Looking for ideas/feedback/opinion...

[msdarkroom]

Current bodies: 5dm3 and 7d
Current lenses: 10-22, 50 1.4, 24-70L, 70-200 F4L, 70-200 F2.8L IS II

(The 2.8 IS II was a gift, that is why I have two in that focal range.)

So.
I'm thinking of:
selling the 10-22 and the 70-200 F4
buying the 17-40 F4L and the 85 1.8

I'm looking for feedback on if you guys think this is a good route to take or if you would do something different.
With the 5dm3 the 10-22 is limited to the 7Dd only.


Please...
Give me a +1 if you think the sell/buy combo is good.
Give me a different idea if you disagree.

Thanks!

-MS

 

[peederj]

I would stand pat. They don't offer anything like the 10-22 in FF. You could sell the 70-200/4 and get the 85/1.8 if you need speed but I'm not sure I would. Having two bodies you want two whole setups I would think...the other body to grab for either reach or width when the primary has the other range already. And the f/4 is light enough to cope with that role better.

 

[nitsujwalker]

+1
I think it's a good idea. If you are doing landscapes, then the 17 will be wonderful. Sure, there's sharper glass out there, but I think the 17 does a great job. And I wouldn't want to limit the 5d to 24mm. I've never used the 85 but hear its great. If you don't find yourself needing or using the 70-200f4 then I would make the changes. I personally use mine because of the weight difference (I hike a lot) and don't really shoot in low light.

Good luck!

 

[RC]

+1 on the sell assuming your 5D is your wide/landscape body. I would buy the 16-35 over the 17-40. I would consider the 100 macro L over the 85, that gives you a great portrait lens plus macro.

 

[Random Orbits]

If you plan on using the UWA lens for landscape only, then the 17-40 should be fine. If you want a FF lens that delivers similar to better performance than the 10-22 on crop bodies and is faster, then the 16-35 II is a better choice. The 16-35 pairs well with the 24-70 and 70-200L f/2.8.

I'm not sure if it makes sense to buy the f/1.8 prime if you already have the 70-200L II because it's only slightly more than a 1 stop difference. If you didn't have the 70-200 f/2.8 and only had the 70-200 f/4, then the 85 f/1.8 would be over 2 stops faster and would give a nice DOF difference. If you have f/2.8 zooms, then f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses would be a better choice.

 

[BobSanderson]

sounds good

 

[prestonpalmer]

Get the 16-35 instead.

 

[msdarkroom]

Get the 16-35 instead.

I am considering this...

Do you think it's worth the extra $?

Have you used both the 17-40 and 16-35?

 

[wickidwombat]

Get the 16-35 instead.

I am considering this...

Do you think it's worth the extra $?

Have you used both the 17-40 and 16-35?

absolutely! make sure its the 16-35 mk2 though
this lens wide open is usefull for so much more than boring ol landscapes
if you can afford the different you wont regret it
bear in mind the 82mm filter size too makes filter cost more spendy and you have to get the ultra slim versions to avoid vignette issues