My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?

[Cory]

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.

 

[NancyP]

If you use Lightroom you can use the sort function to pull up which lenses (focal lengths) you use the most. And you know what focal lengths you find yourself wishing for in specific situations. There's no one right answer.

 

[Marsu42]

+1 for reviewing your Lightroom stats, but you seem to be covered just fine - do you think there's something wrong or missing? The only thing you really lack is a macro lens, if you want to do these kinds of shots. Otherwise here's my 2ct:

Canon 10-18

You should keep the uwa option for flexibility and fun.

Canon 35 2.0 IS (had a 50mm Sigma Art, but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference)#

Seems reasonable for low light, even (or especially?) on crop, unless you exchange it for example for the Tamron 24-70/2.8 if you want a zoom in that range and below your 85mm.

Canon 85 1.8

Basically makes a head portrait lens as it equals 135mm full frame (85*1.6). Probably too long for half body portraits and certainly too long for groups. Lacks IS for static low light shooting.

Canon 100-400 II

Standard telezoom choice, should be fun and fine with the 70d and imho you can exchange the 200mm prime if you only shoot in good light and without a tc.

 

[bholliman]

You have a nice selection of lenses from my perspective with focal lengths from 10 to 400mm covered (assuming you trade the 200/2.8 toward a 100-400 II). Your primes give you shallow DOF options.

As Marsu42 pointed out, a Macro lens might be worth considering. I love my 100L Macro. In addition to macro shots I use mine for portraits and a nice compliment to my 24-70 for outings.

 

[Cory]

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.)?
Here's a shot from last night with my 85, though, which might indicate sticking with the 85 and then just using the 35 when not enough room. I thought about a 24-70, but I gain practical focal length at the expense of size (vs. the 35 where zooming with my feet works more than half of the time - nothing's perfect).

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

For the type of photos you describe, I would not buy the 100-400mm. You would have more versatility as the 70-200mm F2.8 IS II, and could use it with teleconverter, if needed.

 

[Cory]

For the type of photos you describe, I would not buy the 100-400mm. You would have more versatility as the 70-200mm F2.8 IS II, and could use it with teleconverter, if needed.

Good point. There's also the thought of a 2x Extender for the 200mm prime?

 

[Luds34]

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.)?
Here's a shot from last night with my 85, though, which might indicate sticking with the 85 and then just using the 35 when not enough room. I thought about a 24-70, but I gain practical focal length at the expense of size (vs. the 35 where zooming with my feet works more than half of the time - nothing's perfect).

We are in similar shoes. I own a 70D and shoot a number of primes mostly. I have the 28mm f/1.8 instead of the 35mm you have. I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 instead of the Canon 10-18.

To your question here, I would not swap them out. I actually own both the 85mm and 60mm macro. To me they serve different purposes. The 60mm macro is an excellent macro lens. 85mm mfd is like 3 feet, so no macro. And while the 60mm actually makes a solid portrait lens, it is "only" f/2.8 so you don't always get the really creamy bokeh. So the 85mm can be a bit long, especially indoors, but it is one of my favorite lenses and would not get rid of it. I use it mostly outdoors, and it's fast focus makes it work like a charm in ai focus for tracking kids running around, etc.

So I say own both! They are both very affordable lenses and offer excellent value and frankly serve different purposes.

I see you did mention owning the Sigma 50 art. I saw the old Sigma 50mm EX for $350 last fall and impulsively bought it for a very fast (f/1.4) lens that could be used indoors as portrait lens. I found the 50mm and 85mm to be a big difference in focal length. How did you like the Sigma Art on your 70D?

 

[Arty]

You are missing two lenses. A good travel lens zoom, say a 17-55IS or the 24-105L.
You also must have a good macro lens. I recommend the Canon 100, but a shorter lens may get more general use.
Sigma seems to have discontinued the 50F2.8 macro lens in Canon mount, but they still may be available. I like mine.

 

[Luds34]

For the type of photos you describe, I would not buy the 100-400mm. You would have more versatility as the 70-200mm F2.8 IS II, and could use it with teleconverter, if needed.

Good point. There's also the thought of a 2x Extender for the 200mm prime?

I picked up the Tamron 150-600 and I think I've used it twice. I don't think I regret the purchase as I understood it uses would be few and far between, but one of those, when you need 400, 500, 600, it gets the job done.

Just more anecdotal stories from my personal experience. But I picked up the Kenko 1.4x and was very impressed with the sharpness and quality when paired with a 70-200 f/4L lens. As they say, YMMV depending on lens/teleconverter combo.

 

[Vivid Color]

If you're going to get a macro lens, I would recommend getting one of the Canon 100 mm macro lenses. If you ever later do decide to move to full frame, you won't have to rebuy this lens and in the meantime, you'll have greater working distance.

 

[Luds34]

You are missing two lenses. A good travel lens zoom, say a 17-55IS or the 24-105L.

The 15-85 is the crop version of the 24-105L. I prefer a more varied kit, but when forced to go light, backpacking or BWCA trip, and can bring only one body/lens, I've used that one and have been happy with the results.

 

[Cory]

I see you did mention owning the Sigma 50 art. I saw the old Sigma 50mm EX for $350 last fall and impulsively bought it for a very fast (f/1.4) lens that could be used indoors as portrait lens. I found the 50mm and 85mm to be a big difference in focal length. How did you like the Sigma Art on your 70D?

The Sigma 50 1.4 Art was STUNNING. I did my first real job with it photographing 23 portraits for a law firm. It's really not possible to get better; as far as I could imagine. I compared the focal length with my 35 and the pictures were very similar. I definitely liked the 50 a bit better (a little sharper and a little more of that "professional" contrast, but not much), but the 35 is a bit more versatile so having both seemed expensive. I did my final portrait with the 35 and the results were nearly identical. The portraits with the 50 were just slightly more "natural" if that makes sense.
I would say that a 28mm would be a "better" general purpose focal length, but that's only 10 away from my 10-18 and 7 away from 35 and 35 is not bad for portraits as well so I figured that the 35 wins for more utility. Also, it's a 67mm lens just like the 10-18.

 

[NancyP]

EF-S 60mm is an excellent FL for portraits. This is a good macro lens for the 1:5 to 1:2 range, working distance gets tight for the 1:1 shots, but you can live with short working distance if you are lighting your subject and your subject doesn't get nervous and leave (insect).

 

[curby]

I agree with Marsu that you should look to fill gaps in capability or "pain points." I got my lenses in a specific order to fit specific needs.

[list type=decimal]
[*]17-55/2.8 - general purpose
[*]70-200/4 - more reach in a compact package
[*]35/2 - fast prime for a compact, single-lens package
[*]10-18 - cheap and decent UWA
[/list]

Now I'm also looking at the 100-400 II, but only because I want more reach for wildlife shots. If you don't have such a need, start with a 70-200.

 

[Luds34]

EF-S 60mm is an excellent FL for portraits. This is a good macro lens for the 1:5 to 1:2 range, working distance gets tight for the 1:1 shots, but you can live with short working distance if you are lighting your subject and your subject doesn't get nervous and leave (insect).

Good point and I agree, at 1:1 the front of the glass is getting very close physically to the subject.

The 100mm macro L lens is an excellent piece of glass. Of couse it's price is much higher and I feel you lose the portrait focal length on crop compared to the 60mm.

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.

 

[Luds34]

I see you did mention owning the Sigma 50 art. I saw the old Sigma 50mm EX for $350 last fall and impulsively bought it for a very fast (f/1.4) lens that could be used indoors as portrait lens. I found the 50mm and 85mm to be a big difference in focal length. How did you like the Sigma Art on your 70D?

The Sigma 50 1.4 Art was STUNNING. I did my first real job with it photographing 23 portraits for a law firm. It's really not possible to get better; as far as I could imagine. I compared the focal length with my 35 and the pictures were very similar. I definitely liked the 50 a bit better (a little sharper and a little more of that "professional" contrast, but not much), but the 35 is a bit more versatile so having both seemed expensive. I did my final portrait with the 35 and the results were nearly identical. The portraits with the 50 were just slightly more "natural" if that makes sense.
I would say that a 28mm would be a "better" general purpose focal length, but that's only 10 away from my 10-18 and 7 away from 35 and 35 is not bad for portraits as well so I figured that the 35 wins for more utility. Also, it's a 67mm lens just like the 10-18.

How was focus speed and consistency? You hear mixed results from other forum members on getting consistent focus. The 50mm EX is not fastest focusing lens. It's fine for portraits but I wish it was faster to give the lens more versatility/utility.

Keep in mind 10mm on the wide end is a lot! Going from 18 to 28 is pushing double the focal length.

 

[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.

 

[Cory]

I see you did mention owning the Sigma 50 art. I saw the old Sigma 50mm EX for $350 last fall and impulsively bought it for a very fast (f/1.4) lens that could be used indoors as portrait lens. I found the 50mm and 85mm to be a big difference in focal length. How did you like the Sigma Art on your 70D?

The Sigma 50 1.4 Art was STUNNING. I did my first real job with it photographing 23 portraits for a law firm. It's really not possible to get better; as far as I could imagine. I compared the focal length with my 35 and the pictures were very similar. I definitely liked the 50 a bit better (a little sharper and a little more of that "professional" contrast, but not much), but the 35 is a bit more versatile so having both seemed expensive. I did my final portrait with the 35 and the results were nearly identical. The portraits with the 50 were just slightly more "natural" if that makes sense.
I would say that a 28mm would be a "better" general purpose focal length, but that's only 10 away from my 10-18 and 7 away from 35 and 35 is not bad for portraits as well so I figured that the 35 wins for more utility. Also, it's a 67mm lens just like the 10-18.

How was focus speed and consistency? You hear mixed results from other forum members on getting consistent focus. The 50mm EX is not fastest focusing lens. It's fine for portraits but I wish it was faster to give the lens more versatility/utility.

Keep in mind 10mm on the wide end is a lot! Going from 18 to 28 is pushing double the focal length.

Flawless in every way.

 

[Cory]

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?