Planning my lens kit

Hi All,


after rapidly buying 2 cameras and 5 lenses (of which 1 camera and 4 lenses remain), there were a couple of months without buying anything ... well, except for the pair of D-lites ;-) ... but I'm now afflicted by another wave of L-fever, and it's getting stronger by the day!


Now, I don't expect that anybody here can tell me what the right solution for me is, everybody has to choose for themselves, including me, but I'm making this post anyhow, because I hope that it'll help me bring some order into my thoughts, because somebody might make some helpful comment on their experience with a similar lens kit, and because I just need somebody to "listen" that will understand what I'm talking about ;-)


Currently I have the 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8 II, 24-70 and 70-200 f/4 IS. Now, which problems am I trying to solve?


Some unanticipated negative effects of the 500D to 5D2 transition, whereby I lost my crop factor ... although, in total, there were of course more positive effects.


The 85 f/1.8 was really good for portraits and quite useful for some more candid "longer range" indoor non-flash use on the 500D; now on the 5D2 I need to cover the same equivalent focal length of 135mm with the 70-200, which has quite an aperture disadvantage; even if I compensate for the sensor sizes, it's still about a stop slower.


So I'm thinking about (a) getting a 135 f/2, (b) "exchanging" the 70-200 f/4 IS for a 70-200 f/2.8 II IS, or (c) getting a 135 f/2 and exchanging the 70-200 f/4 IS for a 70-300 L (this would give me back my fast 135mm, and (nearly) give me back the reach that the 70-200 had on the 500D, although the zoom would then nearly be disqualified for indoor use), or (d) keeping the 70-200 f/4 IS, and getting a 135 f/2 for more light indoors and a 100-400 for more reach outdoors; haven't dared to calculate the prices of these options yet...


How do people with a 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 II IS feel about the IS in the 100-400, isn't it a bit disappointing in comparison to the newer lenses?


Further, the 50 f/1.8 isn't bad on the 5D2 (after getting the 85 I rarely used it on the 500D), although it's sometimes still a bit long, and the AF can be a real pain, so I'll probably end up with either a 35L or a 50L; I'm leaning slightly towards the 35L, but would feel stupid if some time further down the road I'd see that a 24L plus 50L would be better; I can't quite imagine 24+35 or 35+50.


If I get the 35L, rather than the 50L, I'd have a very fast 35 and a quite fast 50, so I could exchange the 24-70 for a 24-105 IS because I'd use the primes for all non-staged non-flashed indoor shots which were a main reason to choose the f/2.8 zoom over the f/4, but gain more focal length range for home-studio and general walk-around use (if I don't end up walking around with the 35L, that is).


How is the f/1.4 or f/1.2 manageable in practice for non-staged shots, given that focus-and-recompose is impossible at those apertures, and the 5D2 has very few AF points, of which only one is really "good", and that MF with 10x live-view would take too much time?


That's quite some possibilities, even without touching the 100 macro, which I could get for photo-hiking where there's always something interesting that's too small for the 24-70's MM of 0.29, or the 17-40 which I might consider next summer if the 24 suddenly feels not wide enough for landscapes and similar.


In light of all this, I'm now tempted to first get a LensBaby Composer with FishEye and SoftFocus, have some fun, and forget about the whole subject for another couple of months ;-)


Thanks for bearing with me, Colin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

How do people with a 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 II IS feel about the IS in the 100-400, isn't it a bit disappointing in comparison to the newer lenses?


How is the f/1.4 or f/1.2 manageable in practice for non-staged shots, given that focus-and-recompose is impossible at those apertures, and the 5D2 has very few AF points, of which only one is really "good", and that MF with 10x live-view would take too much time?

---

Colin


I'm sorry but ...I had to dig deep in to the post to figure out if you asking a question. So far it seems you narrowed your choices down to an L lens [:P]


I just bought a 70-200 F2.8 II and today was the first day I have taken it out. I came back with 800 pictures from the local Zoo. The lens performed as the lens should, if I had any bad non keepers it was because I was out of the realm of possibility (meaning I was tyring something that was not possible to do). IS seemed to work great. IQ was great. Only one problem. Its a brick to carry around.


The 35mm F1.4 if it is shot at F1.4 at distance closer than 10' with or without low light, you are using a lens that has extreme capabilities. As such it takes much more refining and patience to be successful in those type of situations. The AF of the 5D will be pushed to its limit to nail focus that close with that wide of a lens the closer in you get and tighter it gets. Thats not to say you can't get some really great pics like that, the extreme ability is what makes it fun. That is my experience with it any way.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

which has quite an aperture disadvantage; even if I compensate for the sensor sizes, it's still about a stop slower.

---

Just in case you didn't know, you lose 1 1/3rd stops of DOF with 1.6 crop camerasand 1.6 times worth of light and noise. Or about 1 1/3rd stops of light, if sensor technology is the same. In your case it's not, the 5D II has better per pixel image quality. So the differance is a little bigger than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

(b) "exchanging" the 70-200 f/4 IS for a 70-200 f/2.8 II IS,

---

I'd go with this one, a 70-200mm f/2.8 II at 135mm has the same DOF and noise as you had on your Rebel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

Further, the 50 f/1.8 isn't bad on the 5D2

---

Yes, it isn't bad at all. I't'sa very good lens,the only thing really bad about it is the build quality, it's AF isprone to break the or the physical lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

(after getting the 85 I rarely used it on the 500D)

---

But I thought you said you used that focal length and was bumed out that you don't have it anymore? Mabye not as much as your 50mm? If thats the case I will proceed with my assumtion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

If I get the 35L, rather than the 50L,

---

Yes, I'd get the 35mm f/1.4 L. You already have a not too bad 50mm prime and would be better served having a wider focal length range especially that your like 35mm anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

I'd have a very fast 35 and a quite fast 50, so I could exchange the 24-70 for a 24-105 IS because I'd use the primes for all non-staged non-flashed indoor shots which were a main reason to choose the f/2.8 zoom over the f/4,

---

Keep your 24-70mm, sometimes a zoom is madatory and having f/2.8 is a huge help. Plus it's quite a bit sharper at the 24-30mmend, and more similar inthe rest ofthe rangebut still sharper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

How is the f/1.4 or f/1.2 manageable in practice for non-staged shots, given that focus-and-recompose is impossible at those apertures,

---

That's not true, it is possible. Sometimes if you are not parallel, very closeto a smaller subject or changing the focus point drasticallyit will move your focus pointslightly, but most of the time it's possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

That's quite some possibilities, even without touching the 100 macro, which I could get for photo-hiking where there's always something interesting that's too small for the 24-70's MM of 0.29,

---

I have a Minolta 100mm f/4 macro and that a great focal length for macro, but you could put extention tubes and get macro magnifications. Butother lenses are not optimised for very close workingdistancesso there is a reason toget a dedicatedmacro lens.Get 3rd party extention tubes, they are a lot cheaper andkenko air is no better than Canon air.[:)] I have Vivitar ex tubes and Minolta ex tubes and both work fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

or the 17-40 which I might consider next summer if the 24 suddenly feels not wide enough for landscapes and similar.

---

I'd wait, learn your gear first. You might figure out you want a 600mm f/4 IS II Lin the mean time.[:P] Seriously, that's what happened to me. I was into the stuff you are in and latteron (about 2 years) I got into bird photography and it's been my main form of photography every since. Get what you want now but don't plan out to far becuase things can change in a hurry.


Chears,


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]I'm sorry but ...I had to dig deep in to the post to figure out if you asking a question. So far it seems you narrowed your choices down to an L lens [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]

---

<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Yes, I'm sorry, there was no single well-defined question; I've read the reviews so often that I pretty much know all lenses, plus there's my experience, so evaluating every single lens feels easy; it's the "sensible combination (for reasonable price)" part that's a bit difficult atm.


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I just bought a 70-200 F2.8 II and today was the first day I have taken it out. I came back with 800 pictures from the local Zoo. The lens performed as the lens should, if I had any bad non keepers it was because I was out of the realm of possibility (meaning I was tyring something that was not possible to do). IS seemed to work great. IQ was great. Only one problem. Its a brick to carry around.

---

Yes, being heavier than the 24-70 going from the f/4 to the f/2.8 would make my bag that much heavier. Was this your first zoom in that range, or did you upgrade (from one of the 70-200 f/4)?


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]The 35mm F1.4 if it is shot at F1.4 at distance closer than 10' with or without low light, you are using a lens that has extreme capabilities. As such it takes much more refining and patience to be successful<span style="font-size: 9.72225px;"]in those type of situations. The AF of the 5D will be pushed to its limit to nail focus that close with that wide of a lens the closer in you get and tighter it gets. Thats not to say you can't get some really great pics like that, the extreme ability is what makes it fun. That is my experience with it any way.


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]

---

It seems like an interesting challenge, wide-normal lens, thin DoF, and then choose the right framing and area-of-focus ... I'm thinking of groups of people indoors, at events, my daughter playing, or even street photography, all subjects that I cover reasonably often and where I don't want to go flashing around.


Thanks for you input!


Colin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

which has quite an aperture disadvantage; even if I compensate for the sensor sizes, it's still about a stop slower.

---

Just in case you didn't know, you lose 1 1/3rd stops of DOF with 1.6 crop camerasand 1.6 times worth of light and noise. Or about 1 1/3rd stops of light, if sensor technology is the same. In your case it's not, the 5D II has better per pixel image quality. So the differance is a little bigger than that.

---

Thanks, that confirms my rough calculation: 85 f/1.8 is 2 1/3 stops faster than 70-200 f/4, so the 70-200 f/4 @ 135mm gives me the same FoV on the 5D2 as the 85 on the 500D, but is a stop slower, although you say that the 5D2 is "even better", so the difference is actually less. (Btw, why does the per-pixel image quality count here, and not the per-sensor-area?)


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

(b) "exchanging" the 70-200 f/4 IS for a 70-200 f/2.8 II IS,

---

I'd go with this one, a 70-200mm f/2.8 II at 135mm has the same DOF and noise as you had on your Rebel.

---

And I'd also gain a stop at 200mm compared to the f/4, which the 135L of course wouldn't. I just went through some pictures, I do like 200mm for sniped portraits at events (actually 300 or 400 would be even better, perhaps a 300 f/4?)



<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

Further, the 50 f/1.8 isn't bad on the 5D2

---

Yes, it isn't bad at all. I't'sa very good lens,the only thing really bad about it is the build quality, it's AF isprone to break the or the physical lens.

---

I like using it, also for it's small size, just that sometimes the AF also seems prone to enter random-focus-distance-mode ;-)


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

(after getting the 85 I rarely used it on the 500D)

---

But I thought you said you used that focal length and was bumed out that you don't have it anymore? Mabye not as much as your 50mm? If thats the case I will proceed with my assumtion.

---

Erm, to hopefully prevent further confusion: The 85mm on the Rebel = 135mm real was really useful, and I'd like to have somethiing fast there; the 50mm on the Rebel = 80mm real is _currently_ not very useful to me. Thinking about primes, I can see myself being happy with a 35L and 135L for "special purposes", plus the zooms for everything else. I would also keep the 50 II and 85 1/8 though.


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

<div><span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

If I get the 35L, rather than the 50L,

---

</div>



Yes, I'd get the 35mm f/1.4 L. You already have a not too bad 50mm prime and would be better served having a wider focal length range especially that your like 35mm anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

I'd have a very fast 35 and a quite fast 50, so I could exchange the 24-70 for a 24-105 IS because I'd use the primes for all non-staged non-flashed indoor shots which were a main reason to choose the f/2.8 zoom over the f/4,

---

Keep your 24-70mm, sometimes a zoom is madatory and having f/2.8 is a huge help. Plus it's quite a bit sharper at the 24-30mmend, and more similar inthe rest ofthe rangebut still sharper.

---

Ok, sounds reasonable, I'll take that into consideration. Of course, ideally you'd have both, the 24-105 for tourist-style walk-around, and the 24-70 for everything else, but...


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

How is the f/1.4 or f/1.2 manageable in practice for non-staged shots, given that focus-and-recompose is impossible at those apertures,

---

That's not true, it is possible. Sometimes if you are not parallel, very closeto a smaller subject or changing the focus point drasticallyit will move your focus pointslightly, but most of the time it's possible.

---

I'm not quite sure I understand, are you saying that it's ok if your "recompose" is a lateral or vertical movement, rather than the "usual" pointing in another direction? (At least so far I always understood a change of camera angle as the "recompose", perhaps that's a problem; I was always wondering whether a very-large-aperture lens wouldn't be more useful with a spherical focus "plane" for this very reason.)


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

<div><span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

That's quite some possibilities, even without touching the 100 macro, which I could get for photo-hiking where there's always something interesting that's too small for the 24-70's MM of 0.29,

---

</div>



I have a Minolta 100mm f/4 macro and that a great focal length for macro, but you could put extention tubes and get macro magnifications. Butother lenses are not optimised for very close workingdistancesso there is a reason toget a dedicatedmacro lens.Get 3rd party extention tubes, they are a lot cheaper andkenko air is no better than Canon air.[img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img] I have Vivitar ex tubes and Minolta ex tubes and both work fine.

---

Hm, seeing the price of non-Canon air, that might be a good first step, nothing to cry about if I get a real macro later on. I'd probably have to upgrade my 10 year old 20$ tripod though, it's not particularly vibration free...


<span style="font-size: 10px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

or the 17-40 which I might consider next summer if the 24 suddenly feels not wide enough for landscapes and similar.

---

I'd wait, learn your gear first. You might figure out you want a 600mm f/4 IS II Lin the mean time.[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img] Seriously, that's what happened to me. I was into the stuff you are in and latteron (about 2 years) I got into bird photography and it's been my main form of photography every since. Get what you want now but don't plan out to far becuase things can change in a hurry.


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]

---

Yes, I was just considering whether to extend my focal range before I start getting some expensive not-so-flexible primes, and concluded that the 24 is quite enough at the moment, so I won't think about it until I get constrained by not having more angle; I could often do with something longer, but the 100-400 looks a bit dated, the 70-300L in addition to the 70-200 f/4 a bit strange, and in addition to a hypothetical 70-200 f/2.8 II a bit expensive, and at this point I can't see myself getting a 300 or 400 prime because &mdash; at the moment &mdash; at anything over about 100mm I don't choose focal length for angle-of-view (i.e. how much background will be included, distortotion of objects at different distances etc.) but simply "zoom to fill my frame", at least until I bump against the 200mm...


Thanks for the very elaborate help and tips!


Colin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

Was this your first zoom in that range, or did you upgrade (from one of the 70-200 f/4)?

---

I have had three other L Zooms. the 16-35 L II, the 24-70mm L and the 100-400mm. About a year ago I passed my 100-400mm down to my brother, and a while before that I gave him my old 50D. Just over a year ago, I bought a 500mm F4L and a 300mm F2.8L, and I really couldn't see using the 100-400mm and giving up all that IQ from the big primes. I like to print big with the pixma 9500 and now the 9000, and with both the 24-70 and the 100-400mm it always seemed that the IQ for the bigger prints were always lacking. The 16-35mm II has a lot of pics that made the grade, it has really good IQ.


This kind of brings me to the reason I decided to go ahead and get the 70-200mm F2.8L II. I have several of the recently released lenses, like the 16-35mm and the 24mm F1.4L and the IQ is great out of the new lenses. It seems like Canon's technology is improving. After seeing some of the reviews, sample pics and watching the 70-200mm F2.8L II since its release, I thought maybe it could produce the IQ I want for the large prints. It didn't disappoint on its first outing. I have a lot of pics that could be croped and still printed large. Of course I only shot a few that I thought worthy of printing, but the IQ is there no doubt.


I think if your thinking about a new lens, I would keep the age of the lens release in mind. I would like to see a new 35mm F1.4 II.


You comments about the 35mm are very accurate. I think you have the idea of what it is capable of, and that is what really makes it kind of fun to own.


Rick

I recently bought and returned the 100-400 in part because i found the IS to be disappointing compared to newer lenses, although it is possible there was something wrong with the copy because it was pretty soft throughout the focal range. The 70-200 (either f/4 or f/2.8) is hard to beat in IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

I'm not quite sure I understand, are you saying that it's ok if your "recompose" is a lateral or vertical movement, rather than the "usual" pointing in another direction?

---

I guess I wasn't clear, yes pointing around. Not changing composition with lateral or vertical movement. Lets say you are using your nifty fifty and you are taking a full body portriat of a 6 year old girl, you can use the center focus point for her eyes and point your camera and recompose your shot.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Lets say you are using your nifty fifty and you are taking a full body portriat of a 6 year old girl, you can use the center focus point for her eyes and point your camera and recompose your shot.

---

I can't speak for the nifty-fifty. At 85mm and f/1.2, it's true that you canuse the center focus point for her eyes and recompose your shot for the full-body portrait if you like. Similarly, you can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge if you like. While the consequences of the former are certainly not as dire as a jump from 135 feet,focus/recompose with a very thin DoF will pretty much guarantee that the thing you focused on,her eyes in this case, will no longer be in focus. If you're going to print 4x6" or post an uncropped 800 pixel image here, it might not be enough to matter. But if you want critical focus and/or are printing larger than 8x10", focus/recompose with a fast prime isn't a good idea.

Yes I agree with you on the 85mm f/1.2, the DOF is VERY THIN and staying that close will definetely move your focus point. I chose the 50mm f/1.8 because I have the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 MD and have used it on film and 1.6 crop digital and didn't have a problem for the most part with thefocus and recompose method.


John.

Ok, it feels that I

So how did this story end?


I