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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidWare

.... but local shows where there is low light and a flash isn't always allowed depending on the venue.

---

This being the case, conventional wisdom for shooting concerts, etc, I think would still push you to prime lenses. Say a 35 f/1.4, and 135 f/2. But one of the things I am watching is just how much of a game changer is the high ISO performance of the 6D/5DIII/1DX. By game changer, I basically mean that the importance of getting light through the lens may become less significant. What I am finding is that I can take shots up to ISO 12,800 on the 5DIII and be very happy with them. The non-visible quality isn't as good as I am noticing that the higher I go with the ISO, the less ability I have to crop and/or post process the photo before I start to see too much IQ degradation. But for visible IQ, if I nail the shot in camera, ISO 6400-12,800 has good IQ.

An illustration of this is that a few people that previously have said that f/2.8 isn't enough for low-light indoor photography are starting to say that with the new bodies, f/2.8 is enough. I am still getting used to the abilities of the 5DIII, but thus far, I've yet to put my flash on the 5DIII and have shot two indoor "events" (meeting my new neice and Easter) with the 50 f/1.4 at ~f/2.8.

Aperture will always have the advantage for those situations where you want thin DoF, but it may becoming less important for light gathering. Just something I am watching in my photography and in what I see posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eldarhau

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.

---

I wouldn't say that's true. Bryan's ISO 12233 crops show the 100-400 is a bit sharper than the 70-200 II + 2xIII, and my own experience with them matches that. But the difference isn't huge - real world shots can be hard to tell apart.

I think if you routinely need 400mm, the 100-400 is the way to go. For general use and portraits, the 70-200 II is a great lens on FF, so if 400mm is needed only occasionally, adding the 2xIII makes sense.

Worth noting that the 70-200 II + 2xIII is double the cost of the 100-400.

Agree. But from 70-200 it is in a different league and with the extender it is not that far behind, so overall, I still say that it is a better combo. If 400mm is the main objective I would seriously look at a used 400 f5.6L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eldarhau

Agree. But from 70-200 it is in a different league and with the extender it is not that far behind, so overall, I still say that it is a better combo. If 400mm is the main objective I would seriously look at a used 400 f5.6L

---

Better...if affordable.

The 400/5.6 lacks IS, for me that was a deal-breaker. I find even the 2-stop IS of the 100-400mm useful.

Hi David. I have been on an upgrade journey myself. My current kit is as follows.

60D
Sigma 10-20mm
Canon 24-105mm
Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II
Canon 50mm 1.4
430 EX Flash

I recently sold my Canon 100mm Macro and Canon 70-300 IS. The end point I see at the moment is going full frame, the 2x III extender for travel wildlife, and maybe the 17-40 down the road.

Here is my reasoning.

My primary uses are travel/landscapes, family gatherings, and my kids activities (indoor and outdoor sports)

For vacation travel and outdoor sports I am constantly finding myself in rough environments. I have had problems with both dust and moisture. I really like Sigma, but as we speak it is loaded with airborne grit from my last trip and needs to be sent off for cleaning before I damage it. For me full weather sealing is important.

I have not been shooting Macro very much, so the 100m was primarily being used for portraits. It was sold when I upgraded to the 70-200.

I was also considering the 100-400mm as an ideal travel lens and decent for outdoor sports. Although not totally sealed, it provides a level of protection that is better than the consumer lenses. The thought was that I would keep the 100mm Macro for indoor sports. The problem was that 100mm was not providing enough reach for the type of indoor sports I was shooting, so I then stated to consider the 200mm f/2.8 prime.

This all started to get a bit silly, so I went back to the drawing board and determined that the 70-200 2.8 IS was the way to go. I only occasionally need 400mm for wildlife, so an extender will be perfect. It is nearly the same size/weight as the 100-400. Both the 24-105 and 70-200 are totally sealed (as is the extender), have current IS implementations, and the 70-200 is fast enough for indoors. Early impressions are that the 70-200 is really an amazing piece of gear. Very sharp and very accurate AF. With the newer IS it is very hand-holdable. Although I have a decent tripod I like the freedom that a good hand-holdable setup provides. I kept the 50mm for very low light situations and for now have the 10-20mm for the wide stuff.

While I really like the extreme look of the 10-20, I don't use it quite as often as I expected. When I finally switch to FF, I wonder if 24mm might be wide enough. If not I will likely add the 17-40mm since I am usually at f/8 or narrower with the Sigma.


If you think you will end up with the 70-200m, my advice is to wait if you can. I personally think selling gear is a hassle and you will likely lose a few hundred in the shuffle. If you can't wait you may want to check out Canon refurbished to help limit your loss.

Best of luck,

-P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eldarhau

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.

---

+50

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidWare

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.

---

David,

It's good to have a road map, but at the same time your lenses will behave quite differently on FF than they do today. My suggestion would be to get the kit you suggested and try the 24-105, 50, and 100 for a little while and evaluate where you are again.

One other comment is that coming from the T3i is the 5D III with a grip is enormous! One very positive aspect of the rebels is their portability, although perhaps that is not true with a grip.

Have fun shooting.

Dave

Hi David,

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

Looks like a good set up there. It should cover almost everything you need to shoot.

However there are a few things I want you to consider. When I started photography my goal was to own every lens for every purpose, wide angle, general purpose, tele zoom you get the idea. Then I found and fell in love with bird photography and that's what I mostly shoot these days. I use my super-tele 95% of the time now. I still have my other lenses simply because I've had them but if I have to do it again (revamp my kit) I would put all my money in the best super-tele and body that I can afford. My point is if you have found a discipline that you shoot more than anything else, you should use this opportunity to put all your money into the lens(es) and accessories for this discipline. Down the road you can add more stuff to your kits.

The 5D3 is a wonderful camera....here's the dream lens line up I would consider

1. 17-40 f/4L....almost as good as the 16-35 f/2.8 for less than 1/2 the money
2. 24-70 f/2.8L II....overall awesome lens, much better than the 24-105
3. 70-200 f/2.8L II.....the version 3 converters (1.4X and 2.0X) work well here to get you 320mm and 400mm focal length respectively
4. Optional: 300mm f/2.8L II.....very expensive but totally awesome, great for indoor and outdoor sports and also works great with teleconverters to get you out to 600mm for birds and wildlife

Wow, so much great information from you all, thank you so much!

Looking to upgrade my 650D myself since I need way better low light performance and I would like better IQ.

I am looking to buy the 16-35 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L II combined with the 5D3. I don't understand the principle of the converters though. Maybe someone can help me out there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

3. 70-200 f/2.8L II.....the version 3 converters (1.4X and 2.0X) work well here to get you 320mm and 400mm focal length respectively

---

Wouldn't buying the 2.0x, cover the whole range though? Meaning, is there a need to buy the 1.4x as well? The 2.0x combined with the 70-200 would give me a focal length of 140-400 if I'm thinking correctly?

If I would keep the 650D, which has a crop factor of 1.6, would my focal length be 1.6 x 140-400 = 224-640? Do the converters even work on crop DSLRs?

Cheers!
Marco

The 1.4x converter loses a bit of quality, and a stop of light (ie: f/4)
The 2.0x converter loses more quality, and two stops of light (ie: f/5.6)
I'm not sure if the 2.0x focuses slower than the 1.4x, or if it's a flat penalty for having a converter attached.

So a 1.4x gets you a decently sharp 98-280mm f/4 lens, while the 2.0x gets you an okay 140-400mm f/5.6 lens. If you're investing so much in glass, it seems a bit silly to throw away all the potential quality by getting just the 2.0x. If you're expecting to need that reach on a regular basis, you're better off with a dedicated lens. The converters are good for the 'once in a while, I wish I had more reach' crowd.

edit: They should work with a crop, but you'll see the image quality decrease much more clearly.

I agree with David but I will add that in good light the version III 2X converter on the new 70-200mm f/2.8L lens will surprise you. You can get superb results with this combination under the right circumstances....NOT all the time however and it does slow AF slightly. It does not work very well in poor light or low contrast situations. The 1.4 TC is much more forgiving in marginal light, degrades IQ much less and does not slow AF much at all.

I was pointing out that you can get a kit with a range of 17mm to 600mm with 4 lenses and the teleconverters. Having both the 1.4 and 2.0X just adds versatility but will certainly not be as good as lenses in those specific focal lengths without TC's as David said. IQ is usually better using the 1.4 TC than it will with the 2.0 TC but there are times when the 2.0 TC is the right tool and will do the job very well.

I should also mention that you will benefit by spending some time adjusting AF microadjustment for each of your lenses with and without the converters. This definitely will improve performance.

When on travel, there is always an issue what to bring. Historically I have carried too much, to make sure I have the best optical performance for whatever situation I end up in. In most cases I end up using the same 2-3 lenses. Currently, because I´m older and feel the weight probably, my minimum be-ready-for-as-much-as-possible-kit is the 5DIII (I also use the 1DX, but often it stays home due to its weight), 24-70 f2.8L II, 70-200 f2.8L IS II and the 2xIII. If I add one more it is a fast prime, either the 85 f1.2L II or the Sigma 35 f1.4 (I sold the 50 1.2L). The 16-35 f2.8L II is a great lens, which I also throw in every now and then, but I rarely use it. You will get some quality loss with the extenders, but in normal to good light the result is still outstanding. But if long reach is what you want, live on bread and water for a while and save up for one of the quality super-tele alternatives. The second hand market for version I of the 300/400/500/600L lenses is not out of reach if you really want it.

My advice though is to prioritize and start with the lens that is most important and buy the best (in my case the 24-70 f2.8L II). Learn to master that while saving up for no.2 (in my case the 70-200 f2.8L IS II) and so on.

/Eldar

As an example: I shot this about 10 minutes ago, it's getting a little shady in the back yard so the ISO is high but you can get an idea about the 70-200 with the 2X TC. Might not be as good as a bare 400mm f/5.6 lens but it's pretty good.

http://joeleadephotography.zenfolio....74610266-5.jpg

1D MKIV
70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + 2.0 TC III @ 400mm
tripod + wimberly gimbal head
ISO 3200
f5.6
1/200

Thanks for all the information!

Great shot Joel! Looking at that picture the 2.0 TC is a very good option.

Cheers:)

Extenders technically slow the AF 50% for the 1.4 and 75% (Or 100%, can't rember for sure.) for the 2X. But like the others pointed out the AF is reasonably fast even with extenders and unless you really stress it out (sports close by you coming back and forth, BIF, racing, ect.) it should be quite useable.

John.

why spend money on a grip? do you use the second shutter button that much?
the battery in the 5d mkIII is pretty solid. I generally have one spare battery somewhere in a pocket but most of the time I can go through a day of intense shooting without needing it.

>70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + 2.0 TC III @ 400mm
I use this setup on my 5d mkIII as well and it's quite delightful. disagree about the AF being too slow, I just set the focus distance to 2.5m to infinity on servo and most of the time I'm fine.

for landscape work I have forsaken the 16-35 in favor of the TS-E 17mm. the 24-105 is missing the macro function of the 24-70 but otherwise makes for an excellent walkaround lens. I thought I was going to be bothered more by having to work with f4 on two of my lenses but it turns out I'm not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memostothefuture

why spend money on a grip? do you use the second shutter button that much?
the battery in the 5d mkIII is pretty solid. I generally have one spare battery somewhere in a pocket but most of the time I can go through a day of intense shooting without needing it.

---

Balance, and if your hands are large, somewhere for your pinky finger to rest. When using a heavy lens, I find the grip provides much better balance even if I don't use the second set of controls all that much. When the grip is is integrated, it's even more comfortable, IMO. Like you, the extra battery capacity is not needed.

Or if you are like me who shoots vertical as much as horizontal position the shutter button and other controls are very useful.

John.

I shoot a lot of vertical as well, especially at shows, and I noticed I used it quite a bit while shooting my girlfriends sisters softball game as well. That, and I am used to having a grip as well, the majority of the time I've had my T3i it's had a grip on it.

I'm a bit surprised that no one has mentioned the 70-200 2.8 IS. You mentioned shows and if those include low light the 5D3 + the 70-200 is a great combo. I have a 100-400 and use it a lot on both my 5D3 and my 7D, but it's better in good light. I also have the 17-40 that several have mentioned and I agree. it's a great lens and I didn't realize its full potential until I went full frame.

Good Shooting,
Mark

I believe the 70-200 was mentioned earlier. I have upgraded a bit since I originally posted this. I ended up getting my 5D3 kit, and I'm going to be putting my T3i up on craigslist, and maybe even here, soon as well. I am torn between getting the 16-35 or the 100-400 next though. Lately I've been doing a lot of wide and low light stuff, experimenting with long exposures and all kinds of stuff. I've been kind if forced into it by not having anything longer than 105, but I have been greatly enjoying it.

David,

Ever consider the Samyang 14 mm f/2.8? If I were to go wide angle again, that is probably what I would get. Suffers from pretty significant distortion but, otherwise, the IQ is supposed to be excellent.

Brant

I have considered it, but seeing as how a good chunk of my wide angle usage is at rock shows, I like the versatility that the 16-35 offers.

I have the Samyang 14mm and it's super duper redonculously sharp for an ultrawide lens.

BUT... and this is a pretty significant but.

It's pretty much impossible to correct the distortion on flat horizons. I've tried everything and it's a lot of work. If you've got some mountains or anything in the scene to break up the horizon it's much easier but I'm going to go elsewhere for my landscape needs next year when I buy the TS-E 24mm. In saying that I'm definitely keeping the Samyang as it's as good as it gets for night shots of the stars.

Also the lens focuses a little differently at various apertures. At f/2.8 infinity focus is around the 3m mark on the lens barrel, at f/8 it's dead on the infinity mark. Not a huge deal but it makes it a little hard to manually focus in some situations when live view isn't an option.

Don't get me wrong, it's sensational bang for your buck but if you're going to be using an UWA lens at rock shows etc then autofocus will be very valuable to you so I'd say you're making the right choice with the 16-35 (or the Nikkor 14-24mm if you feel like converting it for EF mount).