Lenses for my kit advice

[Vincwat]

Hi guys,

I have the following equipment: 5Dmk4, 16-35 L f4, 24-105 L f4 I, 70-200 f2,8 II and a 50mm f1,4
I am doing all kind of photography: landscape, street, travel, portrait, wildlife...

The 24-105 L f4 version 1 was fine with the 5Dmk3 but I am not happy with it on my 5Dmk4.

I can't figure out if i should buy a 24-70 f2,8, probably the Tamron, or get a new 50mm and an 85 mm (the Sigmas f1,4). In both case i would sell the 24-105.

Any advice? some of you may have had the same questioning? I don't want to buy gear that i will never use.

Thanks

 

[awair]

I have a similar line-up to yours, with the 24-70/4 instead of 24-105.

Until I got the 16-35, I was very frustrated with the 'overlap' of 24-70 & 70-200 combo. I find that I prefer Primes, and rarely use the zooms, other than at the extremes - so I had 'two' 70s, and not enough flexibility.

Obviously, it depends on what you shoot, but in my experience the 24-70 wasn't wide enough on APC, so the 16-35 fixed that (on the 100D) and I'm now starting to like this lens on the full frame.

My latest favourite is the 85/1.4L, which hasn't left the 5D4 body since I received both in December. Fantastic combo, and super sharp. That leaves me with 70-200 & 400 on the 1D bodies for sport, and a selection between the 5D4 & 100D for 'normal' photography. My regular spares are the two pancakes (EF 40 & EF-S 24, both at 2.8), which give a smaller footprint if I ever need it.

The other lens I won't give up is the 135/2L, my first L, and still used for the extra stop it provides over the 70-200.

Good luck, and enjoy!

 

[Random Orbits]

24-70 f/2.8 II if you can swing it. AF with off center points is still good in servo with a 5DIV (used for basketball and volleyball in addition to standard uses). The Sigmas are not small primes, and the 50A is slightly heavier than the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the the 85A is 0.75 lb heavier.

I skipped the original 24-70 f/2.8 in favor of the 16-35/50/70-200 mix. I've since picked up the 24-70 f/2.8 II, which is my 2nd most used lens (after the 100-400). I've more recently also picked up the 24-105 II (white box) but that is primarily when I use the second body for video.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Free advice is worth what you paid for it!

That said, if your 24-105 is not performing better on the 5D MK IV, it likely has a issue so be careful about selling it.

I use my Canon 24-70L II and 70-200mm L II almost exclusively. I have no applications for a wider FOV.

I originally was interested in a Tamron 24-70, my Camera store dealer had them, but said I'd be happier with the Canon.

I stopped using most of my primes when I got the new zooms and sold them, in my opinion, if I were to use primes, I'd want two or even three bodies in order to be able to avoid losing shots while busy changing lenses.

 

[ethanz]

I use my Canon 24-70L II and 70-200mm L II almost exclusively. I have no applications for a wider FOV.

I originally was interested in a Tamron 24-70, my Camera store dealer had them, but said I'd be happier with the Canon.

I stopped using most of my primes when I got the new zooms and sold them, in my opinion, if I were to use primes, I'd want two or even three bodies in order to be able to avoid losing shots while busy changing lenses.

+1
Canon 24-70 f2.8 II is fabulous.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Another vote for the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 - pricey but I am delighted with mine

 

[Talys]

Just my two cents...

24-70/2.8 or 24-70/4 IS Macro
100L/2.8 Macro
85/1.4
100-400L II or Sigma 150-600
1.4x and/or 2x extender

As someone who owns the 24-70/4 and the 24-105, I'd highly recommend the 24-70. I am not a fan of the 24-105 (Mark 1), because it's not very good at either end of its focal range, and it's a bit disappointing in the corners. Also, you have the 70-200, so you're covered, unless you don't want to lens swap on your walkaround, and like the bit of tele you get out of the 105 (especially full frame).

The choice between f/2.8 and f/4 wasn't easy for me. It wasn't the money. At the end of the day, I got the f/4 because it's quite a bit smaller and lighter, has IS, and the macro, though not excellent is something. When I travel, I don't usually take a dedicated macro prime with me, so this fills that gap.

If you like primes, I am a huge fan of the 100L -- its IQ is superb, the price is great, you can use it for portraits, and it is also an amazing macro lens. It's also super light. But if you never use macro, the 70-200/2.8 at 100mm is excellent already.

Finally, you mentioned that you like wildlife. You might consider an extender for your 70-200, the Canon 100-400LII or the Sigma/Tamron 150-600, since you don't have anything > 200mm. The 70-200/2.8 with a x2 is actually pretty viable, though if you have it to spend, the 100-400LII is an amazing lens -- I don't know anyone who owns one who doesn't love it. Or, the cheaper alternative, the 150-600 Sigma/Tamron is half the price and has 200mm more reach. But its AF isn't as good, and its MF is a cruel joke.

 

[wsmith96]

Having the 16-35 and the 70-200 in your bag covers a lot of shooting needs. Another path you may want to consider is purchasing a 50mm prime to fill the gap while giving you a wider aperture when needed. People like the sigmas and the canon 1.2. Just a thought.

 

[bholliman]

Another vote for the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 - pricey but I am delighted with mine

+1 The 24-70 f/2.8 II is supurb lens

Two years ago I reluctantly sold my 24-70 f/2.8 II to generate funds for another lens. I was thinking I would get by with my 16-35 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 II and 50mm STM to fill the gap.

I went 3-4 months with just the 16-35 and 70-200 zoom combo but I missed having a standard zoom. I was having to take both zooms for situations where I would have just used one lens in the past, and still wished I had 36-69mm available.

We took a 2 week trip to Hawaii in the summer of 2016 and I decided to pick up a 24-70 f/4 IS just before we left so I had a std. zoom to use as a walk around lens. The f/4 IS proved to be a great option for the vacation, it's small and light and I really didn't need a wider aperture very often on that trip. But, as good as the f/4 IS is, I missed f/2.8 and the incredible sharpness of the 24-70 2.8 II so purchased another one early last year.

The 24-70 2.8 II is my most used lens and I expect to keep it for the long term.

 

[Daan Stam]

you have the 70-200 MkII so you know how good that canon L generation is. and i think you know that you should buy the canon 24-70 MkII if you can make it. and as you were talking about the 50 and 85 Art you probably can.

 

[ahsanford]

My advice: don't abandon a standard zoom. It will get a ton of use in your hands.

+1 on the 24-70 f/2.8L II as the best instrument for that job in general, but if you are cost / weight constrained, the 24-70 f/4L IS is an awesome plan B -- it's light, sharp, sealed, has IS, focuses quickly (with first party ring USM AF you can rely on) and has the secret weapon of a 1:1.4 (i.e. 0.7x) macro onboard.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

Sell the 50mm, sell the 24-105mm. Get the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II.

Get the new Canon 50mm Memorial Edition that Canon will issue in honor of Sanford thirty years from now. It'll have a Big Orange "V" on it.

 

[J.R.]

The 24-105 L f4 version 1 was fine with the 5Dmk3 but I am not happy with it on my 5Dmk4.

What problems are you facing with the lens? If it is not sharp enough, you can try AFMA. Sometimes lenses perform differently on different bodies.