Wallet full of $100 bills

...around 33 of them, to be exact. [:D]


Hi All,


That $3300 cash is
just itching to be converted into lenses...


Initially, I was planning on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and a carbon fiber monopod, and
putting the remainder toward the future purchase of a fast prime - 35L, 50 or
50L, 85L or 135L). However, some recent discussions (thanks, Brendan and Denise!) and
looking over my photo library, have me leaning toward getting the EF 24-105mm
f/4L, and wondering if I really need a 70-200mm zoom and if so, if it must be
f/2.8.


My current gear list includes:


EOS 7D with BG-E7 battery grip
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM
EF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM
EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LII USM
EF 1.4x II Extender


I don&rsquo;t shoot any one type of subject in particular. The majority of my shooting is around the house and on family outings, pics of my 2 year old daughter primarily &ndash;
candids and portraits, a mix of indoor and now that the weather is nicer,
outdoor shots. I also enjoy hiking around for nature shots, landscapes, flowers, wildlife, birds, etc., although I don&rsquo;t have as much free time for that as I&rsquo;d
like. Also, we&rsquo;ll be travelling to China in 2011, our first international
trip with a child along - meaning less space in the bags so I&rsquo;ll only be able
to take 2-3 'essential' lenses.


I love the 17-55mm focal length for most indoor shots, but in dim lighting f/2.8 isn&rsquo;t quite fast enough for ambient shots of a moving toddler. Outdoors, something longer
than 55mm would be nice, but the 200mm prime is a bit long for &lsquo;everyday&rsquo;
use.<span>


<span> Also, with the weather-sealed
7D body, I wouldn&rsquo;t mind doing some shooting in the rain &ndash; but currently, the
only weather-sealed lens in my kit is the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS.<span>I don&rsquo;t feel the need to spend the
entire amount on lenses right now &ndash; I&rsquo;m still wanting a CF monopod (~$250) for
use with the 100-400mm, and I rather like having a bit of ready cash on hand in
case something interesting pops up on Craigslist (like the EF-S 18-200mm that just came up for $425 including hood, which although not an ideal lens would certainly solve the trip to China space issues!).<span>


<span>So, with all of that in mind, here are some possible
combinations I&rsquo;m considering for purchase, along with the costs (I&rsquo;m including
the appropriately-sized B+W MRC UV filters in the totals):


1) EF 24-105mm f/4L
+ EF 35mm f/1.4L &ndash; a great outdoor walkaround lens plus a 'normal' (on a 1.6x
crop) fast prime for indoor ambient shots. Total cost = $2550.<span>


<span>2) EF 24-105mm f/4L + EF 70-200mm f/4L
IS + EF 50mm f1.4 (incl. hood) &ndash; gives me f/4 from 24-200mm (and sits just
above my 10-22mm), plus a fast (but non-L) prime, but which is also somewhat
close in focal length to my 85mm f/1.8. Total cost = $2800.<span>


<span>3) EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + EF 50mm
f1.4 (incl. hood) &ndash; throw caution to the wind and "Get the II", along
with a fast prime. Total cost = $3,050.<span>


<span>4) EF 24-105mm f/4L + EF 50mm f1.4 (incl. hood) + EF 135mm
f/2L - great outdoor walkaround lens, fast indoor prime, and I just really want
the EF 135mm f/2L! Total cost = $2600.<span>


<span>5) EF 24-105mm f/4L as kit lens with 5DII [;)] &ndash; not looking
for a second body as I still have more to learn with the 7D, but I figure
someone will suggest this so I&rsquo;ll include it preemptively. Total cost = $3300.


I&rsquo;m open to any and
all suggestions and advice, from anyone with experience with one or more of the
above lenses, or anyone who just wants to do a little vicarious shopping!<span>


<span>Feel free to vote for one of the above
combinations, or suggest a modification, or something completely different (but
not radically different, please! - Brendan, did I just hear you say to sell all
my lenses 100mm or longer, add the proceeds to the cash and get the EF 500mm
f/4L IS?!?<span>).


Thanks in advance!


--John

I vote for 3)


The 50 1.4 would be useful for the indoor ambient moving toddler pics. I use the lens for two running puppies at my parents place and have a pretty good hit rate on my 40D. 7D should make short work of it I'd have thought.


The 70-200 would fill the 55mm to 200mm gap you mention which I am sure you already know [;)] and I doubt the 2.8 II would ever disappoint.


Option 2 is tempting also as 24-105 plus 70-200 F4 IS is a nice light weight setup for your trip (I use the 24-105 as my single lens for travelling) but it is just for trips whereas you will likely appreciate the 70-200 2.8 II more (arguable the size of the margin) on an ongoing basis. I think my problem is I find it hard to recommend the 24-105 when you already have the 17-55 and would get a 70-200.


I will say as well though that the 70-200 F4 IS is very sweet. My father has it (I have the non IS 2.8L) and I often contemplate if I made the right decision. Each time I go back to Australia I give it a run and am always impressed. I generally find I need to go out with the 2.8L when I get back to London to remind myself that it can do wonderful things also [:S]!!!


This will be an interesting vote for sure I think

Personally, I would prefer the lens you already have (17-55 f/2.8 IS) as a general purpose lens to the 24-105 f/4 IS. Okay, the 24-105 has more reach. But I would think the wider angle and smaller f/number of the 17-55 would make it a better walk around lens. Can you remind me why you want the 24-105.


For photos of toddlers, I like the 70-200 range. I think f/4 would be good enough most of the time for this purpose if you like tight protraits, because children are small (so you need to stop down more to get them all in focus than you would for a similar shot of an adult... most people don't take this into account. On the other hand, if you want to do full body shots, though, f/2.8 will be handy at least some of the time. Also, since you mentioned that you don't shoot one type of subject in particular, I think you might want to err on the side of versatility and go for the f/2.8.


Some will say the fast prime is ideal for indoor pics of kids, and sometimes I do use them. But lately I've been leaning toward pics in the f/4 (which would be sort of like f/2.8 on a crop) range with IS (which would favor the 70-200 over the 35mm f/1.4). Your subject must be still for this to work, but at least you have enough DOF to get more than one eye in focus. All depends on what style picture you want to take, I guess.


I think I just babbled instead of giving you an answer. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Personally, I would prefer the lens you already have (17-55 f/2.8 IS) as a general purpose lens to the 24-105 f/4 IS...Can you remind me why you want the 24-105.

---

My (tentative) thinking was that the 17-55mm is the indoor general purpose lens, and the 24-105mm is the outdoor general purpose lens (focal length, but also weather sealing). One of my concerns about the 70-200 2.8 II is the size/weight - not for going on a hike, but say, for pics at the playground, where I often need to let the camera/lens dangle from my neck with both hands free to lift the little one onto a slide, etc.


Thanks!

John, could you first tell us why you're looking at each lens (i.e why you're getting it, what each lens does that your current one don't).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

...around 33 of them, to be exact. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]


Hi All,


That $3300 cash is
just itching to be converted into lenses...


Initially, I was planning on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and a carbon fiber monopod, and
putting the remainder toward the future purchase of a fast prime - 35L, 50 or
50L, 85L or 135L).

---

I say don't second guess and get the 70-200 2.8 ISII and save for the 35L.

The EF 24-105/4L IS is not going to give you anything significantly better than what you already have. While it is "weather-sealed," it is really nowhere as robust as you may be led to believe, due to the extending zoom design. It is not impervious to dust. It is also a relatively slow f/4, which in my experience has been its greatest limitation in terms of being able to control DOF.


I think it is a very common fallacy to assume one needs to have a continuous focal length range from ultrawide to super-telephoto. That's not a very good criterion by which one should select lenses.


I belong to the school of thought that the choice of lens mainly comes down to type of photography, but optical quality cannot be ignored. Yes, you have a gap from 55mm to 85mm. But honestly, is that range so important to cover? What kind of photography are you doing such that those focal lengths are absolutely required?


If you buy the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II, sell the EF 200/2.8L. You won't have any use for it. In fact, you could also sell off the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS. In its place you could get the 300/4L IS, which is much lighter and a full stop faster. Normally I'd recommend the 300/2.8L IS but I don't think you're going to carry that around much.


Do you own any Speedlites? If you don't, get one. Indoor family photography can be incredibly good if you simply learn how to diffuse your flash. Bounce it and you can get wonderful results. With the 7D, you can even make it an optical slave thanks to the pop-up flash. Don't rely on fast glass--it's not like you're taking indoor concert/event shots, or gymnastics, where flash is not an option and the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 200/2L are the lenses of choice. You could get the 35/1.4L, which will be a lovely lens, but the problem is that it's not cost-effective--by using it on a 7D, you are not taking advantage of the primary reason why the lens exists (and costs as much as it does). The fast wide-to-normal lenses are really all meant for 35mm sensors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

My (tentative) thinking was that the 17-55mm is the indoor general purpose lens, and the 24-105mm is the outdoor general purpose lens (focal length, but also weather sealing).

---

I took some great shots yesterday with my macro lens of the dogs running around the yard, it gives you the length and weather sealing. The 100mm F/2.8 L IS macro is more versatile than it gets credit for. Also, I really love my 50mm f/1.4 and I know you would enjoy it but you already have the 85mm. [^o)] I am thinking of selling my 300mm for the 24-105mm but I'm not even convinced that I need it ...but I'm working on it!

I'm on a monopod kick right now since I was at the park this weekend watching everyone with theirmonopods and the ease of use as I setup my tripod! So considering the frame of mind I'm in at the moment and all the lenses you already have, I'd go with a monopod and save the rest ..maybe snag a good deal or two on craigslist. I know ...BORING! [:P]


Denise

Keep saving, you are 1/3 of the way to getting a 800mm L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

One of my concerns about the 70-200 2.8 II is the size/weight - not for going on a hike, but say, for pics at the playground, where I often need to let the camera/lens dangle from my neck with both
hands free to lift the little one onto a slide, etc.

---

A legit concern. Also, I don't like to draw attention to myself when taking the kids to the park (after all, it's a trip to the park, not a photo session). I take my 24-105 on my 5DII. That's not so different from the 17-55 f/2.8 on a 7D. Not sure I would want something longer and slower, but obviously it's a very personal choice.


Usually, though, I think the 70-200 2.8 is a great outdoor zoom. I used mine (version I) on a rebel for a long time and it was my favorite lens (and remained so through two more cameras until the II came along)


I recommend going for a 70-200 zoom. On full frame, f/4 might be fine but for general purpose (and for many specific uses on a crop body), but for general purpose on a crop body, I would lean toward the more versatile f/2.8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scalesusa

Keep saving, you are 1/3 of the way to getting a
800mm L.

---

Imagine dangling that from your neck while lifting the kids onto a slide :)

I just noticed that your 70-200 f/2.8 II option includes a 50mm f/1.4. On a crop body, this is my favorite fast prime for indoor portraits (I admit this is *very* personal). So this option definitely gets my vote.

John, if you are still undecided........i will gladly accept your $100 bills, all 33 of them as a donation for my 7D, 100f/2.8L macro fund. and right now, it doesnt matter if they are american or canadian $100 bills lol


jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

The EF 24-105/4L IS is not going to give you anything significantly better than what you already have. While it is "weather-sealed," it is really nowhere as robust as you may be led to believe, due to the extending zoom design. It is not impervious to dust. It is also a relatively slow f/4, which in my experience has been its greatest limitation in terms of being able to control DOF.


I think it is a very common fallacy to assume one needs to have a continuous focal length range from ultrawide to super-telephoto. That's not a very good criterion by which one should select lenses.


I belong to the school of thought that the choice of lens mainly comes down to type of photography, but optical quality cannot be ignored. Yes, you have a gap from 55mm to 85mm. But honestly, is that range so important to cover? What kind of photography are you doing such that those focal lengths are absolutely required?


If you buy the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II, sell the EF 200/2.8L. You won't have any use for it. In fact, you could also sell off the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS. In its place you could get the 300/4L IS, which is much lighter and a full stop faster. Normally I'd recommend the 300/2.8L IS but I don't think you're going to carry that around much.


Do you own any Speedlites? If you don't, get one. Indoor family photography can be incredibly good if you simply learn how to diffuse your flash. Bounce it and you can get wonderful results. With the 7D, you can even make it an optical slave thanks to the pop-up flash. Don't rely on fast glass--it's not like you're taking indoor concert/event shots, or gymnastics, where flash is not an option and the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 200/2L are the lenses of choice. You could get the 35/1.4L, which will be a lovely lens, but the problem is that it's not cost-effective--by using it on a 7D, you are not taking advantage of the primary reason why the lens exists (and costs as much as it does). The fast wide-to-normal lenses are really all meant for 35mm sensors.

---

I tried to answer John's post but I found that wicker said everything I wanted to say much more eloquently. I second everything in wicker's post. 100%.


Denise, those shots of your dogs running are really fantastic. Try to avoid shadows, use fill flash but do not overexpose...


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Denise, those shots of your dogs running are really fantastic. Try to avoid shadows, use fill flash but do not overexpose...

---

Thanks Brendan. These are some of my first shots of them outside with this camera without snow on the ground and the sun shining! One minute they are in the shade of the fence and in a blink they are in direct sunlight. As soon as I adjust settings, white dog is gone and black dog is running at me which calls for more adjusting ...challenging but fun! [:)]

Denise

John,


I'd go with 5DII+24-105f/4L.Havingboth FF and APS-C body will get more out your EF lenses in terms of focal length. Having 85mm, 100mm and 200mmwillactually cover 85mm, 100mm, 136mm,160mm, 200mm, and 320mm, depending on thebody you have it on, and that is a pretty impressive range in decent increments. If you like 135 f/2L (on APS-C equivalent to 216mm and f/around4), the 200mm 2.8L on FF should be even better. Also,using 2 bodiessimultaneously should significantlydecrease your lens swapping time. Just a few thoughts...


I wouldthink aboutgetting the EF 50mm 1.4 down the road.


Also, whathever your decision is, consider renting and trying what you are interested in.


Good luck.


Pete

<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<span><o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]I'd keep saving and get a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"]Canon EF 300mm f/2.8[/b]<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"] L<span style="color: #000000;"] IS USM[/b]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]!!!<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]...but given the options you presented I'dtake #3 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"] L<span style="color: #222222;"] IS II USM[/b] &amp; <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt;"]Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.[/b]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt;"]<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"](I liked the red "<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #ff0000; font-size: 11pt;"]L[/b]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]"s so much I stole 'em!!!)<u1:p></u1:p><o:p></o:p>









</o:p>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

I think it is a very common fallacy to assume one needs to have a continuous focal length range from ultrawide to super-telephoto. That's not a very good criterion by which one should select lenses.

---

I don't have any aversion to gaps or overlaps in focal lengths. If I did, I'd be looking at the EF 28-300mm lens, instead! What I do have an aversion to is missing shots because of a need to change lenses when a particular lens doesn't have the right coverage for what I'm shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

In fact, you could also sell off the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS. In its place you could get the 300/4L IS, which is much lighter and a full stop faster.

---

LOL - too late! I sold my 300mm f/4L IS and bought the 100-400mm instead, precisely for the reason above. Most of my shots were at f/5.6 anyway, and I missed some because I was too close, and more because I was a little to far. An extra 8 oz. on a 3 pound lens isn't that much, I think, and I find myself much happier with the zoom range when out on a hike. If my goal was to shoot birds in flight, and only birds in flight, the 100-400mm would be the wrong lens and I'd have the 400mm f/5.6L. But my interests are more varied. The prime was a nice lens, but I was hampered by it's lack of versatility for what I was shooting. It helped that I bought the 300mm prime used (Craigslist), and at such a good price that I actually made $150 when I sold it. [:#]
<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Yes, you have a gap from 55mm to 85mm. But honestly, is that range so important to cover? What kind of photography are you doing such that those focal lengths are absolutely required?

---

</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>


It's notreally about 'covering' the gap - it's about getting from wider than that to tighter than that quickly and without changing lenses.





To your other points, yes, I have a 430EX II with a diffuser and I pretty much always bounce it indoors, and our ceilings are white. I get shots with that and the 17-55mm that I really like. But, sometimes I prefer the ambience of natural indoor light.
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>



<div>I'd also like to future-proof myself to the extent possible - I have a two year old girl, and she's already doing ballet, gymsters, music classes, etc. - recitals, gymnastics, etc., are very likely coming soon (much sooner that I'd like, actually!). Thus the f/2.8 zoom or the even faster primes.</div>



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

John, could you first tell us why you're looking at each lens (i.e why you're getting it, what each lens does that your current one don't).

---

</div>



<div>The EF 24-105mm for outdoor general use - outside, I almost always have room to back up, so I can forego the 17-24mm range. But I often find I want to get tighter framing quicker than my feet will allow, and 55mm isn't enough on the long end. But, I don't want to give up the wide end, and the 100mm Macro, which Denise points out is a very useful lens, has shown me that I don't need longer than that for 'everyday' use. An example would be standing a short way away from my wife and daughter, taking a shot of my wife watching our daughter doing something adorable, then zooming in for a close up of my daughter. Unless my goal is outdoor portraits, I'd be at f/4 or narrower anyway, and if my goal was portraits, I'd be using the 85mm f/1.8, probably, with an ND filter if necessary for a shallow DOF.</div>



<div>The EF 35mm f/1.4L would be for low light, indoor family shots with ambient light. The 50mm f/1.4 is a cheaper substitute for that, and I'm a bit concerned that it's too close to the 85mm f/1.8, which I absolutely love for indoor portraits (and outdoor ones, too!). But, the 85mm is too long for group shots indoors, and 30mm seems like a good 'compromise' length. 50mm is 'normal' for a reason.</div>



<div>The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II would be for outdoor use for now, until those indoor events like gymnastics start cropping up. It would provide a high-quality, faster zoom with weather sealing (compared to the 100-400mm) (good for low-light winter days), and with a the 1.4x II Extender, an f/4 ~100-300mm weather-sealed zoom with excellent IQ. I'd still want the extra reach of the 100-400mm on a brightly lit day, though. My reasons for considering the f/4 IS version boil down to cost (getting other lenses concurrently) and the size/weight of the f/2.8 version. It's a compromise, and frankly I suspect that if I get the f/4 now, I'll find myself wanting the f/2.8 down the line. I don't know that I agree with Wickerprints' suggestion that I'd have no use for the 200mm f/2.8 prime if I has the 70-200mm zoom. On an outing where pictures weren't the primary reason, I could see tossing the 200mm prime in the bag just in case I needed something long - at half the size and weight of the 70-200 zoom, that would work (I've done it already). The 70-200 f/2.8 and 100-400mm aren't lenses to 'bring along in case' - I (and everyone else) will know they're there.</div>



<div>The 135mm f/2L, honestly, I just want it. It's not at the top of my list, so it's one of those that would likely be an opportunistic Craigslist purchase rather than ordering a new one.</div>



<div>One more very minor point in favor of the 24-105 + 35L - it puts off a choice of a different kind. Right now, I can probably find a way to fit those two additional lenses into my Flipside 400AW, and carry all my lenses on my back. There's no way that's going to work with two big, white zoom lenses...</div>



<div>Wickerprints, I think you summed it up nicely:</div>



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

the choice of lens mainly comes down to type of photography, but optical quality cannot be ignored

---

</div>



<div>So, to take that to its logical extension, if I want good optical quality, and I'm going to engage in a wide variety of types of photography (casual memories, portraits, landscapes, travel, animals, birds, flowers, macro, etc.), then I'm going to need a wide variety of lenses. Right?</div>

I'll sell 100-400mm and 200mm2.8 and get 300mm2.8, I also think you might need a second body, 35mm1,4L is nice but you already have 17-55mm, I guess you don't use your 85mm 1.8 a lot, but I'll still keep it since it's so sharp and inexpensive. just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

The 135mm f/2L, honestly, I just want it

---

I want to laugh at a clear case of the L disease but I have to admit I also want this lens badly for no reason other than its awesome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

One of my concerns about the 70-200 2.8 II is the size/weight - not for going on a hike, but say, for pics at the playground, where I often need to let the camera/lens dangle from my neck with both hands free to lift the little one onto a slide, etc.

---

John, If you do decide on the 70-200 II, one of the black rapid straps would solve your problems regarding keeping your hands available for "quick toddler grabs". I use mine with a 100-400 and it works great and is very comfortable.


I also like your #4 Line up. The 24-104 is ideal for outdoor walkaround on a crop body--I have one and love it. The 135L provides that beautiful bokeh and outstanding IQ for those special and artistic moments and the 50 gives you the low-light ability when needed.----But.......It would be very hard for me to pass up the 70-200 II if I was in your position [:S].


Good luck,


Bob

Thanks, Bob!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

If you do decide on the 70-200 II, one of the black rapid straps would solve your problems regarding keeping your hands available for "quick toddler grabs". I use mine with a 100-400 and it works great and is very comfortable.

---

I looked at the BlackRapid system a while back - it looks very appealing and comfortable, but I was reluctant to go that route because of the inconvenience of swapping out the FastenR-2 for the QR plates on the body or tripod foot. Some people apparently just connect the ConnectR-2 to the D-ring on the tripod QR plate, but i'm sure that thumbscrew is not designed to take the weight. I considered using the BR strap just for the white lens(es), attached to the tripod foot, but assuming I get the 695CX monopod, I'd get a 234 QR tilt-head for that, and be looking at a front-heavy monopod when attaching it to the camera, or still swapping plate forFastenR.


However, I think a BlackRapid strap will be a future purchase - according to BlackRapid's forum/blog, in addition to the new FasterR-3 that's now in production (one piece design instead of a D-ring), they're expecting to have FastenR's specifically for QR plates. Once those are available, life will be good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

I also like your #4 Line up. The 24-104 is ideal for outdoor walkaround on a crop body--I have one and love it. The 135L provides that beautiful bokeh and outstanding IQ for those special and artistic moments and the 50 gives you the low-light ability when needed.----But.......It would be very hard for me to pass up the 70-200 II if I was in your position

---

Yeah, it's a bit of a dilemma... But, on the balance I'd rather have too many choices than too few! I'm still grappling a bit with the duplication in the general purpose range (i.e. having the 17-55mm f/2.8 andthe24-105mm f/4L).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I looked at the BlackRapid system a while back - it looks very appealing and comfortable, but I was reluctant to go that route because of the inconvenience of swapping out the FastenR-2 for the QR plates on the body or tripod foot

---

Absolutely right, I had a similar problem as well. When I bought my RRS tripod head, I also bought the RRS camera plate---My plate (7D)had a threaded hole in it that accepetd the d-ring swivel on the black rapid strap----works great, and I don't have to remove my camera plate.----Just a thought.


Bob

Go 5DII + 24-105... That's what I would do. Two good bodies... better than one.





Dave.

Here's my vote!: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L II USM &amp; 50mm f/1.4 II USM.


I one the original of the 70-200 and I also own the 50 II and they are both dead sexy! I'd save the rest of the money for a FF camera down the road, as Pete has it right by saying you'll get more focus lengths from your EF primes. I'd just wait for the next FF body as I think one will be out by years end. I, too, have the 7D (and 50D) and love the 50mm f/1.4 on it. I used to have the 1.8 but the 1.4 is much better. I've used the 50 f/1.2 and it's better yet, but not better for the price. Too expensive for what you get. The 70-200 f/2.8 (I or II) would be worth the price FOR SURE so I wouldn't hesitate to get it! The 135 f/2 is also a dead sexy lens I want badly, but sounds like you might not need it with the lenses you have. Just my suggestions!


- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

Hey John,





not even one tilt-shift in your list? [:P]


Wow anyway you've got some money to spend and already have a few very nice lenses. Personally I wouldn't go for the 24-105 on crop just for the extra advantage of weather-sealing. You're 17-55 will do just fine.


A 5D2 is something I wouldn't do either. Well I did, but as a main-body, not a second one. Then you'll be having 2 brilliant bodies and you probably would use only 1 most of the time. That would be a waste in my eyes. Unless you need to change to wideangle very quickly, I wouldn't do that.


A 70-200 seems like a lens you would definitely enjoy. 2.8 though isn't really necesary since you've already got fast lenses in this focal range. f4 would do great for most of the time and when you think you really need f2.8 you can always switch. A 70-200 f4L IS might be great. Also a lot more handy ;) about half the size of the big canon and sharp from f4 on, plus weathersealing which makes it an ideal rainlens :P But if you're afraid that you might miss the 2.8 aperture you shouldn't do it.


A 50mm fast prime is a nice addition, I just ordered the sigma 50mm 1.4 myself. Hopefully I don't have AF problems, and then I'll be a happy man. Else I'll just return it for a Canon [:D] But in my opinion, aside from the AF, the sigma is way better and more usable at bigger apertures.


A 35 1.4L....dude awesome! I've seen some shots from Keith and I bet you can be very happy with it. Perhaps even more than with a 50mm prime.


Wow though decision.


I think I would go for a 35mm 1.4 with a 135mm 2.0 Or a MP-E-65 with twinflash or a TS-E 24mm f3.5 L II with some stuff or another lens.


Really I don't think I can help you out here haha [:D] You already have such a great line-up of lenses, that I would buy something radically different if I had the money, just to make my photos more interesting.


Good luck with deciding, I hope you get some sleep [A]


Jan

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions! Keep them coming, if anyone has more to add!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

I say don't second guess and get the 70-200 2.8 ISII and save for the 35L.

---

This is where I'm leaning right now. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and a CF monopod for now. Still not certain on the 35mm f/1.4L vs. 50mm f/1.4 - but, if I get the 70-200 II and wait until I've got enough set aside for the 35L, I can decide at that point (35L or 50 1.4 and ... ?). Also, the 35mm f/1.4L is getting a bit long in the tooth (though not as long as the 50mm f/1.4!). All of the under-100mm EF L primes have been updated to a MkII version in the last 4 years, except the 35L. That, combined with rumors of an update to the 50mm f/1.4 (I'd certainly prefer ring USM in that lens), suggest I may want to wait on the purchase of a fast 'normal' prime anyway. In the meantime, I'll shoot for a few indoor sessions with my 17-55mm set to 35mm, and a few sessions with it set to 50mm, and see which I prefer from a focal length perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salazarbrujo

I forgot to ask,if allowed? What is your fiscal secret? Dipping in to the retirement fund? Stocks,bonds, or poor man taxes(lottery), or plain old work and save?

---

Dip into the retirement fund, goodness no - that gets 6% of my income off the top, every month (with company matching on top of that!). I'm not quite 40 yet, but if and when I do retire, I want to be able to continue traveling, buying lenses, etc.! Mostly, it's consulting that I do 'on the side' - for example, after a 30 minute consulting call this afternoon, I'll be another $100 closer to that 35L (or whatever). [:)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

The EF 24-105/4L IS is not going to give you anything significantly better than what you already have.

---

I got to thinking about my upcoming trip to China, and imagining what I'd do when faced with choosing between the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and an EF 24-105mm f/4L. I decided that if I was going to take the 24-105mm, I'd also need to take the EF-S 10-22mm for the wide end, and since I'd also be bringing a longer lens (100-400mm or 70-200mm), that would be three lenses instead of just 2. With the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I'd have f/2.8 coverage from 17-200mm with IS and excellent IQ across the range (and I could find room for the 1.4x II to go to 280mm f/4).



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

A 70-200 seems like a lens you would definitely enjoy. 2.8 though isn't really necesary since you've already got fast lenses in this focal range. f4 would do great for most of the time and when you think you really need f2.8 you can always switch....But if you're afraid that you might miss the 2.8 aperture you shouldn't do it.

---

I am afraid I'd miss the extra stop. I think if I went for the f/4 IS, I'd find it hard to justify getting the f/2.8 down the line, even if I really wanted that extra stop. I'd rather have the versatility from the outset, even with the size/weight penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

A 50mm fast prime is a nice addition, I just ordered the sigma 50mm 1.4 myself.

---

Nice! Let us know how it works out for you.
</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I am afraid I'd miss the extra stop. I think if I went for the f/4 IS, I'd find it hard to justify getting the f/2.8 down the line, even if I really wanted that extra stop. I'd rather have the versatility from the outset, even with the size/weight penalty.

---

Then you really shouldn't buy the f4 version. That's my advice. Point is that the 2.8 is has a really big weight/size penalty and if it is also for spontaneous photos of your wife and kid, it might let you down in some occasions. On the other hand the f4 has it's negatives as well. But if you strongly feel like needing the f2.8 you should go for that. In fact you know big lenses and how they handle so it's shouldn't be to hard to decide. a 100-400 at 100mm is pretty much as big/heavy as the 70-200 2.8 so if you're happy with that lens for those conditions, you're just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

A 50mm fast prime is a nice addition, I just ordered the sigma 50mm 1.4 myself.

---

Nice! Let us know how it works out for you.

---

I'll certainly do that! I was really having a hard time to decide to go sigma or not. Most reviews are kinda old and price was a big negative. Nowadays sigma and canon cost about the same and I just want the best quality. Hopefully the AF isn't as bad as Bryan experienced. If so I can just bring it back. Anyway I'm looking forward to it!


Thanks [Y]


And let us know what you've decided when you do!

Having read this entire thread, 2 thoughts come to mind. First, I
wish I had your problem! Second, this all sounds very complicated!


You've got lots of focal lengths to play with but, frankly, it sounds almost like you're burning money just to be burning it. I'm just as much of a techno photographer as the next guy, but one thing I've discovered from a vacation to Italy and chasing my child around the playground and house--I really dislike changing lenses all the time. I prefer to pick the one lens that will work for the majority of the event and leave it on unless I feel compelled to change. That philosophy tends to make primes less useful.


So, I simplified. My gear includes only 3 essential lenses:

• Canon 7D with Grip
• 12-24/4.0 Tokina (a very nice lens)
  
• 24-70/2.8L
• 70-200/2.8L
• 1.4 Extender
• Extension tubes
• 580EXII Speedlight

I got rid of my primes since I always had to force myself to use them anyway. I personally prefer the flexibility of zooms, and I especially like the smaller load of only three lenses to carry around instead of 5 or 6 (even though those 5 or 6 might be lighter).


I'm a BIG fan of constant aperture, zoom lenses. Sure, 2.8 is overkill most of
the time, but when I don't have it is when I feel like I'll need it. For the longest time, I wanted the 24-105/4.0. But, after walking around with a 4.5-5.6 kit lens, then renting a 2.8, I realized that I never wanted anything else, nor did I want to just go halfway at 4.0.


I don't mind walking around the playground/gym/etc with the 70-200/2.8 on my shoulder. It is my favorite and by far most used lens. The 12-24 is my second most. I do wish it were a 2.8 and I tried the 11-16/2.8 from Tokina, but I ended up always using the 16 end and wanting a bit more. So I compromised my 2.8 rule for the 12-24 and it quickly found its way into the rotation. The 24-70 is my least used by far.


I rented a 100/2.8L iS Macro. I loved it, and it will be my next lens somewhere in the future.
After that, I don't know... we'll see what my daughter gets into and
STICKS with to decide whether I need a 2.0 prime or a 300/2.8, etc.


I love the 7D, as I'm sure you do. I like that I get a longer effective focal length and I don't miss the lack of a wide angle with the 24-70, especially since I can go super wide with the 12-24 when the need arises. I won't even consider a 5D at this point. Someday far away, I'll go with a 1.3 crop, but I probably won't ever touch a full frame.


I know I'm not really giving advice as to how to blow a wad of $100s, but just sharing my perspective since it seems that you and I are likely very similar photographers. If I had to give advice, I'd say, don't worry about the gap from 55-70. Get the 70-200/2.8 and ditch the 200/2.0 and the 100-400. Consider ditching the 85/1.8 as well (do you really ever use it?). Then put the net $$ towards a 300 or 400/2.8 or 500/4.0.


Good luck,


Jeremy
Frisco, TX

Nice reply Jeremy! I like how simple and stream-lined your bag is. Only the essentials! I have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and I love it, but it is a bit limited being only 5mm of focal range. I tend to use it in the middle of it's range the most (12-14mm). All my lenses are 2.8 or faster, as I think that's really necessary (though I do really like the 300mm f/4!). A Macro would be a great addition to your kit. Yeah this guy's got some nice gear, but almost too much in my opinion. Like you said, i wish I had his problem ;)


Do you have a website Jeremy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

3) EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + EF 50mm f1.4 (incl. hood) &ndash; throw caution to the wind and "Get the II", along with a fast prime. Total cost = $3,050.<span>
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I would alsoconsider selling the EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L. I can't imagine where the marginal increase in sharpness would make we want to use a equal speed prime over a zoom. Sure, it's lighter and a little less obtrusive but it's lack of IS (much bigger deal to me on a crop body) washes that out in my opinion. Once you get used to carrying a 3lb lens around it's really not that big of a deal. My 2lb 24-70mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L feels light to me :-)


The 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens to have in your bag. It's small, light and super fast...not to mention providing excellent IQ. Whether you get it now or later it's a no-brainer to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsridout

First, I
wish I had your problem!

---

Agreed! [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsridout

You've got lots of focal lengths to play with but, frankly, it sounds almost like you're burning money just to be burning it.

---

Well, sort of. John, I may be wrong, but it seems to me like you're trying to cover too many bases. You're going to miss shots, that's a given. It seems like you're trying to proof yourself from this by buying more lenses. Believe me, a perfect combo of lenses is propped up next to that fountain of youth. Until Canon makes a 14-800mm f/1.4 lens, though.


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsridout

I personally prefer the flexibility of zooms, and I especially like the smaller load of only three lenses to carry around instead of 5 or 6

---

Hi Jeremy,


Welcome to the forums, and thanks for your insightful comments! I do like the simplified lens collection, and zooms are clearly called for there. There's a reason the 16-35mm f/2.8L + 24-70mm f/2.8L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS are considered the 'holy trinity' of zoom lenses - f/2.8 and spanning 16-200mm. On a crop body, I think the 10-22mm, 17-55mm, and 70-200mm f/2.8 represent a similar trinity (though I'd prefer a faster UWA, most of what I use that lens for are landscapes where I'm stopped down anyway). I know I'll never miss the 55-70mm range, but I'd not want to give up the 17-24mm range on my 17-55mm 'walkaround' lens. I shoot in the 17-24mm part of that lens' range a lot. I think the combination of the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 (IS II) is a formidable 2-lens combo that will meet the bulk of my shooting needs - but not all of them.


I also think primes have their place. If I was forced to choose, I'd go with zooms for versatility. But sometimes f/2.8 just isn't wide enough, either for low light with moving subjects, or for a really strong OOF blur in a portrait. There's also a reason the 35mm f/1.4L, the 85mm f/1.2L, and the 135mm f/2L are the 'holy trinity' of primes! I do still use my EF 85mm f/1.8 - when I want to shoot close-up portraits of my daughter, for example. I've gotten some wonderful shots with that lens - indoor, ambient light where the couch 2 feet behind her face is blurred to an abstract color pattern, with a shutter speed that is still fast enough to freeze her motion and emotion, and those are shots I couldn't have gotten with an f/2.8 zoom short of ISO 6400. The need for a dedicated macro lens is rather obvious, if one intends to shoot macro. Although they're not on my current list (I'd have no idea what to do with one...yet), the TS-E lenses allow for substantial creativity and fill an important niche for particular types of shooting.


So, overall I agree that a small set of high-quality zooms is the most useful overall, in particular for travel/family/documentary shooting. However, for other types of shooting, other lenses come into play. The 100-400mm is really a great lens for wildlife - a 200mm lens just doesn't have the reach, even on a crop body. The fast supertelephoto primes are even better for that - but priced rather steep for me as a non-pro shooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

Yeah this guy's got some nice gear, but almost too much in my opinion.

---

I'm firmly of the opinion that there's no such thing as too much gear. Too much to carry at once, sure. But too much? Naah. [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

I would alsoconsider selling the EF 200mm f/2.8<span>L. I can't imagine where the marginal increase in sharpness would make we want to use a equal speed prime over a zoom. Sure, it's lighter and a little less obtrusive but it's lack of IS (much bigger deal to me on a crop body) washes that out in my opinion. Once you get used to carrying a 3lb lens around it's really not that big of a deal.

---

Thanks, Mark - I may end up there down the line, but the jury's still out, and will be for a while after I get the 70-200 II. It's not the weight/size difference that matters in terms of that lens, but carrying another lens on an outing. For me, there are three kinds of outings, 1) no real reason to bring a camera and/or no convenient way to do so; 2) something where the main purpose is not photography, but photo op's are going to happen; and 3) going out specifically to shoot pictures.


For #1, the solution is my P&amp;S with a 10x optical zoom. Fits in a pocket or the glove box, maximum convenience, minimum obtrusiveness. For #3, I load up the Flipside 400AW with every lens that will fit, strap the tripod on the back (and/or the forthcoming monopod on the side), and go. Those are the easy ones. #2 requires more thought - I decide on the main purpose, pick the main lens, and add supplementals until I'm out of room. Indoor playdate? 17-55mm on the body, 85mm f/1.8 and 430EX II flash. Short, scenic hike with family? Still probably the 17-55mm on the body, also the 10-22mm and the 200mm f/2.8 prime. Or the 70-200 f/2.8 and only the 70-200mm f/2.8, based on space requirements in the belt pack (often, my toddler will be in a back-carrier for those hikes, for now at least).


So, I think I'll have uses for the 200mm f/2.8L prime, even after I get the 70-200 MkII. Time will tell. As you probably recall, I got such a great deal on a used copy of that lens that it won't bother me to let it sit around for a while to see if I have a need.


I'm sure I'll get the 50mm f/1.4 sooner or later, though. A great value and a great lens!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

John, I may be wrong, but it seems to me like you're trying to cover too many bases.

---

I think you're probably right, Brendan, but I don't have a particular problem with that. Lots of folks say that your camera is just a tool, something good to keep in mind. But in the world of repair, sometimes you need a 12" long, 5/16 star-head center-pin hex driver, and that's the only thing that will get the job done. Now to me, that's like an MP-E 65mm or a TS-E lens - very, very specialized and not something that belongs in everyone's kit. Zooms are like crescent wrenches and screwdrivers, and primes would be torque wrenches and metric allen keys - not everyone needs them, but they can sure come in handy in certain situations. I don't have a torque wrench, though... [;)] ...but, believe it or not, I actuallydo have a5/16 star-head center-pin hex driver!


Also, to me it sometimes spurs creativity. On some photo outings, I don't 'bring everything and the kitchen sink'. I bring the 100mm macro and the tripod. Or the 10-22mm and the tripod.


_____________________________


Thanks once again to everyone for the opinions and advice. My desire for the 24-105 f/4L IS has waned substantially, and my desire for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is as strong as ever!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I think you're probably right, Brendan, but I don't have a particular problem with that. Lots of folks say that your camera is just a tool, something good to keep in mind. But in the world of repair, sometimes you need a 12" long, 5/16 star-head center-pin hex driver, and that's the only thing that will get the job done. Now to me, that's like an MP-E 65mm or a TS-E lens - very, very specialized and not something that belongs in everyone's kit. Zooms are like crescent wrenches and screwdrivers, and primes would be torque wrenches and metric allen keys - not everyone needs them, but they can sure come in handy in certain situations.

---

If you know what you'll be shooting, a prime is the way to go. They're not outdated, sometimes-useful lenses. Until zooms can give me the same IQ at the same price, there is a huge niche for primes. I meant you're trying to cover too many bases (zooms or not) so that you'll buy so many lenses you'll never miss a shot. Good luck [:P]


At this point the 70-200 f/2.8 does seem like a good choice IMO.


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

If you know what you'll be shooting, a prime is the way to go. They're not outdated, sometimes-useful lenses. Until zooms can give me the same IQ at the same price, there is a huge niche for primes.

---

Agreed. Both have their purpose, and a place in my kit, for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

At this point the 70-200 f/2.8 does seem like a good choice IMO.

---

Thanks for the endorsement, Brendan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

If you
know what you'll be shooting, a prime is the way to go. They're not
outdated, sometimes-useful lenses. Until zooms can give me the same IQ
at the same price, there is a huge niche for primes.

---

Agreed. Both have their purpose, and a place in my kit, for sure.

---

Though if you already *have* the zoom that gives you the same or better iq than the prime, price is not an issue. (Weight may still be, of course).


Just curious... why aren't you considering full frame? It might actually save you money in the long run. For example, the 50mm f/1.4 is cheaper and effectively faster and, unless I'm mistaken, will give you better IQ on full frame than the 35 f/1.4 on the 7D. You say you want the 135mm f/2? The 200mm f/2.8 you already have or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II you're thinking of getting on full frame are effectively slightly faster and will give better IQ than the 135mm f/2 on the 7D. Etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Just curious... why aren't you considering full frame?

---

Good point! Primarily because I want the extra reach (due to the crop), shooting speed, and better AF of the 7D. It's not 1-series AF, but it's pretty darn good, and the price is right. I can see having a 5D (MkIII?) down the line, though, for portrait/landscape shooting.

An alternate take: I would spend the money going somewhere great to take pictures.





Your gear is already looking good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barba

An alternate take: I would spend the money going somewhere great to take pictures.

---

Ah, freedom. I seem to recall it dimly, somewhere in the far reaches of my distant past...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I'm firmly of the opinion that there's no such thing as too much gear. Too much to carry at once, sure. But too much? Naah. [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

---

OK then, why are you asking this question? Just buy the 70-200 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 5D Mark II, 135 f/2 and heck a 500 f/4 right now. Since there is no such thing as too much gear.


One of the things more gear does is ensure you'll never figure out how to take a good picture, just how to get gear to do it for you.

I think many of us will agree that Vincent Laforet is a pretty good photographer and he's an admitted "gear head". Check out some pictures of the various lenses he uses here.