similar apertures I'd put it up against the primes any day, but f/1.4 is something you can't fake.

Jim

 

[alexturton]

Sell 200l and get 70 200

At 24l

Take

24,50 and 70 200 on hols

 

[justaCanonuser]

I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel

1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)

2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?

3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography

advice anyone? thanks ^^

Like others posted already, a 24-70/2.8 plus 70-200/2.8 would cover most of your needs when you travel. I use the 70-200/2.8 much in the street (besides an EF 300/4), because I prefer the subject isolation only a tele can deliver, plus I like it much as portrait lens (besides the king of bokeh, my beloved EF 85/1.2). The standard zoom is less important for me personally, but that's a matter of taste.

You could consider the new Tamron lenses for both ranges, since they are much more affordable and deliver overall good IQ, plus the Tamron 24-70/2.8 has a quite good IS (VR). But I have this Tammy standard zoom and can tell you that I have a lot of out-of-focus losses with my 5D3 (I have microadjusted this lens carefully). It's a typical 3rd party lens AF issue, since Sigma, Tamron & Co. have to re-engineer the AF parameters of Canon's and Nikon's systems. I do not know which DSLR you have but my impression is that the Tammys in particular do not co-operate well with Canon's pro AF system (I've tested yesterday the new Tamron 150-600 and had much more AF flaws with my 5D3 than with my 7D). So if you prefer to shoot action, stick better with Canon's native system.

I am really happy about the overall performance of my EF 70-200/2.8 II, AF nearly always hits the target. If you decide to get this fantastic tele-zoom, you won't regret any penny of this of course huge investment. Don't consider the older versions of this model, they are too soft wide open (in this case I'd really prefer the new Tammy 70-200/2.8 ). You could add later Canon's 1.4 TC, the Mark III version performs suprisingly well with this lens.

I also have the EF 70-200/4 L IS USM, if you consider it take the newer IS version because it is sharper than the non IS version. The small 70-200 is a nice light traveling lens with good IQ and AF performance but does not offer as much freedom of composition as the 2.8. If you are used to Canon's superfast 200L I think it would be too much a step backwards for you.

I'd personally sell the 35L, never the 200L. But I prefer to live more on the tele side of life . If budget is tight, I'd go for a 70-200/2.8 II first and maybe considering to sell the 135L, even this is a fantastic lens, to gain more flexibility. Of course you lose some fastness and the quality of the zoom's bokeh does not meet the 135L's but is overall quite good.

 

[candyman]

I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel

1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)

2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?

3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography

advice anyone? thanks ^^

For street photography: you have 4 primes that go very well for streetphotography. It just depends on your style of photography and how close (or not) you want to get to your subject. If you have done your check on your exif of photos, then you know which one to keep or not.
Then you can sell the one you don't use and buy a zoom to be more flexibel for travel. The zoom depends on your travel locations. 16-35mm f/4 IS goes very well for landscape and narrow streets in small cities. To have more reach you could go for the 70-300L - relatively light, good built and very good IQ and IS.
For travel I take 16-35, 70-300L and 35mm f/2 IS
For street I take 16-35, 24-105 and 35mm f/2 IS.

EDIT: to be honest, I sometimes take the 135L as well for streetphotography
EDIT2: 16-35mm for narrow streets: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21669.msg420685#msg420685

 

[alexanderferdinand]

24-70 and 70-200 you should have.
For travel to cover everything, a Ultrawide would be useful: something starting with 16....

 

[rs]

Which 200L have you got? The 2.8 or the 2.0?

 

[davidcl0nel]

Already said tooo many times, both 24-70 f2.8 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II are MUST HAVE lenses in the bag.

They are very good, yes - but must have?

The TO seems to be a prime lense guy - so he changes the lense maybe quite often, and the current selection is quite good for the whole range. Maybe you need something more wide - then you can add 24 and 14mm.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Is being able to frame and capturing unexpected moments quickly more important or is image quality more important for anticipated/planned shots? Zooms offer versatility whereas primes generally offer better image quality and are significantly lighter. Responsiveness, portability, functionality.

For travel I prefer one zoom and filling in the gaps with good primes, but sometimes I just walk about with two primes (e.g. 24L + 100) with the 40mm pancake as a backup.

What I pack all depends on where I'm going and what I want to focus on shooting. I generally prioritize equipment that I will most use and keep on camera most of the time, then I fill in the "gaps" for the different goals I set. The lenses are normally quite different from each other with little or no overlap in terms of application.

e.g. Full frame body: City/Streets
i) 16-35mm (Streets/Markets)
ii) TS-E 24mm L II (Architecture/Landscape)
iii) 100mm macro (Portraits/macro)

e.g. Full frame body: Desert
i) 24mm L (Landscape/Timelapse/Wide-field-Astro)
ii) 100mm macro (Macro/People)
iii) 400mm (Wildlife)

e.g. APS-C body:
i) 24mm L (Low-light/Indoors/Walkaround)
ii) 70-200mm (extra reach)
iii) 8mm fisheye or 14mm f/2.8 (ultrawide)

 

[StudentOfLight]

I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel

1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)

2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?

3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography

advice anyone? thanks ^^

To answer your points:
1. All your wishlist lenses are great, however if I were buying now I'd opt for 16-35mm f/4 over the f/2.8 due to it's better overall optical performance including IS.
2. I would sell the 200L if I was going for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II unless I really wanted a light-weight lens option. I would hesitate to sell the 35Lif getting one of the 16-35mm lenses. The 35L has 2-3 aperture stops advantage over the 16-35mm. If you're shooting with flash for example then that is quite significant.
3. I've already answered in my previous post...

 

[ecka]

Assuming that we are talking about FF:
Travel
24-105L (do-it-all lens) or 16-35/4L (if you like it wide) - these two cost less than a single 70-200/2.8L'II IS USM
35/1.4L (it's worth it, can't imagine why would you consider selling it)
200L (with a teleconverter, 200mm on FF is only a short tele), if you really need a decent tele to drag along.

Street
35/1.4L
135/2L or/and maybe 16-35/4L (if you like it wide)

IMO, 24-70 and 70-200 are just heavy workhorses for event photography and journalism.
In some places it is forbidden to use big lenses, so I would carry 40 pancake for backup.

 

[RobertG.]

Keep the lenses you have at the moment. All are fine for the right job. For travel I would buy the following 3 lenses:
Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8
Canon EF 16-35mm f4.0 IS
Canon EF 70-300mm L

These would cover everything from 16mm till 300mm, which should do for 99% of all shots. All lenses have stabilization, which is quite useful. I would start with the Tamron, which is the most versatile from the listed 3 lenses.

 

[Random Orbits]

I'd get the 16-35 f/4 IS first. The wider AOV will give you more creative options for travel and street.

I don't find a long zoom necessary for travel very often, so out of your options, I'd choose the 16-35, 50 and 135. It'd give you the wider shots, and give you fast/thinner DOF options. If you go to a lot of zoos, amusement parks, then a 70-xxx can be useful, but for general travel, I usually leave the 70-xxx zooms at home.

I'd suggest keeping the 35L even if you get the 16-35. It is a 3-stop difference, which will come in handy indoors or in low light. I'd suggest selling the 200 if you get a 70-200, especially if it's a f/2.8. You can always get a 1.4x TC to use on the 135L if you need something a little more discreet.

 

[tayassu]

Assuming you're shooting FF, I would get the 16-35/4 IS and the 70-300/4-5.6 L, as these are fantastic travel lenses. If you don't need 300mm, go for the 70-200/4, but not for the 2.8. These two and a 50mm (well,you have a very good one there ) make a great travel/street photography kit. I would get rid of the 35mm and the 200mm instead.

 

[Legalese78]

1. Keep your primes. They're great for street photography.

2. I have both the 16-35 f/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. In my experience, the 16-35 (in the 2.8 variety) is not a lens worth buying. If you must get a wide-ish angle zoom lens, go for the 24-70. It's a fantastic lens, albeit a bit expensive.

Again, the 35 is great for street photography; however, I'm a huge fan of primes over zooms.

 

[Ruined]

I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel

1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)

2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?

3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography

advice anyone? thanks ^^

The below setup would be a great travel setup for street photography:

1. 24mm f/1.4L II
* Your go-to wide angle lens. Works great even in low light shooting people, good for capturing the whole environment which your 35mm can't do. And, for street photography it is extremely rare that you'd need or want anything wider than 24mm. Possible, of course, if you are in a big crowd and want to focus on only one person - then 16mm is useful, but other than that use scenario 24mm should cover you.

2. 50mm f/1.2L
* Your go to normal lens. Has a special quality that captures emotion due to the wide aperture and spherical aberration - great for street photog. Again, fantastic in low light.

3. 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS
* Not the best IQ available, but is excellent for street photog due to its small size, light, low profile, and definitely more than good enough quality; it will help you remain unnoticed to capture candid moments. Best used in daytime as it is a slow lens. Remember, you have the 200L if you need maximum telephoto quality.
* The 70-200 lenses are pretty large and obvious, which can turn people off - the f/4 is long and white, while fhe f/2.8 is long, thick, heavy and white - neither great for street photog as they are both attention grabbers.
* Your current 135L is another option, but it will not give you the zoom flexibility or reach which is helpful with telephoto lenses.
* This is really the best compact and discreet telephoto zoom option.

 

[sdsr]

I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel

1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)

2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?

3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography

Since you do mostly "street" photography and still-life, it's not clear to me why you need more than what you have, except you may want something wider for building interiors and narrow streets. Zooms are useful for obvious reasons, but at the long end, unless you really like lugging heavy things around, I would forget about a 70-200 2.8 and get the f4 IS or 70-300L instead; besides, in a city chances are you would find the range of a 24-105 much more useful except for occasions when you want shallower focus, and you already have primes that provide this. Depending on where you travel to and how much time you have, I suspect you may find it more enjoyable overall to just take no more than one or two lenses each time you leave your hotel, but that's just me (yes, you may miss something, but everything we do has an opportunity cost...).