Considering lens upgrade options....

[Chuck Alaimo]

Wondering what your thoughts may be on this.

I am currently on 1 body (5d3), with 16-35mm v2, 24-70mm v1, 70-200mm 2.8 non IS, 50mm 1.4, and 50mm 1.8 - and I mainly shoot weddings, portraits and some fine art here and there).

First step is obviously to address the backup body situation (considering a 6d, or used 5d3's are popping up, right price may snag one).

once that's done, lenses...

Since I added the 16-35, I have found myself using the 24-70 less and less, favoring either the 16-35 or the 50mm. So the 24-70 may very well end up on ebay. That gives me some options.

Option 1: Sell the 24-70 and the 70-200 for the v2 with IS? I love my 70-200, but, at the long end I do find my keeper rate to be not so good in the 1/60-1/100th SS range. So the Logic there is trade the 2 for the 70-200 IS is basically to increase the keeper rate and give me more flexibility in SS. Is the IQ on the v2 really that much better than the v1? Should IQ even be a factor in the logic? Would you go for that?

Option 2: sell the 24-70 and snag a 50L 1.2? I have heard such mixed reviews about the 1.2, so not to sure if thats the right path.

Option 3: sell the 24-70 and upgrade it to the 24-70V2? It's a pricey switch. Is the IQ really that much better than the v1 or equivalent primes?

Option 4: sell the 24-70 and snag a 135mm f2? That would pretty much abandon the 24-70 range to my 50mm 1.4. For wedding work, do I really need the flexibility of a zoom in that focal range? Uncertain...lol...this is really only an option becasue I really really really want a 135L ....


I could go on, but then it gets into nutty combinations. As you can see I have given this lots of thought. But, hearing some thoughts from others can't hurt. What are your thoughts on the options above?

 

[Random Orbits]

Took a look at your site, and I'd posit that option 3 might be a good choice, although it is a boring choice. The IQ is prime-like. Sharper than any of the Canon 50s, and matches well to the 24L II and 35L at comparable apertures. Noticeably softer at 70mm at 100% compared to what it can do at shorter focal lengths, but still very good. It will relegate your 16-35L II to the 16-20mm range and your 50 f/1.4 to wider than f/2.8.

Option 1 would be a good choice too. IS is a godsend at longer FLs.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Took a look at your site, and I'd posit that option 3 might be a good choice, although it is a boring choice. The IQ is prime-like. Sharper than any of the Canon 50s, and matches well to the 24L II and 35L at comparable apertures. Noticeably softer at 70mm at 100% compared to what it can do at shorter focal lengths, but still very good. It will relegate your 16-35L II to the 16-20mm range and your 50 f/1.4 to wider than f/2.8.

Option 1 would be a good choice too. IS is a godsend at longer FLs.

It's funny because after writing this I went out to snag food and was thinking the whole time the obvious move is go for the 70-200...lol Also, none of the options are really --- WOW that's such an upgrade options...they are all rather boring and incremental...and your right, option 3 is the most boring...I may just end up trying some things out once wedding season kicks in..like forget that I have the 24-70 in the bag, and see how things go with the 16-35/70-200 combo works (basically, how often am I finding I'm not close enough for the 16-35 and how often I'm too close for the 70-200... How well will the 50 end up filling that void? All that said, I am kind of leaning towards option 1 or option 4...We'll see though I guess...

 

[wickidwombat]

i really like the 16-35 on one body and the sigma 85f1.4 on the other (5dmk3 and mk2)
it gives good coverage. this is my goto wedding setup
especially for location and posed shots

another combo i discovered i like too is the sigma 35f1.4 on one body and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II on the other

the hardest decision is which lens goes on the 5Dmk3

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

i really like the 16-35 on one body and the sigma 85f1.4 on the other (5dmk3 and mk2)
it gives good coverage. this is my goto wedding setup
especially for location and posed shots

another combo i discovered i like too is the sigma 35f1.4 on one body and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II on the other

the hardest decision is which lens goes on the 5Dmk3

I think for ceremonies at large to medium size venues it will be all about my longer lenses (70-200, 85), and if i need for less than that, i do think it would be in that 16-35 range, or just use the 50mm. Which leads me to that place of thinking....do I really need the 24-70 range at all? And at this stage, the only time I can think of it is the odd reception that has a tight space and i need to do a formal shot of 10-15 people...but if its too tight for the 50 then I am dealing with distortion (how is the distortion on the mk2 24-70 in the 24-35 range?). I'm just struggling at this point to see the usefulness of that lens....

 

[AudioGlenn]

I vote for option 1.

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is amazing. I try to use it more often than I use my 24-70 2.8 II. If I have the ability to step back a little, it's awesome.

 

[agierke]

if you get rid of the 24-70mm range altogether then i would recommend adding the 35mm F1.4L.

yes the 24-70mm F2.8 is a "boring" lens but i still find it pretty essential throughout the day to cover certain scenarios. a 16-35mm for me would be strictly relegated to dancing shots as the distortion is unacceptable to me for any other scenarios throughout the day. the 35mm @ F2.0 adds a special look to pre-ceremony shots and can be used effectively for bride and groom shots as well. the 70-200mm F2.8 is a special lens in and of itself (regardless of what variation you have).

if i had to strip down my bag to bear minimum i would take the 70-200mm F2.8, and the 35mm F1.4.

my 24-70mm ends up being my security blanket....nothing special about it but very useful and versatile as a main shooter. as a 2nd...the 70-200mm is king.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

if you get rid of the 24-70mm range altogether then i would recommend adding the 35mm F1.4L.

yes the 24-70mm F2.8 is a "boring" lens but i still find it pretty essential throughout the day to cover certain scenarios. a 16-35mm for me would be strictly relegated to dancing shots as the distortion is unacceptable to me for any other scenarios throughout the day. the 35mm @ F2.0 adds a special look to pre-ceremony shots and can be used effectively for bride and groom shots as well. the 70-200mm F2.8 is a special lens in and of itself (regardless of what variation you have).

if i had to strip down my bag to bear minimum i would take the 70-200mm F2.8, and the 35mm F1.4.

my 24-70mm ends up being my security blanket....nothing special about it but very useful and versatile as a main shooter. as a 2nd...the 70-200mm is king.

Yeah, I have been considering the 35mm as well (that would be pretty much an even swap, 24-70 for 35mm). I have also thought about the 24 too, but, while I love primes I think that may be a bit much for weddings... too much lens swapping

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I vote for option 1.

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is amazing. I try to use it more often than I use my 24-70 2.8 II. If I have the ability to step back a little, it's awesome.

That's why this option is the #1 contender right now. For ceremonies I lean on my 70-200 quite a bit. I love the lens, it's sharp and the color is fantastic, as is the bokeh. That's why I am wondering on the IQ, how much of a step up in IQ is the v2?

 

[Dantana]

Maybe you should rent the 70-200 2.8 IS II for a weekend and see how much of a difference it makes for you.