My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?

[old-pr-pix]

Seems like you are doing fine as is; but, I'll mention the 15-85 again for general all-purpose lens. The 17-55 is also excellent for that. Choice between them being based on whether you are typically inside or outside and how much you are willing to push ISO. For me the 15-85 is nearly always on a 60D "in case" while other lenses were mounted as needed.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Hmm, how is that "minimalist"? That's pretty much a whole system, I mean normal.
70D with a Sigma 18-35/1.8Art and 85/1.8 (while waiting for Sigma 50-100/1.8Art) could be the "minimalists arsenal", but adding an UWA and tele lenses makes it "whole" again . I would definitely skip the 35/2 IS and go for the Sigma instead.

With that, nothing compares with the 18-35, but it's just too big. Maybe a Sigma 18-50 2.8 Art one day?

I have a dream ... A hypothetical Sigma 18-50mm F2 Art, as good as the 18-35 Art.

 

[ecka]

Hmm, how is that "minimalist"? That's pretty much a whole system, I mean normal.
70D with a Sigma 18-35/1.8Art and 85/1.8 (while waiting for Sigma 50-100/1.8Art) could be the "minimalists arsenal", but adding an UWA and tele lenses makes it "whole" again . I would definitely skip the 35/2 IS and go for the Sigma instead.

I tried out a Sigma 18-35 at a workshop and found it to produce the best pictures ever seen by man. But it was just a very large honker of a lens to be walking around with all the time. I feel like I come close with the 35 2.0 IS. The 18-35 sample that I tried did better than the Sigma 35 Art that I compared it to.
With that, nothing compares with the 18-35, but it's just too big. Maybe a Sigma 18-50 2.8 Art one day?

You can always use your M + 22/2 for walking. 18-35/1.8Art is like THE lens to get at the moment, while making all the primes in it's range look silly on crop . Talking about the M, I've heard that EF-M 11-22 IS STM has amazing optics, like 16-35L'IS-kind of amazing . If I had an M, I would consider that one instead of 10-18.
Sometimes I'm walking with Sigma 150/2.8 Macro, which is a big lens (even bigger than 18-35/1.8Art) and it's not so bad with the right bag (I use Lowepro Zoom Toploader). I had Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM on my 7D and it was really nice, for the price, but I didn't like the focusing ring, too short turn and no FTM. Since then I've gone full frame and full prime, so now, hearing "2.8 crop zoom" makes me smile :. I mean, if you can accept that much bulk and weight, then you are better off with FF and F4 (no comparison).

 

[Marsu42]

Thanks. I really do like the 85, but it can be tight at times. By any chance does swapping it out for a 60mm Macro make any sense at all (portraits, etc.)?

If you want to dual-use it for portrait, 60mm on crop makes sense. Otherwise get a 100mm because of the larger working distance for macro, otherwise near 1:1 your lens hits the object and your shadow gets in the way long before that.

 

[Gareth]

If I were to do it over, I would take a very long look at the Tamron 60mm f/2 lens. I've never used it, but have heard really good things about it. I like the fact that it goes to f/2 which could be useful for better subject isolation if one really wanted to use the lens as double duty, macro and portrait.

I had the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro. I'm not much of a Macro shooter, so I didn't use it much and the pictures might be great, but the focus is unbearably slow and awful. Sold that lens. Biggest loss I've ever taken on a lens, so you can probably get it cheap used.

When I went to FF, the only crop lens I kept was the 15-85mm in case I ever got another crop camera (which I did with the 7D II).

 

[sdsr]

My camera is a 70D and will likely stick with crop. With that, does this make sense?:
- Canon 10-18
- Canon 35 2.0 IS (had a 50mm Sigma Art, but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference)
- Canon 85 1.8
- Canon 100-400 II (not yet obtained and will possibly sell my 200 2.8 since it's not used a lot and I could use the 85 when really needing the low light performance and the zoom when needing the focal length - although it might be tough at times indoors)

The 10-18 is very good (though it's a shame the even better Rokinon 12mm f2 doesn't seem to be available in EF mount), as are the two primes you mention. The Sigma 35mm Art has better coma control and can provide shallower focus than the 35mm IS, but I'm not sure it has any other advantages and the former may not matter on APS-C anyway. The 100L suggestion made by others is a marvelous lens too, but if you're trying to be minimalist you may not want the 85 1.8 as well - there's not much difference in focal length between those two. And since lens size seems to matter to you, are you sure you want the 100-400 rather than, say, the lighter and smaller 70-300L?

 

[ecka]

My camera is a 70D and will likely stick with crop. With that, does this make sense?:
- Canon 10-18
- Canon 35 2.0 IS (had a 50mm Sigma Art, but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference)
- Canon 85 1.8
- Canon 100-400 II (not yet obtained and will possibly sell my 200 2.8 since it's not used a lot and I could use the 85 when really needing the low light performance and the zoom when needing the focal length - although it might be tough at times indoors)

The 10-18 is very good (though it's a shame the even better Rokinon 12mm f2 doesn't seem to be available in EF mount), as are the two primes you mention. The Sigma 35mm Art has better coma control and can provide shallower focus than the 35mm IS, but I'm not sure it has any other advantages and the former may not matter on APS-C anyway. The 100L suggestion made by others is a marvelous lens too, but if you're trying to be minimalist you may not want the 85 1.8 as well - there's not much difference in focal length between those two. And since lens size seems to matter to you, are you sure you want the 100-400 rather than, say, the lighter and smaller 70-300L?

Rokinon 12/2 is for mirrorless, but isn't there a Rokinon (aka Samyang) 10mm f/2.8 for DSLR? Could be just as good .
Not sure if the 70-300L is that much better (on crop) than the small and cheap 55-250 IS STM, seriously.

 

[candc]

When I go on holiday I take a 70d, sigma 8-16, sigma 18-35 or ef-s 60, and the tamron 150-600. It all fits nice in a tarmac v9 sling bag. If you don't need the long fl and want to go minimal then I would suggest your 10-18 and the 55-250stm. Maybe the 60 or the 35is? that is all small and light stuff that gives great results.

 

[ritholtz]

Nice set of lenses. I have Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 and 30mm F1.4 non art and 18-135 is stm. I am thinking of replacing 18-135 IS STM with 10-18 and 55-250 stm lens.

 

[Luds34]

If I were to do it over, I would take a very long look at the Tamron 60mm f/2 lens. I've never used it, but have heard really good things about it. I like the fact that it goes to f/2 which could be useful for better subject isolation if one really wanted to use the lens as double duty, macro and portrait.

I had the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro. I'm not much of a Macro shooter, so I didn't use it much and the pictures might be great, but the focus is unbearably slow and awful. Sold that lens. Biggest loss I've ever taken on a lens, so you can probably get it cheap used.

When I went to FF, the only crop lens I kept was the 15-85mm in case I ever got another crop camera (which I did with the 7D II).

Interesting, good to know. I guess I have no regrets picking up the Canon 60mm from a buddy for a good price then. I didn't know the focus was that bad. I thought I recall seeing an online video and it looked like it had a more modern motor system and at least appeared to focus quickly. I have the 150-600 and that focus system/motor is very USM like. One of my first lenses was the old 17-50 from Tamron (non VC) and that was a noisy, slower (then USM) focus system, but accurate.

In any case, thanks for your 2 cents from first hand experience.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

In the name of trying to fight off GAS would you be so kind as to review my lens line-up? I pretty much do it all minus sports. My daughter's high school volleyball career is over and my son is about to kick off 4+ years in a pretty amazing high school marching/jazz band career. Low-level soccer will likely still be in the mix, though, and I probably won't do much college volleyball.
I also do a lot of portraits, landscape, street, travel, etc.
My camera is a 70D and will likely stick with crop. With that, does this make sense?:
- Canon 10-18
- Canon 35 2.0 IS (had a 50mm Sigma Art, but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference)
- Canon 85 1.8
- Canon 100-400 II (not yet obtained and will possibly sell my 200 2.8 since it's not used a lot and I could use the 85 when really needing the low light performance and the zoom when needing the focal length - although it might be tough at times indoors)
Thanks for any advice to include good-to-go, almost all the time, with those 4.

Your approach seems to me to make a lot of sence. The only objection for me in crop sensors it that 85mm is way too long for many aplications. 50mm FL is rather more usable.

 

[ecka]

In the name of trying to fight off GAS would you be so kind as to review my lens line-up? I pretty much do it all minus sports. My daughter's high school volleyball career is over and my son is about to kick off 4+ years in a pretty amazing high school marching/jazz band career. Low-level soccer will likely still be in the mix, though, and I probably won't do much college volleyball.
I also do a lot of portraits, landscape, street, travel, etc.
My camera is a 70D and will likely stick with crop. With that, does this make sense?:
- Canon 10-18
- Canon 35 2.0 IS (had a 50mm Sigma Art, but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference)
- Canon 85 1.8
- Canon 100-400 II (not yet obtained and will possibly sell my 200 2.8 since it's not used a lot and I could use the 85 when really needing the low light performance and the zoom when needing the focal length - although it might be tough at times indoors)
Thanks for any advice to include good-to-go, almost all the time, with those 4.

Your approach seems to me to make a lot of sence. The only objection for me in crop sensors it that 85mm is way too long for many aplications. 50mm FL is rather more usable.

Just like 50mm is way too short and/or too long for many applications. There is no perfect focal length for everything. 85mm on crop is just as usable as 135mm on FF (portraits, street, even sports). The point is too pick what works best. 14/22/35/55/85/135...

 

[casperl]

I also have a 70D and I travel a lot, and my minimalist setup when I travel is:

1: Sigma 30mm Art. This is pretty much glued on my camera most of the time.
2: Canon 10-18mm STM. For landscape, usually in my bag with me whenever I bring out my camera.
3: Canon 55-250mm STM. I usually bring it with me in case I am going to a sporting event, but it usually end up staying in my hotel room.

At home I have another three lens:
1: Canon 18-135 STM. Got it with the 70D kit, been gathering dust since I got the Siggy 30mm.
3: Canon 50mm f1.4. Only used it for my sister's wedding. In reserve as a portrait lens.
4: Canon 24mm STM. For going out with friend for indoor event, looking to be replaced with a M and the 22mm.

 

[9VIII]

My current plans are to use the Sigma 18-35, Sigma 50/85/135 Art (depending on a variety of factors once we can compare them all), and the 100-400II (because I like shooting wildlife).
Honestly I could do without the portrait lens, but sometimes it's nice to have the option of using bokeh to hide the background.