Crop to FF Questions:

1. Would 24mm (24-70 2.8 II) be good-to-go in most cases for astrophotography?

2. 40mm or 50 STM for street/light travel?

3. Would the new 100-400 not be too bad indoors with the high ISO capability (especially for stage performances)?

4. Does the 24-70 somewhat replace an 85 1.8 and then the 135 2.0 being a nice complement to the 24-70?

:-*
 
1- Yes, the Canon 24-70mm L ii, it really is a good lens to astro photograph also. There are better options for astro, but this is a good start.

2- Yes, 40mm and 50mm STM lenses are great for street photography and travel.

3- No, Canon 100-400mm L ii, is not very suitable for shooting indoors. Not only because it F4.5-5.6 but the zoom range. Canon 70-200 IS II shines here.

4- Somehow, 24-70 L II can replace 85mm F1.8 as the angle of view is similar. But 135mm F2 obviously can not be replaced by 24-70, but by 70-200mm. I particularly love the Canon 100mm F2, which is almost as good as 135L.
 
Upvote 0
1. Agree, the 24-70/2.8 II is very good. I generally prefer wider, the Rokinon/Samyang 14/2.8 is an excellent option.

2. I like the 40/2.8 – it's basically a body cap. Often f/1.8 DoF is too shallow.

3. Depends on distance. If you're really far, you may need that 400mm. Personally, I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II for indoor events, and even at f/2.8-4 I'm usually at ISO 3200 or higher.

4. If I interpret your question correctly, the 24-70/2.8 on FF certainly does not replace the 85/1.8 on crop. The 70-200/2.8 would. The pairing of 24-70/2.8 and 135L is good (think 17-55/2.8 + 85/1.8 on crop), but budget permitting the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII lenses are tough to beat as a pairing for versatility and IQ.
 
Upvote 0
Thanks. I think my minimalist approach is leading to either -
1. 24-70 2.8 II and 200 2.8 (already have the 200) or
2. 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II (and maybe a 2x extender for those high school graduations, etc.?) - I guess these two would potentially be quite bada**ed?
 
Upvote 0
Cory said:
Thanks. I think my minimalist approach is leading to either -
1. 24-70 2.8 II and 200 2.8 (already have the 200) or
2. 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II (and maybe a 2x extender for those high school graduations, etc.?) - I guess these two would potentially be quite bada**ed?

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a great event lens indoors, but depending on how dim it is, going to f/4 or f/5.6 with extenders may not be practical. The 24-70/70-200 is a great but heavier combo. Some events put restrictions on lens size, which often rules out the 70-200. Outdoors or where there is ample light, the 100-400 II is better if you need longer.
 
Upvote 0
Cory said:
...
2. 40mm or 50 STM for street/light travel?
...
I have both, no question in my mind, the 40 wins.
The only time I mount the 50 is when I'll be shooting in very very dark conditions, and then I only choose the 50 for the brighter viewfinder.
The extra 'reach' of the 50 is of very minor significance.
The slightly wider field of view of the 40 I find quite significant.

Obviously, the 40 is much slimmer and lighter, makes a very tight and tidy carry package mounted on a 6D.
 
Upvote 0
The 24-70 f2.8L II and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II are my workhorses. For anything indoor -- sports, events, portraits -- these two lenses meet just about any need. They top my Four Lenses I can't Live Without list.

The 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II and the 40 f2.8 pancake round out this list. The 100-400 is a recent acquisition, just in time for last summer's sporting events. When there's light, it's easy -- very easy -- to like this lens. It's fantastic for sports, focuses very quickly, and can still provide creamy backgrounds. For outdoor work, I generally leave the 70-200 home and bring this lens (unless I'm shooting portraits) and either the 24-70 or the 40.

The 40 is my travel light lens, for obvious reasons. Many times I only need the long zoom, but always bring the 40 just in case I need something wider. This lens is also great for more casual events like burgers with the team, where you want something less obtrusive.

Of these four lenses the 70-200 is my most used, by far. This lens is particularly great for candids and portraits.

If funds allow, I would certainly recommend starting with the 24-70 and the 70-200, then adding the 40 and the 100-400. For what it's worth, I considered tele-converters with the 70-200, but opted for 100-400 for several reasons. When compared to 70-200 on a 2X converter, the 100-400 has better IQ, potentially better focus performance, and the 100-400 range is more useful than 140-400. On paper, the tele-converter route is more versatile. In practice, this means more lens and converter swapping -- more wasted time, potentially more lost shots, and a greater risk of getting dust on the sensor.

Last thought. I most often shoot with two bodies, one with a short zoom and one with a long zoom. There are other great lenses to consider. I like the 24-105 f4L IS and the 35 f2.0 IS. These lenses give me the option to play with controlled motion blur using slow shutter speeds. The 35 is also great for low light and smaller DOF. I may add a fast 50 and/or a fast 85 in the future. But, I consider these to be specially lenses for more specific types of shots. If shooting an event where getting the shot is critical, the 24-70 and 70-200 on two bodies can't be beat. They're great for low light, cover a wide focal range, and no time is lost in changing lenses.
 
Upvote 0
Cory said:
Thanks everyone. I think when the time comes (moving on to the 6D) the winner will be the 24-70 2.8II, 200 2.8II that I already have and 100-400II (with the 40 obtained right away to kick things off).

There is a huge gap between the 24-70 and 200mm. The common FF portrait focal lengths of 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm are missing. The 100-400 will not fill it except outdoors, and it will not give you shallow dof. Consider a 100mmL, or better yet, the 70=200mm f/2.8 L

I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 stm over the 40mm f/2.8 because sometimes you really need f/1.8 or even f/1.4. Having one wide aperture lens can come in handy.
 
Upvote 0
1. 24mm is pretty wide and f/2.8 is fairly decent for Astro. Some prefer wider though it's down to preference. Anything between 14mm - 24mm is generally good for Astro. The Samyang / Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 manual lens is cheap and makes a good alternative or compliment.

2. Personally I like the 50mm focal length and the f/1.8 ability which comes in handy when you're indoors. Haven't used the 40 but if you have the 24-70 f/2.8 you likely wouldn't use it much.

3. 70-200 f/2.8 IS is your friend for this stuff. Get a 1.4x teleconvertor for that extra reach. 100-400L II is nice though and very versatile I hear. You could bump up the ISO but might as well use the best tool for the job in the first place.

4. I would recommend the 135L for portraits. The 24-70 would kinda cover your wider portrait focal length with some cropping. However if you have a 70-200 lens you could do without the 135L. F/2.8 is already pretty shallow at this range.

So you could get by quite nicely with just 24-70LII, 70-200LII and 50 STM (practically free). That's a decent kit that covers a lot. Good place to start.
 
Upvote 0
Zv said:
Haven't used the 40 but if you have the 24-70 f/2.8 you likely wouldn't use it much.

That's not the case for me. I have both the 24-70/2.8 II and the 70-200/2.8 IS II and they're a great and versatile combo...and a heavy combo. When I'm going to an event where I know the 70-200 will be the primary lens and I need to be mobile, the 40/2.8 is great because it fits in a pocket (even jeans!) in case I need a wider FoV.
 
Upvote 0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 stm over the 40mm f/2.8 because sometimes you really need f/1.8 or even f/1.4. Having one wide aperture lens can come in handy.
Good point. The 50 f1.8 is cheap, sharp, and relatively small. It is handy having at least one prime lens in the 35-85 range with an aperture of f2.0 or wider.
 
Upvote 0
I think you all have talked me into the 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400. The good news is that I start tomorrow waking up at 4:30 every morning to work my *** off.
Might wait to see what/when/if replaces the 50 1.4.
I think that Operation-Selling-Off-Sh*t is about to commence.
Thanks again.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
Zv said:
Haven't used the 40 but if you have the 24-70 f/2.8 you likely wouldn't use it much.

That's not the case for me. I have both the 24-70/2.8 II and the 70-200/2.8 IS II and they're a great and versatile combo...and a heavy combo. When I'm going to an event where I know the 70-200 will be the primary lens and I need to be mobile, the 40/2.8 is great because it fits in a pocket (even jeans!) in case I need a wider FoV.
+1. I do this a lot. I'll take a 1Dx with the 100-400 to an outdoor event plus the 40. Or I'll take the 70-200 to an indoor event plus the 40. In a strange way, it's kind of fun shooting a 1Dx with a 40 pancake on it.
 
Upvote 0
FTb-n said:
neuroanatomist said:
Zv said:
Haven't used the 40 but if you have the 24-70 f/2.8 you likely wouldn't use it much.

That's not the case for me. I have both the 24-70/2.8 II and the 70-200/2.8 IS II and they're a great and versatile combo...and a heavy combo. When I'm going to an event where I know the 70-200 will be the primary lens and I need to be mobile, the 40/2.8 is great because it fits in a pocket (even jeans!) in case I need a wider FoV.
+1. I do this a lot. I'll take a 1Dx with the 100-400 to an outdoor event plus the 40. Or I'll take the 70-200 to an indoor event plus the 40. In a strange way, it's kind of fun shooting a 1Dx with a 40 pancake on it.

Yeah I agree with having a small prime in the bag / pocket when primarily using a bigger zoom but I just thought for me that small prime is the 50 STM rather than the 40 as is doubles up as a nice low light lens. The 40 would in theory get less use since it's aperture is same as the zooms. The 50 gives you an extra reason to take it along and the size difference isn't that much between them, relatively speaking.

Though I can totally see the advantage of a pancake lens and I have often thought about buying the 40 just for a bit of fun!
 
Upvote 0
Cory said:
Sorry to be a nut, but what do you think of:
Rokinon 14 2.8 (or Sigma 20mm Art)
Canon 35 2.0 IS
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 135 2.0
Canon 200 2.8 II
Canon 100-400 II

That would be a nice set up - all depends on how many lenses you want to carry with you. I agree with the group here that the 24-70 and 70-200 are a great combo that will cover most, maybe all, situations.
 
Upvote 0
Assuming no budget or size limits, if I were to go for a 2 lens kit for FF, I'd get the 24-70F2.8 and the 100-400F5.6. Yes, there is a gap between 70 and 100mm.... If it were to be a 3 lens kit, then it would also include the 70-200F2.8....

If it was for travel and I was worried about weight, I'd replace the 24-70 and 70-200 with the F4 versions.

However, to address your questions....
1. Would 24mm (24-70 2.8 II) be good-to-go in most cases for astrophotography?
Not really.... you want wider and faster....

2. 40mm or 50 STM for street/light travel?
yes.... the 40 is about the size of a lens cap.... a decent lens and you can't get any smaller...

3. Would the new 100-400 not be too bad indoors with the high ISO capability (especially for stage performances)?
It would do, but it is slow for that combination of poor lighting and action... I'd want an F2.8 (or faster) lens.

4. Does the 24-70 somewhat replace an 85 1.8 and then the 135 2.0 being a nice complement to the 24-70?
no opinion, hard to say unless you know the circumstances it is used under...
 
Upvote 0
Cory said:
Sorry to be a nut, but what do you think of:
Rokinon 14 2.8 (or Sigma 20mm Art)
Canon 35 2.0 IS
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 135 2.0
Canon 200 2.8 II
Canon 100-400 II
A great kit lenses for sure. But for that kind of photography?

You said do school events and a wide-angle zoom seems required on these occasions. It seems to me there is no escaping the 24-70 F2.8.


Sigma 20mm F1.4 Art, serves very well to capture the entire stage in a photo, and for astro just stop down and eliminate coma.
Canon 35 IS F2 is a great lens for various uses.
Canon 85 F1.8 and 135L are great lenses, but I preferred to go with Sigma 50 Art and Canon 100 F2.
Canon 200 F2.8 II is excellent, but you can miss image stabilizer.
Canon 100-400 ii is fine if the light is sufficient.
 
Upvote 0
You've all been enormously helpful. I think to start:
wide angle - ?
Canon 35 2.0 IS (already have it)
Canon 100 2.0
Canon 200 2.8II (already have it)
Canon 100-400II

on a side note - here's a bunch of pics I took, if you like, the other day with the 200 2.8II/70D (straight JPEG with zero processing or cropping) -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/24289470@N04/sets/72157663004303236
 
Upvote 0