Have to make a choice, finally!

[Jack56]

Dear all,

Yes, after months of reading, reading and loosing sleep I have to make a decision now.
I've got a Mark5dIII, 50mm 1.8 II en 100mm 2.8 L.
I like to shoot landscape, stills, nature in colour and black and white, sometimes with long exposures.
I've got two options. Of course the total price differs. Which option would you prefer regarding my "style"?
Thank you very much for reading my mail! Have a very happy Easter, all of you.

a. Buy:
17-40 mm for long exposure
24-70 mm II for landscape, nature and stills
70-200 mm II with extenders
Swap the 50mm 1.8 for the 50mm 1.4
b. Buy:
17-40 mm for long exposure
21 Zeiss for landscape when sharpness is required
35 mm 1.2 L for landscape, nature and stills
85 mm 1.8 for the same purpose
70-200 mm II with extenders
Swap the 50mm 1.8 for the 50mm 1.4

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Basically your question boils down to the range covered by the 24-70mm, which could be covered by primes. Instead of Zeiss 21mm, Canon 17mm Tilt Shift (or 24) are spectacular, and manual focus too. Canon 35mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.8 lenses are good, but for landscape Canon 35mm f2.8 IS is sharper and cheaper than the 35L model. As for 50mm, I have a 1.4 and hopefully a replacement with better sharpness and contrast when open, so I would not buy the current 1.4, which is only sharp and contrasted in F2.

 

[Jack56]

Thanks for your reply!
I think the tilt lens will be hard to handle for me. I'm a rookie, not a pro!

 

[Dylan777]

"A" because it has two Canon best zooms.

Congrats on all new toys - don't have to be pro to buy pro gear, just enjoy it Jack

 

[Orangutan]

I think the tilt lens will be hard to handle for me. I'm a rookie, not a pro!

Don't underestimate yourself. See if you can find some videos on Youtube or somewhere that show it in use. If it still looks too complicated then that's fine. I've never actually used one, but from what I've read and watched, it appears to be nothing more than a matter of patience. Rent one if you can before deciding you can't handle it.

 

[Random Orbits]

Why not get the 17-40 and 70-200 now and wait on the rest? See if the mix would change once the Sigma 50 is out.

 

[docsmith]

I would also vote "A"

I am not sure what you mean by 17-40 for "long exposures." Of course, all lenses could be used for long exposures. I would get the 17-40 for ultra wide angle landscapes. If you are thinking starscapes, you might want to consider the Rokinon/Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 UMC for an ultrawide angle option. While I have never owned the 17-40, I have definitely seen some great images and the charts are good from f/5.6-f/11, which is perfect for normal landscapes.

But for long exposures, of say waterfalls, you'll be using the 24-70 II a lot of that. Just remember to also buy some good filters. Lots of people talk about the 10 stop filters (Lee Big Stopper, etc). My favorite ND filter is the B+W 6 Stop ND filter. But I also have the B+W 10 Stop ND filter. TDP just did a comparison of 10 Stop ND filters. Singh Ray came out on top.

I started with the 50 f/1.8. I found it to be nicely sharp starting at ~f/2.8. I upgraded to the 50 f/1.4 about 2 years ago. I find it to be sufficiently sharp, at least in the center, starting at f/2. I am now planning on evaluating the Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art. It may be worth the money to me to be sharp at f/1.4. That said, I have heard a number of people state, upon buying the 24-70 II, that they no longer used their 50 f/1.4. So, I might buy the 24-70II first and wait to see if you need the 50 f/1.4.

Good luck

 

[cid]

option A

OR

what about mixing it up a little bit?
zeiss 21mm
canon 24-70 mk II
canon 70-200 IS mk II
and keep the 50 f/1.8

In B option you mentioned canon 17-40 and zeiss 21mm (when sharpness is required), presonally I would rather buy one lens I know it's sharp than having whole bunch of them, but knowing there's possibility I would not be satisfied with results. There is also high possibility that 17-40 will be used only when 17mm is really needed, otherwise you would use zeiss 21mm. For me it's just redundancy ???

 

[Jack56]

Sounds reasonable. Other opinions about the option of CID?
Thank you very much for the replies so far!