Help Me Build My Lens Stable!

[TommyLee]

your choices
16-35 II (traveling, street, some landscape, group or environmental portraits even)
70-200 2.8 IS II (everything...weddings, events, portrait, some closer wildlife)
135L (covers my portraits, some street stuff, events/stage stuff)
24 1.4L (not as good as the TS but it's more versatile. churches, markets, lowlight, astro)
100 Macro (L or not? IS can come in handy and its only a $240 difference, weather sealing is a selling point)
50 1.4 (better bokeh than the 1.8, which I'd keep as backup or lightweight setup)

I say ditch the 24 1.4, 50 1.4....get the Sigma 1.4 to replace BOTH..
and when Canon wakes up... and delivers the 35L II with perfection bokeh and sharp like Sigma...get it instead

I am torn about the
16-35 and 70-200 f2.8
I have both the 2.8 II and f4 I.S. ..
I feel my f2.8II ... is just too heavy...

I also have the 16-35 II ..a good lens but 14L so good...

zoom kit
I say get 14L, 24-70 II f2.8 ... keep 70-200 f4 I.S. (mine is the sharpest zoom I have EVER seen)
got to your 135 f2 if you want speed

so
14L, 24-70 f2.8 and 135/100L I.S macro ..... or 70-200 f4 I.S(smaller ...actually portable0
3 lenses cover soo much here....

put the Sigma in the middle of a prime kit
14L II, Sigma 35 f1.4 (skip Canon ...I sold mine) ... then 135 f2

just me looking at reducing my kit ...having most of these options ...and chosing what to give up...

I want all my stuff in one medium bag... 1/2 of a light travel backpack...holding clothes too....
travel light..get simple

carry 3-4 lenses
14L, 35 1.4, 24-70 f2.8 II, 135 -OR- 100 I.S macro
(yes the I.S. is useful.. get I.S on any longer than 70mm lens)

I am almost there

TOM

 

[RS2021]

Plenty of people are actually selling their 35L copies to purchase the new 35mm Sigma. I would highly recommend the Sigma instead of the 35L.

I have my 35L still...my friends with 35L hold on to theirs ...so I guess only the sigma folks got the news flash on Canon 35L owners selling off their lens and running to get a sigma?

 

[RS2021]

I say ditch the 24 1.4, 50 1.4....get the Sigma 1.4 to replace BOTH..
and when Canon wakes up... and delivers the 35L II with perfection bokeh and sharp like Sigma...get it instead

Have you considered a career in comedy?

 

[Menace]

Plenty of people are actually selling their 35L copies to purchase the new 35mm Sigma. I would highly recommend the Sigma instead of the 35L.

I have my 35L still...my friends with 35L hold on to theirs ...so I guess only the sigma folks got the news flash on Canon 35L owners selling off their lens and running to get a sigma?

Perhaps, people missing a 35 from their kit are going for the Sigma as 35L may have been out of budget?

 

[Axilrod]

Plenty of people are actually selling their 35L copies to purchase the new 35mm Sigma. I would highly recommend the Sigma instead of the 35L.

35mm is really great. I don't know why people prefer a 24mm lens when with the 35mm you actually place people in other spots than the middle. With a 24mm people will already start to turn into mutants.

Different people have different styles, 35mm for one person may be preferable but some love 24mm. All of this is your opinion and not everyone agrees with that. And I don't know anyone that got rid of their 35L for the Sigma, I know people that have chosen the Sigma OVER the 35L, but that's about it. The 35L is still a stellar lens, the sure the Sigma is sharper but sharpness isn't everything.

 

[angox]

Considering that I also shoot mainly portraits and travel/landscape, I'd suggest Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, Canon 85mm 1.2L ii, 70-200mm f/4 IS, and some flashes. I saw that you put the flashes as later. I am assuming from your current gear that you do not use flash a lot. However, these little buggers are really useful. However, you need to also shell out more for some modifiers. I would even consider these before some other glasses you mentioned though. It really could give your portrait work a 'pop'.

 

[sdsr]

The only lens on your list that I would question is the 70-200 2.8, not because it isn't a great lens but because you already have a great 70-200 lens. In good light the only real advantage the 2.8 has is in background blurring, and even there you may think the difference is minor. If you want to freeze action in low light the 2.8 has an obvious advantage, and you can use lower ISOs - on the other hand, you will surely be pleasantly surprised at how well high ISO photos come out on a 6D/5DIII (6D perhaps slightly better than 5DIII in that regard). Depending on what you would use such a lens for, you might conclude that all that extra weight and expense would be better directed elsewhere, such as a longer lens....

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Keep the 70-200 f4.0 - buy the 1.4 or 2.0 extender. $500.00
Buy a 17-40 zoom instead of the 16-35 and save $800, $800
get a fast prime - my choice would be 35mm f1.4 $1300
add relatively fast mid telephoto - your choice 85mm f1.8 or 100f2.8macro (non IS) $450
get a better flash ( and remote triggering for your existing 430 $750
take what's left over and choose your camera

 

[Canon_Wisconsin]

Take my advice with a grain of salt, but it may be worth buying the 85 f/1.8 for $359, saving yourself a bundle of cash over the L one... I've read enough reviews and two different photographers who tried both said they preferred the 1.8.

As for the 135L, if you enjoy portrait photography, that would be #1 on my list. I have read enough reviews and it is highly regarded as an amazing portrait lens. I did nab it off Canon's 20% off refurb sale ($696) and have been lusting over it since November, and I do think it would be a wise choice. An excellent piece of glass and it gets 5 stars on Amazon which doesn't always happen.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Take my advice with a grain of salt, but it may be worth buying the 85 f/1.8 for $359, saving yourself a bundle of cash over the L one... I've read enough reviews and two different photographers who tried both said they preferred the 1.8.

+1

 

[TommyLee]

I also highly recommend the 35L.
Awesome on a FF- Body.

Plenty of people are actually selling their 35L copies to purchase the new 35mm Sigma. I would highly recommend the Sigma instead of the 35L.

35mm is really great. I don't know why people prefer a 24mm lens when with the 35mm you actually place people in other spots than the middle. With a 24mm people will already start to turn into mutants.

yes I sold my 35L which was a good sharp copy..
the Sigma 35 1.4 is sharper wideopen than the Canon @ f2 or f2.8....

and cleaner too

and 35mm is - IMO - a more useful range than 50mm

so there you have a fast lens that is usable wide open.....
(delivers most of its sharpness / quality wideopen)

the 135 is also usable wideopen

16-35 II and 70-200 f4 I.S covers the rest of the needs...maybe a macro if you want that
//////////////

my fav set is 14L II, 35 sig, 135L f2

seems all you really need to add ... to your list...is the sig 35 1.4.

just
my opinion

TOM

 

[7enderbender]

MAYBE a 600-RT but that likely comes last.

So...help me out. What would you change given my shooting tastes? Does the order of acquisition matter? I considered the 50L but I figured I'd have low light covered well and the difference in price nets me the L macro at a minimum.

Thanks in advance for all the help! If you want some degree of feel for what I shoot, visit www.rfaganphotography.com.

I know you are asking about lenses (lots of them and expensive ones) but what surprises me is that the flash is such an afterthought. I've come to love my speedlites and use them quite a bit nowadays. I looked at your web site (nice design by the way) and found that in the portrait section I would have shot 90% of those with some kind of flash- even if just to create some catch lights. Matter of taste of course and there are folks who strictly want to do "available light".

And just like that everything else is a matter of personal preferences. I like fast fast primes. Others like the flexibility of the god Canon zooms. Can't really go wrong either way. Or a mix of both. The two lenses I would never give up again are the 135 and the 50L. But that's me with a current main interest in people photography. For your landscape and wildlife work you clearly want something different.

 

[tron]

Plenty of people are actually selling their 35L copies to purchase the new 35mm Sigma.

Where did you get this information?

+1 I do have a 35L 1.4 and I am not selling it. I am not interested in Sigma/Tokina/Tamron/etc...

 

[tron]

What I'm looking at...

(sell 60D, 10-22, 70-200, keep 50 b/c why the hell not?)

5D III (toying with the 1D IV for build and speed but perhaps as a second body next year?)
5D III would be my choice! (In fact I do have it and I have not regretted it)

16-35 II (traveling, street, some landscape, group or environmental portraits even)
OK direct replacement of 10-22

70-200 2.8 IS II (everything...weddings, events, portrait, some closer wildlife)
Not so fast. You are coming from a lightweight set. Have you tried 70-200 2.8 IS II? It is heavy!
Plus, your 70-200 is an EXCELLENT lens.

135L (covers my portraits, some street stuff, events/stage stuff)
OK THIS IS PERFECT!

24 1.4L (not as good as the TS but it's more versatile. churches, markets, lowlight, astro)
As you said not so good as the TS. You can forget it for astro. It has HUGE coma!
http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html

 

[applecider]

My 2 cents:

First I am coming from a wildlife first perspective, that colors my choices.

I would get the 70-200 f2.8 l ii and add a 2x converter, you get almost as good image quality as the 100-400 or 400L, and at a price of only the converter. I think it will also work with your 135L. Renting say a 300 f 2.8 L is 140 for 4 days if you do that 5x a year that's 700/year, doesn't take long to make ownership worth while. And availability can be a problem if renting at least if wanting a spur of the moment trip. I picked the 300 for reasons below.

If money is someday not a problem I love the 300 2.8 L ii is, it is light for a super, can be extended to 420 or 600 and is hand holdable and airline-able.

 

[Jay Khaos]

Considering:
1. Price doesn't seem to be a huge factor (judging by your list)
2. Shoot a lot of portraits (mostly portraits?)

5DIII with 85mm 1.2 would absolutely be my first 2 purchases, no questions. Next, the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I've went through a lot of gear, I started fresh not too long ago doing mainly portraits and product/stock photos—and that is exactly the route I went and I'm very happy with the decision

 

[BozillaNZ]

See people have different preferences, some would be happy to take 70-200, 300, 400 and shoot all day, others perfer 16-35 and 14.

To get a all around set you can start with 16-35 and 70-200, then start adding primes later. No need to hurry in buying whole bunch of lenses only to find out you won't use half of them.

 

[bholliman]

I disagree. Now that there are some very excellent 24-70's, forget the 24-105 because at the wide end it is useless due to distortion.

The lens to get would be the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC.

The 24-105 is hardly useless, its a very good lens and a terrific value. 24mm is not its best focal length, but its very sharp with minimal distortion from 35mm up. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is a step up, but 30-40% more expensive. Canon's 24-70 2.8 II is the best normal zoom, but expensive...

 

[jdramirez]

I disagree. Now that there are some very excellent 24-70's, forget the 24-105 because at the wide end it is useless due to distortion.

I don't have a very skilled eye when it comes to noticing distortion, but I hit the little button in Lightroom and boom... good bye distortion. Though as I said... I don't have an eye for noticing it... so maybe it is still there.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

So I'm making the switch to full frame, not all at once, but over the course of this year. I could use some feedback on my choices and the order I should be purchasing to maximize utility and versatility. I currently have a 60D, 10-22, 50 1.8 II, and 70-200 f/4 IS, and 430EX II.

I shoot a lot of portraits. I quite enjoy shooting wildlife and do so on several trips a year (though I am inclined to rent for that as needed). I enjoy landscape as well and while I consider it a priority, I don't know if I do so enough to warrant the 24 TS. I've also been working on starscapes and such. I travel quite a bit and take a fair bit of street stuff as well as finding myself in dim churches, museums, etc meaning I'd like some fast glass. Also macro. Lastly, while I haven't shot a wedding, I have done some events and performances and would like to make that a larger part of my shooting. I also may be gearing toward work as a PJ at some point soon.

What I'm looking at...

(sell 60D, 10-22, 70-200, keep 50 b/c why the hell not?)

5D III (toying with the 1D IV for build and speed but perhaps as a second body next year?)

16-35 II (traveling, street, some landscape, group or environmental portraits even)
70-200 2.8 IS II (everything...weddings, events, portrait, some closer wildlife)
135L (covers my portraits, some street stuff, events/stage stuff)
24 1.4L (not as good as the TS but it's more versatile. churches, markets, lowlight, astro)
100 Macro (L or not? IS can come in handy and its only a $240 difference, weather sealing is a selling point)
50 1.4 (better bokeh than the 1.8, which I'd keep as backup or lightweight setup)

MAYBE a 600-RT but that likely comes last.

So...help me out. What would you change given my shooting tastes? Does the order of acquisition matter? I considered the 50L but I figured I'd have low light covered well and the difference in price nets me the L macro at a minimum.

Thanks in advance for all the help! If you want some degree of feel for what I shoot, visit www.rfaganphotography.com.

Shopping! Fun!

I think the 5DMKIII is a fine camera which will serve you YEARS. Anything less and you may grow out of it fairly soon.

Get the 16-35 and forget the 24. Really, how often do you think you'll need to go above f2.8?

I LOVE my 50mm lens and use it for almost everything. A Generalist lens. But anything you would be using it for could be covered by better lenses. If portraits aren't a specialty of yours, you have other lenses here that will completely suffice. So I say no to the 50mm. Your current 50mm would be totally fine for general-type work.

Drop the 135L. Unless you are in a big studio and shoot in it a lot, it's really too long for any other type of portraits. Again, if you're not a specialist, other lenses you have here will suffice.

Drop the 100 Macro.

Get the 70-200 f2.8L II. I debated this. It's an expensive lens. But it's super sharp and incredibly flexible. You can use this lens as your portrait, wildlife AND event lens. The f4 version is REALLY good and if I had a 5D Mark III, I would get the f4. But you might want the shallow DOF with the 2.8 for portraits. f4 isn't enough.

I'd say rent the macro before buying. You got enough to play with and learn for a while.

If you sell your current 70-200 and 10-22, you can get an easy $1100 total. With that, you can buy a used 580EXII, couple of good lightstands and umbrellas and Phottix 2-receiver trigger system. You have lots of options here. I'd like to see three lights but again, you'll have plenty to keep you busy for a long time.

So with my recommendations, you'd save $3450 which would cover the cost of your new camera. Okay, this was fun!