Lens upgrade advice.

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
In that case I would suggest that an upgrade path would be 16-35 4L IS 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8L IS III and at the same time parting with 17-40 24-105 and 70-200 non-IS.

But don't do it at the same time. Make it piece by piece to verify that your results are on par with the suggestions.

FYI I have 16-35 4L IS 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8L IS II.

But I have not used all the same. I can say that definitely 16-35 is excellent at the edges but - shame on me - due to carrying restrictions I haven't used 24-70 as much as I should to know/remember about the edges and the cases where I used my 70-200 was in portraits a few years ago and at night events at low light so I cannot help.
Okay, if you had to start with one of those lenses to upgrade/part with which would it be?
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,739
603
Davidson, NC
Hi Maximilian!

Thank you for the breakdown, that’s what I have been looking for.

When I shoot with the 70-200 2.8L I have to take multiple shots of the same subject just to make sure I get a keeper because the lens is heavy and it’s getting harder for me to keep the lens steady as I get older without IS. Especially during the golden hour when cars look best and I need to stand back far enough not to get my shadows in the shot. Would IS give me a better keeper rate and keep my ISO down as the sun goes down?

I have never used my 100 Macro on a tripod and actually bought it before the L version was released. I haven’t had a problem with it but I just can’t use it really up close with details of a car because I can’t hold it that steady closeup. Is the L’s IS able to counteract the back & forth movements and sideside movements when you’re up close?

I know my 17-40’s sharpness is weak wide open but stopped down to f8 it’s pretty good but the corners could be better. Is the 16-40 IS night and day better?

I’ve never been impressed by my 24-105’s sharpness. It’s actually the softest L lenses I have ever used. That’s why I wanted to get the 24-70 2.8 L II. Do you own this one?
It sounds like a lot of your problem is reluctance to use a tripod. Macro shots of a stationary subject is very obvious usage. If you get a tilt-shift lens, you’ll find that the tripod will make all the difference in the convenience and control. You can use 10x magnified live view for accurate focus. I‘d suggest the 24mm TS-E lens to start with. The 17mm lens is excellent, but trickier to use and the perspective gives more challenges for interiors. The 24mm also has a wider range of movements. I find it useful in a wider range of situations. I’ve certainly done plenty of hand-held macro shots and some t-s shots, but in limited situations where a tripod was not practical.

I get very sharp pictures from my non-L 24-105mm on my 6D2. Maybe it is an autofocus issue on yours.

I really like the 16-35mm f/4. So you won’t go wrong with it.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,739
603
Davidson, NC
Those are nice photos even if not technically perfect. The third one appears the most problematic. Nothing is quite sharp. Beyond that it presents a depth of field issue, at least to me. I’d like the car interior to be sharper. Perhaps a wider focal length and focusing in a little farther would work. A tilt-shift lens might be a better solution; same for the brick wall.
 

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
It sounds like a lot of your problem is reluctance to use a tripod. Macro shots of a stationary subject is very obvious usage. If you get a tilt-shift lens, you’ll find that the tripod will make all the difference in the convenience and control. You can use 10x magnified live view for accurate focus. I‘d suggest the 24mm TS-E lens to start with. The 17mm lens is excellent, but trickier to use and the perspective gives more challenges for interiors. The 24mm also has a wider range of movements. I find it useful in a wider range of situations. I’ve certainly done plenty of hand-held macro shots and some t-s shots, but in limited situations where a tripod was not practical.

I get very sharp pictures from my non-L 24-105mm on my 6D2. Maybe it is an autofocus issue on yours.

I really like the 16-35mm f/4. So you won’t go wrong with it.
I've sent back my 6D + 24-105 L to Canon I think 8 times actually when I first received it in December 2013 and it was still under warranty because I'm not sure if it was the lens or the sensor but the image would be in focus in the center but the mid frame and corners were blurry. I sent it to I believe New Jersey a bunch of times and each time they would say they performed electrical work on the lens and ship it back saying it working to factory specs except the problem was still there. This went on for almost a year until they finally sent the camera and lens to their Newport News facility. They had a Canon engineer work on it and when they sent it back the image was no longer blurry but they wouldn't tell me what they did to correct it.

I guess I could mount my Macro lens on a tripod and shoot car details that way it's just when the cars are parked there really isn't enough room to set up a tripod between them. Do you own the Non-IS Macro lens or the IS L Macro?
 

ildyria

EOS M50
CR Pro
Mar 5, 2020
42
46
Speaking of tripods I use a Manfrotto 3021B Pro. Should I be using something else?
I use the Manfrotto Befree Advanced, it is just a matter of taste and weight.

I also shoot stationary cars [1] [2] sometimes and only use my 50mm f/1.4 and my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS (mk1) and I would say 90% of the time wide open.

It sounds like a lot of your problem is reluctance to use a tripod. Macro shots of a stationary subject is very obvious usage. If you get a tilt-shift lens, you’ll find that the tripod will make all the difference in the convenience and control. You can use 10x magnified live view for accurate focus.
I totally agree with this. By using the 10x magnification, you avoid the micro adjustment required by the auto-focus.

On the pictures you showed, you don't seem to use the range 35-70, as a result I second the choice of going for the 16-35 (I have never used TS lenses).

Personally I would replace the EF 17-40 f/4 L and EF 24-105 f/4 L IS by the 16-35mm f/4 IS (as IS seems to matters to you).

Controversial opinion: I would not get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 (I had the mk I, I found this lens to have very unreliable results for my taste).
The reason for this is that you already pretty much cover most of the range already:
- a 16-35mm will give you the 24-35 range
- the mid range you can get with your 40mm
- the long range is available via your 70-200mm.

While the loss of your 24-105mm may feel slightly annoying for portraiture, you still have the 85mm f/1.8. The fixed focal length will force you to move to frame your portraits but the f/1.8 aperture is way worth it.

Also thinking to the future when I will upgrade my 6D. Unfortunately the R6 has the same megapixel count as my 6D but the majority of my lenses aren’t supported by the R5 if I want to get the most resolving power.
All your lenses will be supported by the R5 & R6 (with the adaptor). There is no loss of Image Quality, and some says that the lenses perform better on the mirrorless bodies. Also note that you will not need the micro adjustment that you were complaining about as the focus is done by on the sensor and not by a different captor. You should also checkout the EOS R, 30Mpx and Eye autofocus for portraits. :)

When switching to the R5 & R6 with your current EF glass, what you will not get is the 12 FPS but only 6.9.
 
Last edited:

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,739
603
Davidson, NC
I guess I could mount my Macro lens on a tripod and shoot car details that way it's just when the cars are parked there really isn't enough room to set up a tripod between them. Do you own the Non-IS Macro lens or the IS L Macro?
I have the non-L non-IS 100mm macro lens. Someone above suggested that when you don't have room to set up a tripod, you could use a monopod. My guess is that in shooting details on cars, you are not at or close to the 1:1 magnification range, so things will be not so tricky as with maximum magnification. With higher magnification you lose more light, and at the same time you need to stop down more to get some depth of field. At 1:1 you might also need to make multiple shots using a focusing rail and layer them in Photoshop. Obviously that needs a tripod. But I doubt you need to do much of anything down in that range, where you are shooting things smaller than 1". Bracing yourself on the adjacent car and bracing the camera on your body and not breathing might be enough to get a percentage of your shots to work. Since I have no experience with IS in macro range, I don't know how much it helps in real life. If I had it, most of the time I would have shut it off and put the camera on a tripod anyway. When I do handheld macro shots, my problem is less of an issue with my shaking the camera as with the motion of the subject. I'm chasing a flying insect, or I'm doing a closeup of little flowers on a bush, and even a tiny bit of wind will move them around. I shot this at f/11 for 1/80 sec. It is cropped a little for the sake of composition, and of course reduced to a JPEG for posting.
IMG_2774.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: pulseimages

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,739
603
Davidson, NC
My non-L lenses were bought times when the choice was largely financial. I was still shooting the Rebel T3i when I wanted to get into macro shooting. I had tried using a telephoto lens on some cheap extension tubes ($14 I think), and I got some amazingly good pictures. So I thought that rather than buying some good tubes that would let me control the lens opening, that I'd get a macro lens. So at that point it was not a decision for me between the L version and the non-L, but between buying the non-L or not buying it. Reviews suggested that IQ was comparable, and I think the price difference may have been greater than it is now. IS wasn't a consideration, since I figured to use a tripod for macro shots anyway. On the T3i it also served as a nice short telephoto, 160mm equivalent field of view.

When I bought the 6D2 to go to full frame, I decided to get the kit lens for general purposes to hold me until I figured out what lenses I eventually wanted. There was a pretty good price difference for the kit with the L lens vs. the STM, and I thought the STM might have some advantages for video anyway. Right after I got the camera and the 24–105mm STM, I was invited to go with neighbors to a Chinese lantern exhibit at some gardens, and made it a trip to try out the new camera and lens. The results surprised me pleasantly. We went late afternoon and stayed until they closed that night, and I was shooting in all sorts of lighting conditions. So I have been pleased to keep the kit lens as my general purpose lens and add amazing L zooms on both ends of the focal length range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pulseimages

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
I use the Manfrotto Befree Advanced, it is just a matter of taste and weight.

I also shoot stationary cars [1] [2] sometimes and only use my 50mm f/1.4 and my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS (mk1) and I would say 90% of the time wide open.


I totally agree with this. By using the 10x magnification, you avoid the micro adjustment required by the auto-focus.

On the pictures you showed, you don't seem to use the range 35-70, as a result I second the choice of going for the 16-35 (I have never used TS lenses).

Personally I would replace the EF 17-40 f/4 L and EF 24-105 f/4 L IS by the 16-35mm f/4 IS (as IS seems to matters to you).

Controversial opinion: I would not get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 (I had the mk I, I found this lens to have very unreliable results for my taste).
The reason for this is that you already pretty much cover most of the range already:
- a 16-35mm will give you the 24-35 range
- the mid range you can get with your 40mm
- the long range is available via your 70-200mm.

While the loss of your 24-105mm may feel slightly annoying for portraiture, you still have the 85mm f/1.8. The fixed focal length will force you to move to frame your portraits but the f/1.8 aperture is way worth it.


All your lenses will be supported by the R5 & R6 (with the adaptor). There is no loss of Image Quality, and some says that the lenses perform better on the mirrorless bodies. Also note that you will not need the micro adjustment that you were complaining about as the focus is done by on the sensor and not by a different captor. You should also checkout the EOS R, 30Mpx and Eye autofocus for portraits. :)

When switching to the R5 & R6 with your current EF glass, what you will not get is the 12 FPS but only 6.9.
Good to know about losing out on the FPS. I actually do shoot a lot in the 35-70 range. I just posted images that I was unhappy with regardless of focal length.

I went to Hunt’s today and received trade in quotes for the 17-40 L - $220 and 24-105 L - $225. Though B&H will give me a little more. Is it better to sell the lenses on your own on trade them into a camera store?

I want to rent the 16-35 and the 24-70 to see if it’s right for me.
 

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,449
1,247
[..] Is it better to sell the lenses on your own on trade them into a camera store?[..]
You generally get better prices selling them yourself, but that comes with the downside of having to deal with actual people. Here in .nl the biggest online marketplace (marktplaats.nl) is pretty much only used by scammers or entitled complainers once you go outside the realm of used baby gear.

I'd happily settle for less money to avoid the hassle of disputes and extra special shipping instructions. And it helps to shop around, the quoted I received for my RP were €400, €500 and €800. And the €800 quote was without mentioning what I'd trade it in for, the others mentioned the R5.
 

ildyria

EOS M50
CR Pro
Mar 5, 2020
42
46
I went to Hunt’s today and received trade in quotes for the 17-40 L - $220 and 24-105 L - $225. Though B&H will give me a little more. Is it better to sell the lenses on your own on trade them into a camera store?
I bought my 17-40 L for about 250 Euro second hand, and if I look on Markplaats, I find the 24-105 L for 350 Euro. But also stores need to make money too, so it is not surprising they accept it for less. So by default you will get more if you sell them yourself, the question is do you have the time? :)

Also when buying second hand the two choices you have are in person or in store. In person you get to know the previous owner, in store you expect the lens to be checked for major defects.
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
318
164
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
I sold my 6D, 24-105 v1, a 2x Extender I never used, and an old Rebel to MPB. They gave me $368 for the 24-105, but I'm sure that changes all the time and depends on the lens itself. It's the only transaction I have made there. I have bought a few things on Fred Miranda and haven't had any issues, but have never sold anything there.
 

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
I use the Manfrotto Befree Advanced, it is just a matter of taste and weight.

I also shoot stationary cars [1] [2] sometimes and only use my 50mm f/1.4 and my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS (mk1) and I would say 90% of the time wide open.


I totally agree with this. By using the 10x magnification, you avoid the micro adjustment required by the auto-focus.

On the pictures you showed, you don't seem to use the range 35-70, as a result I second the choice of going for the 16-35 (I have never used TS lenses).

Personally I would replace the EF 17-40 f/4 L and EF 24-105 f/4 L IS by the 16-35mm f/4 IS (as IS seems to matters to you).

Controversial opinion: I would not get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 (I had the mk I, I found this lens to have very unreliable results for my taste).
The reason for this is that you already pretty much cover most of the range already:
- a 16-35mm will give you the 24-35 range
- the mid range you can get with your 40mm
- the long range is available via your 70-200mm.

While the loss of your 24-105mm may feel slightly annoying for portraiture, you still have the 85mm f/1.8. The fixed focal length will force you to move to frame your portraits but the f/1.8 aperture is way worth it.


All your lenses will be supported by the R5 & R6 (with the adaptor). There is no loss of Image Quality, and some says that the lenses perform better on the mirrorless bodies. Also note that you will not need the micro adjustment that you were complaining about as the focus is done by on the sensor and not by a different captor. You should also checkout the EOS R, 30Mpx and Eye autofocus for portraits. :)

When switching to the R5 & R6 with your current EF glass, what you will not get is the 12 FPS but only 6.9.
How can there be no loss of image quality using an old EF lens on a high resolution Mirrorless camera such as the R5? Wouldn’t certain glass that’s soft on a DSLR be just if not more soft on the R5?
 

ildyria

EOS M50
CR Pro
Mar 5, 2020
42
46
How can there be no loss of image quality using an old EF lens on a high resolution Mirrorless camera such as the R5? Wouldn’t certain glass that’s soft on a DSLR be just if not more soft on the R5?
What I meant is the DPAF II of the R5/R6 is insanely good, this makes lenses that were already really good (e.g. 135mm f/2) but with razor thin DoF even better because they can focus exactly where needed.
 

Frodo

EOS RP
Nov 3, 2012
394
70
How can there be no loss of image quality using an old EF lens on a high resolution Mirrorless camera such as the R5? Wouldn’t certain glass that’s soft on a DSLR be just if not more soft on the R5?
A lens won't be softer on a higher MP camera, indeed it will often be sharper. But you will gain more with a sharpwr lens on a high MP camera.
My EF 24-105/4L (v1) was noticeably sharper on my 5DsR than on my 6D. Indeed, it was sharper at f/8 than my EF 35/2IS at f/8 on the 6D.