Final shopping list for tomorrow..

[mreco99]

OK so this is it, crunch time! Will be shopping tomorrow (saturday)

5DMk2 + 24-105 kit canon
EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II Lens canon
2x Extender mk3 canon
100 L macro canon
17-40 L canon
2x 16gb 400x sandisk cf
Spare battery

I choose the 24-105 for the IS over the 24-70
I choose the 17-40 over the 16-35 after looking at tests (more interested in the short end)
I cant resist the 70-200mk2! and id miss the length the old 70-300 gave me on the 450D so hence the 2x extender to help with that.
I shoot mostly anything but least of all sports and birds

What do you think? It seems like alot of overlap on the 100mm range, but i cant see how i can get around that, as i need macro, and the 180macro is too long for me.

Your thoughts are welcome, but hurry lol, i got 10hours to change it.

 

[Axilrod]

Dude I would not buy that many lenses at once, you're only going to make things harder. I went crazy after I bought my 5D and bought a 24-70, 16-35 II, 70-200 2.8 IS, 100mm Macro L IS, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2, and a couple Nikon lenses all within a couple months of buying a 5d and it did me NO GOOD. You need time to learn each lens, learn it's quirks, etc.

If I were you I would get the 24-70 and 70-200 if you REALLY have to have more than 1 lens. After that try out some of their primes (check my sig and look what I ended up keeping, the 16-35 is the only zoom I kept out of all the ones I bought originally).

I mean don't get me wrong, your list looks great, but I think it's just too many options to start off with.

 

[Axilrod]

Oh yeah and stay away from the 180mm macro, the 2.8 on the 100mm helps and the IS is AMAZING. That's one of the few long lenses you can handhold. Minimum focusing distance is great but it's also a GREAT lens for portraits. I sold that one and kind of regret it now that I think about it : )

 

[Loswr]

5DMk2 + 24-105 kit canon
EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II Lens canon
2x Extender mk3 canon
100 L macro canon
17-40 L canon
2x 16gb 400x sandisk cf
Spare battery

Looks like a great kit! But...what about a good tripod, and an external flash? Also, perhaps a CF card reader.

As Axilrod states, it's not necessary to buy all of the lenses at once...but OTOH, it looks like you've done your homework.

I choose the 24-105 for the IS over the 24-70

I think the 24-105mm is the more versatile of the two. Also, if you're going to get one, the time to do so is when you're buying a 5DII, when you only pay $800 for the lens.

I choose the 17-40 over the 16-35 after looking at tests (more interested in the short end)

This one puzzles me. The 16-35mm II is superior to the 17-40mm across the range, especially at the wide end (with the exception of more vignetting at 16mm f/2.8 ). The 17-40mm is pretty soft in the corners (in fact, photozone's corner resolution of the 17-40mm @ 17mm f/4 doesn't even make it onto the chart, i.e. it's below 'poor'). What tests make you think the 17-40 is better? (I'm assuming you're comparing the 16-35mm MkII - the 17-40mm does edge out the older MkI version of the 16-35mm f/2.8.)

I can see picking the 17-40mm over the 16-35mm II for lots of reasons - in particular, cost and the fact that is uses 77mm filters so you could share with the 24-105mm and the 70-200/2.8 II. But I don't think optical quality is one of those reasons.

What do you think? It seems like alot of overlap on the 100mm range, but i cant see how i can get around that, as i need macro, and the 180macro is too long for me.

There will almost always be overlap if you have both zooms and primes. Heck, I've got 3 lenses covering 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm, and 4 lenses covering 100mm.

Only suggestion there, since you 'need macro,' is have you considered the MP-E 65mm? You already have 100mm f/2.8 covered, with great IS, for portraits and whatever. The 70-200 II with the 2x extender will deliver 0.4x magnification, so for closeups (vs. true macro) that does a decent job. OTOH, the MP-E 65mm is a very specialized lens with a long learning curve, requires either a good tripod and preferably a macro rail, or the MT-24EX Twin Lite, or both.

Good luck with your last-minute decisions!

 

[JackSw1ss]

LOL, wow mate...tomorrow it's gonna be a super fun and great day for you!!!!

quite some envy going on here for me ehehehe

there's tons of greeaaaat stuff there, wow!!!

As the other said maybe you're a bit overcommitting eheh, but as the others I tell you this based on personal experience. I once bought 2 lenses in the same time and end up not "learning" and dedicating as much time as I wanted.
Money's yours of course but for example why a 2x convert (even if you told for the reach that u had with the 300 on the 450D)?maybe you'll discover that you won't need it or maybe you're gonna find out that you will need annnnoother lens ahah, instead of the converter.
why 2 CF's?spare battery?lol I've been shooting around for a year now with just one fresh battery (i know it's not a lot of money when summed all together...but sum here and sum there maybe in the end you'll realize that u won't need some of those stuff)

Speaking of lenses...have you considered primes?apart from the 100 macro that is.
I say this because I for example have gone the zoom route because I couldn't spend all that money in one shot so I give myself the "biggest" range possible in order to have more FL's for the time being.
If I were you now, with all that cash, I would get only primes beside the 70-200 which I have and it's totally awesome!!!

just some thoughts, don't wanna demolish you, in the end you decide and I just can't be happier enough for you with all that good stuff you listed ;D

PS: ohhh yeah and as stated above....a great tripod?!?!ESSENTIAL!!!!

 

[mreco99]

Axilrod, Im listening....

my plan is
17-40 wide landscapes
24-105 good light walkabout with IS for Video
100 macro for my studio work, nice and sharp as its prime
70-200 for zoomy things
2x extender for even more zoomy things

Its only 4 lenses, i think you crazy lol

 

[mreco99]

I have a lovely tripod already, a nice xmas present last year, Giottos.

Two batteries, i wouldnt have any less, if your out all day you dont want to miss the last hours of daylight, or on hols, i dont want to wait around while the only battery i have is charging.

The 17-40 and 16-35 decision came from here, it helped because the 17-40 is also cheaper.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
Ive just realised that was with the OLD 16-35!! wow thanks neuro, ill have to rethink that, the 16-35 is more expensive, im on a budget..
I would rather have the 16-35 range, and as best an IQ possible.

External flash, i hardly ever use a flash and certainly on any good keepers i dont think i ever have (see store link below). The popup on the 450d was wasted on me really. I have three studio lights for studio work. I can get a flash later. See im not all crazy

I love primes and the lens i used most of the time on the 450d was the EF-s 60mm macro (hense wanting the same length version for FF), IQ is nearly everything.

I plan on also getting some P or Z cokin filters next year.
I do need a CF card reader, but they cant be much, havent even looked yet.

JackSw1ss no problem all critisum welcome.

It might all seem on a whim but for the last 3 years ive been saving up and reading and learning.

 

[Axilrod]

Axilrod, Im listening....

my plan is
17-40 wide landscapes
24-105 good light walkabout with IS for Video
100 macro for my studio work, nice and sharp as its prime
70-200 for zoomy things
2x extender for even more zoomy things

Its only 4 lenses, i think you crazy lol

I was writing that as if you were new to photography, I didn't realize that you had some experience. The 70-200 is the sharpest zoom ive ever used, I think that's a great choice. And if you don't plan on doing much low-light stuff, the 24-105/17-40 should be fine, but f/4 doesn't fare too well in dim settings. However the 24-105 is much lighter than the 24-70 and the IS does work really well.

The wide angle comparison you cited was comparing the 17-40 to V1 of the 16-35, V II is MUCH improved and the only zoom I ended up keeping out of the 3 that I had. It would be worth taking a look at, I love it.

Lastly, I think you may want something with a larger aperture to keep handy for low-light situations, the 50mm f/1.4 would be a great choice (it's about $350-$400 but performs as well as $1000+ zooms). Although there have been rumors of it getting updated, either way, it's something to consider. Have fun shopping!

 

[Axilrod]

I just checked out your gallery by the way, really really nice work man, I'm sorry for giving suggestions as if you were an amateur

 

[mreco99]

Money's yours of course but for example why a 2x convert (even if you told for the reach that u had with the 300 on the 450D)?maybe you'll discover that you won't need it or maybe you're gonna find out that you will need annnnoother lens ahah, instead of the converter.

To be frank, the 100-400 doesnt look sharp enough compared to the 70-200, i know the converter will bring the 200-400 range of the 70-200 down, but only to about that of the 100-400, and im not a fan of the push pull zoom, i tried it in the shop.
Also ive been caught out quite alot with my existing 70-300 non L on the 450D, with not enough light at 300mm (equ 480mm on FF).
So i am looking forward to at least using up to 200 with 2.8f sometimes. Ideally the 300 or 400 prime would be nice but could never justify that for my uses, even if i could afford it.

 

[mreco99]

I just checked out your gallery by the way, really really nice work man, I'm sorry for giving suggestions as if you were an amateur

hey no problem, I AM an amateur, no offence taken.

OK recalculated and will hold off on the uw zoom (16-35 mk2) until the Spring.

5DMk2 + 24-105 kit canon
EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II Lens canon
2x Extender mk3 canon
100 L macro canon
17-40 L canon
16-35 mk2 canon (probably in the Spring 2012)
2x 16gb 400x sandisk cf
Spare battery
A CF reader

 

[awinphoto]

That website you posted of the 17-40 vs the 16-35 is of the 16-35 first generation... at that time the 17-40 was vastly superior... the 16-35 II narrowed the gap and in some ways over took the 17-40, but also commanded a higher price range... The 17-40 is no slouch, I use it with my 7D and 5d2, but it is what it is... I dont begrudge you from buying all the equipment, I would if i had all that disposable income... however one bit of advise, really get to know the gear intimately... I was told by another professional photographer that he usually waits 1 year in-between purchases and when he buys new lenses, he puts the new lens on a camera and doesn't take it off for a few months until he's fully familiarized himself with the lens and knows all it's quirks so he knows in the future in this situation, he wants that lens and it will behave in such a way and yada yada yada so he's fully ready in any situation.

As neuro suggested, a good tripod/monopod would help... at least at first... Plus they are always good to have in your back pocket and when you dont have them is when you'll need them the most. Good luck with all your gear!

 

[mreco99]

Did this CR3 just totally fall by the wayside? way back in Jan 2009?

Quote
EF 17-40 f/4L II [CR3]

January 15, 2009
Canon Lenses
34 comments

Update
From a usually solid source. I´m told to expect an update to the 17-40 sometime in 2009. The current lens a cash cow for Canon and any replacement is sure to be a hot seller. The main purpose for the upgrade is to improve full frame performance. The replacement will not have IS.

 

[awinphoto]

Did this CR3 just totally fall by the wayside? way back in Jan 2009?

Quote
EF 17-40 f/4L II [CR3]

January 15, 2009
Canon Lenses
34 comments

Update
From a usually solid source. I´m told to expect an update to the 17-40 sometime in 2009. The current lens a cash cow for Canon and any replacement is sure to be a hot seller. The main purpose for the upgrade is to improve full frame performance. The replacement will not have IS.

Yep... When the new 17-40 comes out I'll be among the first to put my current 17-40 on craigslist to help fund the new one... until then I'll plug away with my current lens. It's still a good workhorse of a lens.

 

[mreco99]

with any luck me waiting till spring might see it arrive , yea right.

 

[Loswr]

The 17-40 and 16-35 decision came from here, it helped because the 17-40 is also cheaper.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
Ive just realised that was with the OLD 16-35!! wow thanks neuro, ill have to rethink that, the 16-35 is more expensive, im on a budget..
I would rather have the 16-35 range, and as best an IQ possible.

I thought that might be the case. Axilrod is right, the Mk II is much, much better than the MkI.

External flash, i hardly ever use a flash and certainly on any good keepers i dont think i ever have (see store link below). The popup on the 450d was wasted on me really. I have three studio lights for studio work. I can get a flash later. See im not all crazy

Makes sense, as long as you have monolights or constant lights, you're good for studio. I don't use a flash too much on my 5DII (thanks to the low ISO noise). But, there's a world of difference between the popup flash (which delivers harsh, unflattering light) and an external Speedlite especially when bounced off a ceiling. Only other thing to keep in mind is that a flash can be useful for fill light outdoors; a popup flash can come in handy there, but the 5DII doesn't have one...

I plan on also getting some P or Z cokin filters next year.

Even the larger Cokin Z filters will vignette at wider than 20mm on FF (the P's will vignette at wider than 28mm, IIRC, although there's an adapter that gets you to 20mm). With a 16/17mm wide end, you might consider the Cokin X series, or the other 100mm filter brands (Lee, Schneider, Singh-Ray, etc.).

 

[thepancakeman]

Sounds like a lot of fun and that you've thought this out pretty well. One comment that I would make is I got the 24-105 over the 24-70 (like you--for the IS), and I wish I had gone the other way because I'm often shooting kids and sports and the IS doesn't really help in those situations whereas the extra stop really would.

 

[JackSw1ss]

Sounds like a lot of fun and that you've thought this out pretty well. One comment that I would make is I got the 24-105 over the 24-70 (like you--for the IS), and I wish I had gone the other way because I'm often shooting kids and sports and the IS doesn't really help in those whereas the extra stop really would.

Yeah it really comes down to what you need to do with that lens...I for example have as well opted for the 24-105 because here and there it happens to shoot a short movie (without being able to carry a tripod with video head, mainly on travels where weight is key factor) and I must say I've made the right choice for my needs.
I tried the 24-70 and it was awesome but then again, not "covering" my allround purposes.
I then go with the 50 1.4 to cover the low light needs on that FL range. Waiting for more cash to get the 1.2 tho, since I tried it and loved it at first "touch"...friends should never make you try such beauties LOL.

So yeah, maybe you'll be "stopped" by the f4 but there are great primes out there and the 24-105 is a great allround compromise (as well as being a suberb lens) for various things.

 

[ianhar]

Hope you have a nice bag to fit your gear. Bag selection is quite important too. Learn from my mistake, i got 4 camera bag just in one year and another one will coming soon. Gear expanding is one of the reason for this but mainly is poor bag selection.

 

[JackSw1ss]

Ideally the 300 or 400 prime would be nice but could never justify that for my uses, even if i could afford it.

LOL yes, I was thinking of that exactly eheheh..
then ok go for the converter...I thought that maybe u would have liked the idea of the 300 or 400. people are great with spending other people money LOL.


Just a minor quote (and maybe the more tech guys can confirm/deny)
I've seen tons of sport photographers (I shoot not a lot but some cycling events (for fun, not work)) using the 1D, 70-200 and the converter themselves, but not the 2x...the 1.4.
Asked them several times and they love how it performs better than the 2x as for distortion/CA etc etc...it's always other glass you put in between so they told me that 1.4 is their perfect solution. it gives you 300mm, still a nice f4 which on 1.3 crop still gives you a nice shallow DOF and not all the optical "problems" that the 2x might give (forgive me the word problems...it's not garbage, is that also logically it's less glass than the 2x, thus giving you less optical problems than the 2x. But I might be totally wrong in this. The great Neuranatomist could confirm or deny this statement. I've tried myself the 2x mkI and it was day and night between 70-200 alone and 70-200+2x....maybe it was old, maybe dirty I dunno...can't speak about the 1,4 unfortunately. Haven't tried it)
I've seen tons of shooters also using the 1.4x-200 1.8 or 2 combo....killer combo when they need that extra reach, otherwise leaving that light monster on the body alone without the converter LOL