Crop to FF Questions:

[Random Orbits]

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 very nice set of lenses, but not very practical if you need to change focal lengths often/quickly. Most people use zooms most of the time and supplement it with primes. Those that predominantly use primes also tend to have multiple bodies.

If you plan on keeping your 35 f/2 IS and 85 f/1.8, then getting the 100-400 II only can work as long as you're not too critical about getting shots indoors at longer focal lengths. The most versatile is the 24-70/70-200 combination with a 2x TC. The 70-200 with the 2x will still be very good even if it can't match the 100-400 II. If you're able to fund both lenses without selling the 35 or 85, then you should be all set for most of your use cases. The 35 f/2 IS can serve as a street/light travel lens. The 40 pancake is smaller, but when the body is accounted for, it's not much smaller and you gain a stop and IS. You also might also considering selling the 85 f/1.8 and 200 f/2.8 if it helps with funding the purchases.

 

[Luds34]

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

I think that is a great kit. Of course I'm a bit of a prime shooter and the 35mm/85mm primes are one of my favorite kits to go out with.

Personally I'd swap the 200 f/2.8 for a 70-200 zoom, much more versatile.

It really comes down to personal preference and as others have asked, what kind of shooting do you do or want to do. Like I said, I like primes and for the casual shooting I do they work really well. If I were an event shooter though, it would be tough to beat the versatility of a 24-70 zoom and not lose times swapping lenses.

 

[Zv]

If you have the 35 f/2 IS you can do without the 40 STM.

Sell the 85 and 200 and do yourself a favor and buy a 70-200LII. There are limitless uses for a fast telephoto zoom with IS. Why have a 200 without IS when you can have one with plus you get 70 - 199mm as a bonus.

At 200mm you'll be able to get good results at 1/60s or even slower with the IS which is very useful indoors when your subject is static. Getting that extra DOF without having to resort to ridiculous ISO values. It also steadies the viewfinder for easy composing.

I didn't have much love for the 85 1.8 when I owned it. Purple fringing all over the place wide open. Yes you can fix that easily in post but it's still more work. The darn thing only worked well around f/2.8 and again a 70-200 will cover that nicely, with IS to boot!

On FF f/2.8 is shallow. You get about 20cm or less of DOF when focusing ~ 3 meters. Get any closer and you have to really nail the focus. Very easy to get nice bokeh! Not like crop where you need f/1.8 for the same look.

 

[Cory]

Holy ****
I think that the 24-70, 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 now make the most sense to cover 99.9% or more of my needs.
I guess that's the ultimate in minimalism and it's better to be confused and working it out before spending money.
Thanks again.

 

[FTb-n]

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

On paper, it looks great. But, the lens shuffle gets old quick. The 35 2.0 IS is a great lens, but I most often prefer the 24-70 (or the 24-105). I'd skip the 85 and 135, and get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II. For portraits and indoor events, you will love this lens.

Best advice I was given is don't buy a lens until you have a specific need for it. It's fine to brainstorm options for an acquisition path, but expect it to change. It is very tempting to plan out a bunch of lenses to cover every situation and often disappointing to realize that the shooting experience can be very different than the planning stage expectations. It might seem reasonable to carry 3-4 lenses, but actually using them will be a much different experience. Odds are high that you will either miss a lot of shots while changign lenses or let one or two of these lenses collect dust at home.

What's the bigger need -- long range outdoors or long range in low light indoors. Let this be your guide to picking up the 100-400 or the 70-200. Don't be surprised if you get the other lens down the road.

 

[unfocused]

..It is very tempting to plan out a bunch of lenses to cover every situation and often disappointing to realize that the shooting experience can be very different than the planning stage expectations. It might seem reasonable to carry 3-4 lenses, but actually using them will be a much different experience.

This is very good advice. I should follow it.

Seriously, although I have a lot of lenses (too many), I seldom carry more than 2-3 to any assignment. The 24-105 f4 goes with me almost everywhere because it is so versatile. I then pick another lens or two depending on what I am shooting (for example, the 70-200 2.8 for indoor sports, a longer telephoto zoom for outdoor sports, a wider zoom if I am shooting an interior, etc. Lately, I've been throwing in the 24 f2.8 IS because it's so small and can come in handy if I have to shoot indoors in poor light).

In addition to the problems of switching lenses on the fly is just the pain of carrying around a bag with three or more heavy "L" lenses in it.

 

[docsmith]

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?

#2 is my "core kit"....those two lenses are phenomenal. So I see that you started talking about a lot of different primes, but those two zooms are approaching (if not equaling) high end prime quality. I would start there.

I do own prime lenses. While I know others use primes differently, for me, my primes fit a specific need. So, the first step is to identify the need that is not filled by the 24-70 II or 70-200 II. For me that has led to the Rokinon 14 f/2.8 for astro, ultrawide angles. Sigma 50 f/1.4 A for low light, uber sharp images and when I want faster than f/2.8, EF 100 f/2.8 L Macro for macro and close up portraits.

So, I'd go with the zooms, then identify needs and fill those with primes.

 

[Zv]

Last two replies were spot on. Zooms nowadays are more than capable in about 90% of situations. Primes go that extra mile when you need it. Most shoots I take a zoom and a prime. Two or three lenses max in the bag. Otherwise you're better off with a second body to avoid constant lens changes.

Buy your zooms first then see what's missing and add it. If you're absolutely honest with yourself you'll likely not buy any primes but let's face it primes are fun and that's why we really buy them!

I could get by with just the 24-105L but how sad is that? I'd get bored of those similar looking shots after a while. So, then I add a wide angle and a telephoto to spice things up. Same deal with primes. Add them to your kit to spice things up if and when you feel the need for it.

 

[Cory]

I think it's possible that I wasn't pleased with any of the "entry level" zooms early on, discovered primes and never looked back. Also didn't look forward to the "serious" zooms (with some brief exceptions) and never really gave good zooms a chance.
Maybe the new me is pending.
I'm doing some significant volunteer work that the recipients are enormously pleased with. I wonder if, moving forward, I can say "will work for lenses" and proceed accordingly.

 

[bholliman]

I agree with the consensus here that the 24-70 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/2.8 II are a great combo and will satisfy 90% of you needs. Supplementing these two with the inexpensive 50 f/1.8 STM should give you a very complete kit for everything except when you need more reach. A 1.4x and 2x extender with your 70-200 will do that for you if you only need the added reach occasionally.

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.

I considered both of these and went with the 50 STM due to the wider aperture. I also like the 50mm focal length.

 

[Ozarker]

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

You aren't a nut brother. You can see by my gear list that I have gone the zoom route except for the 135L AND 400L. I someday hope to add a couple of fast primes (and my 135L is pretty fast). Your list looks nice!

If it were me and that was my list what would I change? I'd drop the 200 f/2.8 II and the 100-400 II and get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and a 1.4x III instead. I'd also get a Tamron 15-30 instead of the Rokinon or Sigma.

I just would not spend the $2k on the slow 100-400. However, that is my preference. There really isn't a right or wrong answer. My reasoning is that if one is going to spend that much on a lens ($2k is a lot of money), it should at least be a f/2.8. Someday I will replace my 400 f/5.6L. It was my first L lens. I like it a lot. I just want faster and IS... even if that means spending $10K one day to get it. I can dream, I guess.

Good luck to you!

 

[wsmith96]

Best advice I was given is don't buy a lens until you have a specific need for it.

Agree on the advice - I found it tough to follow though

 

[FTb-n]

Best advice I was given is don't buy a lens until you have a specific need for it.

Agree on the advice - I found it tough to follow though

Yeah, me too.

 

[Cory]

OK, I think I got it -
Don't use UW very much and then just the 100-400 when I rented it twice for a specific rare need.
So, I think I'll kick this off with ditching my 10-18, 85 and 200 and putting all of that cash towards a 70-200 IS II. That'll leave me with the 35 2.0 IS and 70-200 (and my 70D for now).
That's the start and will just evolve from there.

:-* 8) :-* :-*

 

[Luds34]

Buy your zooms first then see what's missing and add it. If you're absolutely honest with yourself you'll likely not buy any primes but let's face it primes are fun and that's why we really buy them!

Or speed? Not a lot of f/1.4 or f/2 zooms out there last I checked.

 

[Cory]

Just got one other thought -
Anyone get most of what they need done with just a 35 2.0 IS and a 135 2.0?
I promise to stop.

:-X

 

[privatebydesign]

Just got one other thought -
Anyone get most of what they need done with just a 35 2.0 IS and a 135 2.0?
I promise to stop.

:-X

I have 15mm fisheye, 11-24L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS, 300mm f2.8 IS, 17 TS-E, 35 f2.0 IS, 50 f 1.4, 100 f2.8 L Macro.

I could do almost all my pro shooting (apart from some real estate/architecture) and virtually all my pleasure shooting with the 35 f2.0 IS and the 100mm L Macro. I found the 100L much more versatile than the 135 f2.

 

[FTb-n]

Just got one other thought -
Anyone get most of what they need done with just a 35 2.0 IS and a 135 2.0?
I promise to stop.

:-X

I like your 70-200 and 35 f2 plan. But, it's tough to fully answer your question, because I'm not clear on your shooting needs and venues.

The vast majority of my work involves people -- events, candids, sports, and portraits. I generally try to avoid anything wider than 35 for distortion reasons, but mostly, I like the tight shots. To be fair, there have been many times when the wider end of the 24-70 came in handy. The jump from 35 to 70 is a gap that I can often live with. But, it truly helps to have the full range of 70-200.

To be more specific, if I'm shooting for myself, it is much easier to restrict myself to a 35 and a 70-200. I really wouldn't want to restrict myself to a 135 for the long end.

If I'm shooting an event for others, I might be able to get away with the 35 and the 70-200 for sporting events. For social events or basketball (where I can shoot from the sidelines), both the 24-70 and the 70-200 are must have lenses (and on separate bodies).

 

[wsmith96]

Just got one other thought -
Anyone get most of what they need done with just a 35 2.0 IS and a 135 2.0?
I promise to stop.

:-X

I recommend sticking with your 35/70-200 option. You'll find that particular zoom lens hard to put down once you start using it. Have you considered Sigma? They have a 24-35 F2 you might like and that would give you a versatile WA option.

 

[FTb-n]

I recommend sticking with your 35/70-200 option. You'll find that particular zoom lens hard to put down once you start using it.

Absolutely true. The 70-200 is a dream lens and by far my most used lens. This may sound crazy, but if I could only have one lens, this would be it. I know my versatility as a photographer would be limited without something in the 24-70 range, but I would be getting the shots that I most enjoy shooting.