I'm looking to revamp my kit before the year is up, how's this end result look?

Currently, my setup looks like this.
T3i w/grip
18-55mm
55-250mm
50mm f1.4
100mm Macro
11-16mm Tokina

I'm thinking of making the jump to full frame and I think the following setup will have most of my bases covered, but not necessarily excelling in one area. Any suggestions otherwise would be greatly appreciated.

5D Mark III w/grip
16-35mm
24-105mm
100-400mm
50mm f/1.4
100mm Macro

The only thing I can see myself doing differently from above is the 17-40mm instead of the 16-35.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Sounds line a great kit. Thought about a flash? Have a good tripod?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Sounds line a great kit. Thought about a flash? Have a good tripod?

---

17-40 over 16-35, $$'s towards a 580exII:)

Sounds pretty similar to the kit I'm working towards. I'm in the process of upgrading the 7d & 15-85 for the 5d3 & 24-105. I also have the 50 1.4, 100 macro and am saving for the 17-40. Main difference with my kit is I have the 70-200L f4 IS and 1.4 extender and not the 100-400. I also have 580 and 430 flashes which is something you should definitely consider, especially since the 5d3 does not have a pop-up flash.

Stephen

David,

You are basically describing my kit as of this February. I have the 5DIII, 24-105, 100-400L, 50 f/1.4, and 100 mm L macro. I do have the 580 EX II and tripod and would recommend both. I don't have a wide angle lens anymore, as I used the EFS 10-22 on my 7D. While I am still getting used to this kit, thus far, I am very happy with it and would recommend it to others.

But, of course, that hasn't stopped me from plotting improvements;). So, bestw ay for me to comment on your proposed kit is to comment on ways I am thinking of improving on my own. Areas I am thinking of modifying:

• Wide Angle. I am debating between the Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 and the Canon 17-40 f/4. Thus far wide angle isn't something I shoot very much, so this probably won't be my next lens except for the fact that both are very affordable. The Samyang is $300-$400 and I just saw a refurbished 17-40 go by for ~$570 on the Canon store.
  
• Faster general purpose lens. I am very impressed with the 24-105, but I am considering eventually either keeping the 24-105 and adding primes in that range or going to the 24-70 f/2.8 II. It is hard to miss how many times and how high up the 24-70 f/2.8 II has made Bryan's "Top Lens" lists and, of course, the DoF/lower light benefits. But also, there is the AF issue. I can tell the difference in low light focusing from when I have the 50 f/1.4 on vs the 24-105. The difference is that the 50 f/1.4, being f/2.8 or faster, falls into the "Group A" category of lenses for the 5DIII being able to use all 61 AF points but also activating the five f/2.8 dual cross type AF points down the center column. The 24-105 is a "Group C" lens and can use all 61 AF points, but only the single cross type down the center (I believe f/5.6 sensitive) and not the f/2.8 sensitive "dual" cross type AF points. As I said, in low light, around the house I can tell the difference.
  
• A 70-200 lens with extenders. This very well could be my next lens. Maybe not for a little while, but I can see this is a great focal length on a FF camera. Of course, the debate will be between the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 70-200 f/4 IS. I can't get out of my head how good a kit would be of 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 II and a 2x extender on the 5DIII. Three lenses (counting the extender) that is both fast (f/2.8) between 24 mm and 200 mm and long (out to 400 mm at f/5.6). I like simple, compact, and flexible. That would be all three.

• The release of the 100-400 II or 400 mm f/5.6 IS. Depending upon the optics, either of these releases could easily cause me to change my plans.

• Big White lens. Someday...:cool:

• 24 mm Tilt Shift. I am waiting for someone to review the recently released Samyang, but if it isn't great, then someday, the Canon 24 mm II.

Ok, that was fun. But, I may also simply continue with my current kit as I am very happy with it. It does need a bit more speed, so I can see at least adding a prime lens here or there, say a 35 mm prime, maybe a 24 mm or 85 mm.

Anyways, good luck with your plotting.

Brant

Brant,
I'm working toward the same, just way behind ...


Arnt

I´m sure you will be very happy with the line up you describe, but there are always alternatives. I have the 16-35mm and I use it very seldom. My most used lens at this time is the 24-70 f2.8L II. Expensive yes, but quality is stunning. For wide angel shots, I very often use stitching. the 24-70 set to 50mm, portrait on a tripod and 3-5 shot series produces some stunning results (as long as nothing moves across the shots). It is also, from an artistic perspective, more fun, because it requires planning and thinking beyond the single shot.
I would also consider swapping the 100-400 with the 70-200 f2.8l II and a 2xIII extender. From both an IQ perspective and versatility perspective, I believe that is superior to the 100-400. You could also think of swapping the 50 f1.4 with a Sigma 35 f1.4. That is the best value for money lens I know.
I always carry a flash, but after I got the 1DX and the 5DIII I havn´t used it one single time.
If you are pushing your budget, I would skip the 16-35 and the grip and go for the higher quality glass.
Good luck and keep us posted ;)
Eldar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

...

---

First off, thank you all for your responses, I wasn't expecting so many in such a short time.

JRW, I am leaning more towards the 16-35 mostly for the aperture. Most of the wide stuff I shoot isn't landscapes, but local shows where there is low light and a flash isn't always allowed depending on the venue. Though the 17-40 is lighter both on camera and on the wallet, I see myself getting the faster of the two lenses.

In regard's to the 24-105, I like that lens alot as a starting point not only because I am getting it fairly cheap paired with the MkIII instead of getting it separately, I also like how it has a slight overlap on both other lenses, so, on the lower end atleast, I'll have to do less swapping. For the long end, I plan on getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 down the line, but I am going for the 100-400 first because of both cost, and the fact that I want the long end as well.

The macro may get replaced down the line, but for right now it does what I need it to do and it does it well so I see no need to replace it just yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Sounds line a great kit. Thought about a flash? Have a good tripod?

---

I have a 320EX right now, and a cheaper, but solid tripod. I do plan on upgrading both in the future, but I don't do enough flash or tripod shooting to justify upgrading those before the items I have listed already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

...

---

Great minds think alike, eh? ;)
Like I said earlier, I want, almost need the wide angle, so that will definitely be staying a part of my kit. I love my Tokina too much not to have a super wide in it. Plus, it will work terrifically for shooting shows.

As for the 24-105 vs the 24-70 2.8, I would love to have the latter, paired with a 70-200 2.8 and an extender like you suggested, but at this point it's more cost efficient for me to go with the 105 and the 100-400. The rumored 100-400 4-5.6 does sound real nice though, especially if it's a twist design.

A TS lens? I don't think I'm ready for something like that yet, although I could see myself having a lot of fun with one.


Thank you to everyone once again! Any more input is welcome. I apologize if I didnt directly address, or if I missed any points, but I just got home from work and I'm beat. Thanks guys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Sounds line a great kit. Have a good tripod?

---

The one thing I noticed when moving from crop & EF-S lens is the weight - Tripod & head needs the step up. Annoyingly expensive, but working with "pro" level gear, the tripod/head/locking moves from something that has to be fiddled with to get right to avoid sagging to -0- concern and therefore worth it as now I concentrate on the subject.

If you are not shooting landscapes on the wide side, then it seems to me the fast wide prime gets some serious consideration. Even the 40mm 2.8 stomps on the 24-105 for image quality once you leave the center of the frame. I mention this to poke your thoughts of a wide prime vs. a wide zoom. I am really considering very very strongly one of the fast wide primes.

My FF set up is the 24-105, 50 1.8, 40 2.8 (really sits on the T3i for "street" & jacket pocket portability) 70-200 II and the 2x III. JRW and I had limited (I suck as a photo guide) fun with his 2x III and it convinced me that it was the way to go on my budget.

Happy pics

Mike

One added comment, which is an important one in my book, concerns the 5DIII AF system. If you get the 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400, none of them will take full advantage of the AF system of the 5DIII. A 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 would.

Also, just an observation, it seems to me you are looking at the 5DIII as the long term investment and the glass as something you will swap in the not to distant future. I believe you should reconsider. Glass lasts much much longer than a body. Ref. a 6D outperforms a 1DsIII on everything but weather sealing, at a fraction of the price. In a couple of years you will see a very high megapixel camera with 1DX class performance, around the 5DIII price mark. I believe you would want to have the higher quality glass then.