Upgrade Path

I purchased the 5DIII with the 24-105 lens kit at the end of January and early February. With that addition, my primary kit became:

• 24-105-General Purpose Zoom
• 50 f/1.4-low light/full body portraits (usually shoot it f/2-f/2.8)
• 100 f/2.8 L Macro--lower light--primary portrait lens
• 100-400 L - Wildlife and travel lens

Honestly, it isn't a bad kit and it has worked pretty well for my needs. But my plan had been to take this year to get to know the kit and then look to upgrade for my more permanent FF kit.

While I have given this a lot of thought, I am interested in your help and thoughts on the best path to upgrade.

First, a bit about my photography needs. As you have probably seen from my posts, I like to shoot just about everything. Or at least it feels that way to me. I am usually using natural light, but plan on augmenting that with flashes more often. What I shoot breaks down to something like:

• Family events-~25%
• Dedicated "portraits"-~10% (usually friends or family)
• Landscapes-~25%
• Wildlife/BIF/etc-~25%
• Misc-~15%

Family events are shot somewhat in a journalistic style. Landscapes, I tend to shoot a lot of horizons/mountains/hills/waterfalls but want to get into nightscapes. My current usage patterns, I see a lot of use at 24 mm, 100 mm (prime lens) and 400 mm. I see a good amount of use from 24-~50 and ~80-105mm. I should also note that when I shot on the 7D, I always had significant peaks at FF equivalent to 136 mm.

A few other characteristic I need to consider for my kit:

• I sometimes target wildlife from land, but just as often, from my kayak.
• I travel a fair amount both for work and vacation. And if I am listening to my wife, I should expect more. It seems that photography is my "thing" and I think travel is becoming hers. So, I want a good travel kit.
• I prefer to not be changing lenses all of the time.
• While I consider myself to be a hobbyiest/hacker photographer...my goals are to pretty ambitious in terms of the images I want to capture.
• My goal is a good flexible kit, eventually consisting of 4-6 lenses.

So, if you've noticed, every time someone posts about a lens, I tend to pop up and talk about how I've been evaluating it too....that is because, well, I've pretty much have been looking at Canon's entire lineup. I have been considering primes, zooms and ultimately, a combination of primes and zooms.

So, please let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions. For now, let's ignore budget :). It will come back into play.

Thanks in advance...
Brant

Brant,
what's missing? You don't say anything about what limitations you experience with your current kit - maybe there aren't any and you can stop looking? :)

The only thing I could think of based on what you wrote is a Rokinon 14 or 24mm prime for nightscapes .

Everything I have studied says that for stars it's hard to beat the Canon 24mm f/1.4L If you are going for the best supertele bird lens probably the 600mm f/4L II is tops. You seem to have all the mid-range focal lengths covered pretty well now unless you think a 70-200mm f/2.8L would be useful. If a top notch landscape/architectural lens is desired then you could also consider the 24mm f/3.5 Tilt-Shift lens which has amazing corner to corner sharpness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahab1372

Brant,
what's missing? You don't say anything about what limitations you experience with your current kit - maybe there aren't any and you can stop looking? :)

The only thing I could think of based on what you wrote is a Rokinon 14 or 24mm prime for nightscapes .

---

:)....Arnt...I do not believe you understand the nature of addiction......:rolleyes::)

Seriously, you make a couple of very good points. And I have considered that maybe I need to take a step back and this kit is enough.....

Looking at it from the perspective of limitations is a good idea...it is partially limitations, but it is also that there are a few weaknesses. To name a few:

• Reach. Has anyone that tries to shoot birds and wildlife ever thought they had enough reach? More specifically, assuming that 70 ppi is sufficient to define a subject, I am limited to ~75 ft range at 400 mm on the 5DIII.
• Shutter speed at 400 mm. I have shot 400 mm at 1/100th. It works, but it isn't great. For BIF, for example, on my latest puffin cruise, I was often at ~1/600th. Pretty low for BIF. I believe I was trying to keep ISO <800-1600. But a stop of speed, so f/4, would be very nice at the long end.
• Portrait range. I am covered from 50-105 mm f/4, but it does get a little soft. I have coverage at f/2.8 at 100 mm and good coverage at 50 mm. It works, but it is a little limiting. I do miss the FF equivalent 136 mm reach of the 15-85 on the 7D. So I could see focal length addition and faster glass in the portrait range.
• Wide angle. I have tried to take shots of the milky way with the 24-105. I have no doubt that part of it is skill, but I have been surveying shots that I would like to emulate and most if not all are hit the EV -4 to -6 range (~15 sec, f/2.8, ISO 3200) or faster. So, at a minimum, I think I need a f/2.8 lens at 24 mm.
• Ultrawide angle. I have nothing. I had the 10-22 on the 7D, but hardly ever used it. Still, eventually, I would like something wide.
• DOF. I can get pretty good DoF at 50 mm and 100 mm. But that is about it.
• General optics. What I have is good, perhaps very good. But I am noticing that my favorite shots are often coming from my primes.
• Niche lenses...A TS lens could be great for waterfalls.

BTW, I have already purchased the 24-70 II. But that was mostly because I have been evaluating it and didn't want to pass up the deal that occurred two weeks ago. If I decide that the 24-105 plus a prime or two fits my kit better, it will be sold or returned.....and that is assuming I ever get one that doesn't click while zooming :mad:

You will find one without the click, just keep swapping till you do.

Your question was to wide to nail down really pointed suggestions.

This was your breakdown;

• Family events-~25%
• Dedicated "portraits"-~10% (usually friends or family)
• Landscapes-~25%
• Wildlife/BIF/etc-~25%
• Misc-~15%

If I were to analyze my needs I would prioritize them. I would suggest you do to.

I take quit a few portraits, but it is not my passion. I play with lighting a bit and friends and family ask me to do shoots and I take it as a challenge to try.
It may comprise 10% of my shots but the end results are not as important to me. So as portraits go, I have the 100mm macro IS and it does fine for the portraits I would want.

Family events for me are documentation time. When I look back at the pictures they are bringing back memories. I don't know about you, but other than as a photographer I do not remember bokeh. So as lenses go for my kit you would have it well covered for the family.

Landscapes, I like landscapes. It would be my second favorite. From looking at your work over the last few years it appears to be a big focus for you as well. I think you could benefit form the 24mm TSE or the 24mm f/1.4. Perhaps even one of the Zeiss primes. Even though you are buying the 24-70mm II I would still suggest one of the primes. While the zoom may be as sharp the primes still win in other areas such as distortion and flare.

Wildlife, my favorite. Sometimes BIF but really wildlife in general. I know you like it to, and I know that you backpack and as you mention Kayak.
So the 600mm might not be the wildlife lens for you. The 300mm f/2.8L II lens would be somewhat portable, but carrying it on a Kayak? Do you find the 100-400mm to be to large on the water? It would be simple for me, I am land locked and the 600mm or 500mm would be the choice. Size and how large would be to large would be a good place to start the decision process. Possibly even use this type of thinking, if I am in a boat on the water I might choose my wife's t4i and a 300mm f/4 before the others. Why? Because dropping a $2000 rig in the river is much more acceptable than dropping $20K

Thanks Everyone...this is doing exactly what I wanted, in that it is provoking thoughts and looking at this from different angles. Ultimately, I am considering making a pretty good sized investment and want to feel a bit better about it. I also need to take a step back from looking at charts and reviews to make sure this is something I really want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Your question was to wide to nail down really pointed suggestions.

---

Understood.....I think this is broad as I am essentially considering blowing up my whole kit. It is an odd conclusion that I have been coming too, as I am mostly happy with it. I started off thinking I would augment the kit with a specific lens here or there, say the 135 f/2, or the 24 f/1.4. But then I starting thinking of the 85 f/1.2 for portraits, the 35 f/2 IS or f/1.4 and a TS lens. And, as has already been mentioned, I set my sights on the 600 f/4 II for my big white.

Very quickly what was augmenting my kit was getting very costly and the shear number of lenses I wanted was getting large. So, right now I am in the process of circling back to look at my core kit. Perhaps if I improve it, I wouldn't want so many other lenses.

What I have been thinking about for a little while is:

• Ultrawide---unknown at this time...shoot to develop a need and there are only a few times that I've wanted more than 24 mm.
• General purpose: 24-70 f/2.8 II (but still considering 24-105 augmented with primes)
• Telephoto: 70-200 f/2.8 II (but still considering f/4 IS with primes or keeping the 100-400L)
• Macro (which I do very little of)--keep the 100 mm L, but I am debating this.
• Big White---Rick, you already mentioned it, but because of travel, potentially kayaking, and $$, the 300 f/2.8 II.
• 1.4x and 2x TCs

Then my primary travel kit would be the general purpose lens + telephoto.

I can see waiting a while and shooting with the above kit to develop a need, say something at 24 mm or maybe the 85 f/1.2. Of course, I am not sure I can afford the above kit right now. But instead of building a kit by piecemeal, I am trying to decide the overall kit I want and start working toward it.

BTW, I hear you on having $20,000 on a kayak. I am actually concerned about travel. I was fine having $3,000 worth of gear on my back while traveling. Now I am thinking of having my travel kit be ~$8,000??

A couple of random thoughts, mostly because coffee hasn't kicked in and therefore the likelihood of coherent thoughts is low.

I've rented a wide variety of lenses over the years, and I've found several that had quite the magic inside of them. You may want to consider these for random things, whether to rent or to buy:

Canon 14/2.8II seems massively better than the 16-35/2.8.
Zeiss 15/2.8 is way better than the Canon 14/2.8. :)
Zeiss 21/2.8 is quite good, though not as stunning as the Z15.
Old-model 24-70/2.8 seems to have some sort of magic in it compared to the 24-105...can't speak to the new model
85/1.2 is a stunner for portraits. Just got it over the summer and love all of my results with it.
Zeiss 100/2 Makro isn't a true macro, but who cares: it will blow away the results from your existing macro. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
You ought to try the 400/4DO. It may not be as sharp/contrasty as the II supers, but it's LIGHT, and it really seems to take a 1.4x well. A 4-pound 560/5.6IS is a killer tool. (We rented that setup plus a 1Dx for our last Alaska cruise. Even with two 7D and a 1D3, I chose to put the DO on the 1Dx to gain the better high ISO to offset f/5.6 plus to get the better AF, and we really liked it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

• Big White---Rick, you already mentioned it, but because of travel, potentially kayaking, and $$, the 300 f/2.8 II.
• 1.4x and 2x TCs

Then my primary travel kit would be the general purpose lens + telephoto.

---

The 300mm f/2.8L is a fabulous lens and it takes the 1.4 X TC very very well. It will also produce excellent images with the 2.0 X TC III but it is a little more demanding in terms of having good light to really get excellent sharpness and detail such as feathers on a bird. It is smaller and lighter of course than a 600mm f/4L II but the images will not be as good and keep in mind the fact that the 600 also does very well with converters.

I should add....if you want to go all primes the 300 2.8 does blow away the 100-400 and it is very consistently good with the 1.4TC but it not always so with the 2.0 TC. With good light it will be stellar but won't compete with a 500 or 600 prime.

Also the 600mm could also double as a paddle in the kayak with a few modifications.

But seriously, the 300mm is going to be much more portable than the 600mm and quite a bit better IQ than your 100-400mm. As far as size I think the 100-400mm would be comparable as bulk goes with the 300mm. Often I carry my 300mm on a black rapid strap and to me it feels very similar to carrying my 70-200mm f/2.8. If you do not have problems with the size of the 100-400 you might be ok with the 300mm f/2.8.

Depending on what Canon does with a 7D II, a 300mm f/2.8 and an imaginary fantasy 7D II might be a very nice portable set up. I have been impressed with the wife's t4i and I wouldn't hesitate a minute taking it and the 300mm on an adventure that requires a light set up and long reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Also the 600mm could also double as a paddle in the kayak with a few modifications.

.

---

That's true:)

Most expensive paddle ever...and a real test of the weather sealing :o

Brant;

You and I seem to be on a similar path...alot of what you are considering has been running through my mind as well. I upgraded to the 5D3 and 24-105 last May from a 7d and 15-85 as well. Current lenses are similar as well: 50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro (not the L though) and 70-200 f/4 IS (w/ 1.4 tele).

I'm fairly happy with the mid-range of my kit so I'm looking to extend it at either end. Firstly I'm looking at something wider (I haven't had anything wider than 24 full-frame yet), currently debating between the 16-35 and 17-40. I also want to extend my reach at the other end...but really have no idea with what. I like the idea of the 100-400, but am also tempted by the super-teles (just not the price or lack of portability).

Another lens I'm often tempted by is the 135L. You mentioned you liked the 85mm focal length on the 7d so perhaps this would be something you could look at? Not sure how this would fit your intended usage though...a bit short for most wildlife and not necessarily ideal for a travel lens. I'm condidering it for the potential use in family portraits (particularly of my infant son).

I know this is not much help, but just wanted you to know that it seems I'm also in a similar situation and will be following this thread closely!

Stephen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

A couple of random thoughts, mostly because coffee hasn't kicked in and therefore the likelihood of coherent thoughts is low.

I've rented a wide variety of lenses over the years, and I've found several that had quite the magic inside of them.

---

Thanks Peety. I certainly wouldn't mind a little magic in my kit. May help compensate for my general lack of...err...other things ;) Actually, that is one of the internal debates I am having. There seem to be a few lenses that have a lot of magic...85 f/1.2, 135 f/2, for example....and I am debating if I should be keeping my kit and adding those or just making my core kit a little more magical (24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8).

BTW, I have been checking the Zeiss lenses out (not the 100 makro, but I'll look into it). But if I get a wide prime, it would be Canon vs Zeiss. Canon gets the 2 stops IQ plus AF (perhaps not as critical for a wide angle landscape lens) and Zeiss gets the reported "magic" of microconstrast, etc.

I hadn't evaluated the 400 DO yet. I'll check it out. Thanks again....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

The 300mm f/2.8L is a fabulous lens and it takes the 1.4 X TC very very well. It will also produce excellent images with the 2.0 X TC III but it is a little more demanding in terms of having good light to really get excellent sharpness and detail such as feathers on a bird. It is smaller and lighter of course than a 600mm f/4L II but the images will not be as good and keep in mind the fact that the 600 also does very well with converters.

---

Thanks Joel. There is no perfect lens. I had been thinking of the 300 f/2.8L as extremely good, lighter and more portable, with the 1.4 TC and losing something with the 2xTC. What I had noticed in evaluating photos is that there was a loss of fine detail, as you mention, but also the foreground and background blurr gets "nervous" compared to fairly creamy bokah I've seen in photos at 300 mm or 420 mm. Your comments of it needing a lot of light at 600 mm has me concerned. But, it would be an improvement at 300 mm (2 stops more light and better IQ) and ~400 mm (20 mm, 1 stop more light, and better IQ) and at least gives me the option of 600 mm. I tried a 1.4xTC on the 100-400L before the 5DIII had AF at f/8. I wasn't impressed with the IQ, in fact, I concluded I could get the same or better image with cropping, so it was returned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFLD Stephen

Brant;

You and I seem to be on a similar path...alot of what you are considering has been running through my mind as well. I upgraded to the 5D3 and 24-105 last May from a 7d and 15-85 as well. Current lenses are similar as well: 50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro (not the L though) and 70-200 f/4 IS (w/ 1.4 tele).

I'm fairly happy with the mid-range of my kit so I'm looking to extend it at either end. Firstly I'm looking at something wider (I haven't had anything wider than 24 full-frame yet), currently debating between the 16-35 and 17-40. I also want to extend my reach at the other end...but really have no idea with what. I like the idea of the 100-400, but am also tempted by the super-teles (just not the price or lack of portability).

Another lens I'm often tempted by is the 135L. You mentioned you liked the 85mm focal length on the 7d so perhaps this would be something you could look at? Not sure how this would fit your intended usage though...a bit short for most wildlife and not necessarily ideal for a travel lens. I'm condidering it for the potential use in family portraits (particularly of my infant son).

I know this is not much help, but just wanted you to know that it seems I'm also in a similar situation and will be following this thread closely!

Stephen

---

Stephen...good to hear....btw, please don't take my consideration of upgrading from the 100-400L as a negative. There is a reason there are so many of them out there. It is a great lens. But I am one of those that have been waiting for version 2. I would like to see better AF (mine hunts...), 4-stop IS and a bit better IQ (sharpness and contrast). That said, short of spending the money on the Big Whites, 100-400L or the 400 mm prime are the best currently available ways to get to 400 mm. I certainly do not regret the purchase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

Lots of thoughts out there. Just to get back to a different starting point what is your most demanding output format? If web or on monitor only then how much do you need for IQ in comparison to a 24x36" print? Had to ask the question even if I know that most people will base their answers on pixel peeping results instead of what they actually need...

---

I haven't yet printed to 24x36", but I have several 16 x 20" prints up at my office and around my house. Last time I made those prints was about 2 years ago, all from the 7D. I will be printing off my favorites from this year and updating a few of the pictures I have around. That said, I am not particularly demanding on the "print" level. They are mostly something I glance at and smile rather than taking a ten loop to exam the details.

So your point about most demanding output is a good one. So, to answer the question, my most demanding output is likely on the computer, as that is my most common output. I do get a certain thrill out of zooming in to 100% and seeing a sharp image. As I am a hobbyist, really, I am after any sort of thrill I can get from my hobby. But, I also think 1,000 x 1,000 crops that I publish online look better if the original file was very sharp. There is likely a point of diminishing returns on that, but so far, IMO, it holds true.

That said, sharpness is ony a concern in my focal ranges at 400 mm. The 24-105 f/4 (especially from f/5.6-f/8), 50 f/1.4 (~f/2,f/2.8-f/8) and 100 mm f/2.8 L (entire range) provide plenty of sharpness at their respective focal lengths. But, by IQ, I am also refering to color, contrast, distortion, etc. Just like I get a small thrill from a sharp image during post, my stomach sinks a little everytime I autocorrect for distortion on the 24-105 @ 24 mm. Final output is usually fine, but because of the autocorrect, my framing is off ever so slightly. But, mostly by IQ, I think I am probably looking for some "magic" as Peety put it. Which is likely a combination of all the above. Not to digress too far, but I've seen a lot of people be critical of the 50 f/1.2 L because it isn't sharp enough. Yet those that have it love it and a good number of the images I've seen from it certainly have something a little extra to them. So, I'd take it, but I can't justify the price over the 50 f/1.4. Ok, I am digressing, but I think sharpness gets discussed a lot because it is quantifiable whereas with most other parts of IQ quantification is either not as easily done or not possible at all.

But, in addition to overall IQ, I am looking for sharpness at faster apertures. I've really enjoyed the 50 f/1.4 at f/2 to f/2.8. I find myself limited with the 100-400L @ f/5.6 (sharper at f/6.3-f/8) for shutterspeed. I'd like a little more reach at a fast aperture at family events. This is both for shutter speed/ISO control, and for DoF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

Have had all of the lenses you currently have. 100-400 was the first to go. Replaced due to aperture limitations and slower AF. EF 50 was replaced with Sigma 50mm as the coma issue was a problem for me with my fondness for backlighting. 100mm macro was replaced with other macro lenses and tubes along with TCs. Once the 100mm f2.8 capability was met with another lens there wasn't enough unique about it to justify keeping it. 24-105 is still used as single lens on single body option for carrying almost everywhere I go. My main areas are sports, events, product shots, portraits, landscapes, and wildlife.

Current kit has 24-70, 70-200, and 300 as the main lenses swapped across two bodies. Do carry 1.4x TCs and tubes to provide longer reach and macro capabilities. Specialty lenses include TS, old manual macros, primes from 21 through 135mm, and a 17-40 for wide angle landscapes.

Light travelling is 24-105 on one body. Events are 24-70, 70-200, and possibly 300 with 2 bodies. Holidays add the 17-40 and 24 TS-e to the list with 300 being optional depending on destination. Primes are mostly used to supplement zooms for portrait sessions, product shots, landscape trips with selection of primes being based on what is on agenda. It gives me flexibility of high quality zoom with aperture and IQ of primes as an available option.

300 f4 and 400 f5.6 are similar in bulk to 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8. The 300 f2.8 is only slightly longer that the f4 version but the diameter difference is huge when it comes to finding a way to pack it especially with the hood on it which makes it just massive. For light weight small bulk travel the 300 f4 would be your buddy.

As far as the value of what you are carrying on your back goes I can only tell you that it takes a bit of time to get used to it. Having insurance coverage helps as will making sure that you have carry on sized bag(s).

Additional thoughts: Zeiss vs Canon will be ongoing debate for a long time. Suggest comparing on lens by lens basis. There are some made by both companies that I would rather drop kick down the hall than own as well as some from both that I would very much like to have in my collection.

---

Honestly, I think I am going a very similar route. Thanks for the thoughts and tips.

I saw this thread in CR. Great set up and close to what I may eventually want. Except, I don't think I'll ever consider myself "done" without a 500 mm or 600 mm lens. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

If you are really determined to get the maximum reach possible with your lenses have you reconsidered using a cropped body? One question I have is regarding "2 stops better IQ". As you used this phrasing a couple of times I am just wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining it to me as I don't understand how a larger aperture opening relates to image quality?

Never mind. Figured out the missing comma. He eats shoots and leaves. He eats, shoots, and leaves. Such a small thing a comma is with ability to change meaning entirely.

---

Ha! Yep, I just edited the post to make that more clear. My favorite about use of commas is "Let's eat, Grandpa" vs "Let's eat Grandpa"....

Reach vs IQ. I've thought about keeping my 7D. I actually still technically have it, but just sent it and all my EFS lenses to Adorama to get a quote. This is part of the motivation for this thread, I may get the most value for my gear in a trade with Adorama, but need to decide what I want. But I more consistently like the images I am working with from the 5DIII, even when I've needed "reach." The final test happened this summer photographying loons while kayaking. I try to keep my distance, so reach is needed. This year I used the 5DIII. When I compared the images to previous years, taken with the 7D, I preferred the images from the 5DIII. So, the 7D has sat on a shelf since March. It still takes great images, but my body set up is going to be 5DIII and EOS-M. That said, there is a certain threshold price where I'll just keep the 7D.

The previous post was getting a little long, so I thought I'd start a new one.

I had written a post on Friday discussing the mid-range telephoto options. But in writing it, I convinced myself to go with the 70-200 f/2.8 II. My only concerns are related to it's size and how "striking" it is. I am not that concerned about the weight, as it is just a little heavier than the 100-400L and that has never phased me. Rather, I want to be able to use it to take candid photos at family functions and I am concerned that it is so "striking" that people will always know they are being photographed and will alter their behavior. In the end, 1 more stop and being physically a bit more subtle were the only arguments I was really coming up with for the 135 f/2.

So, I am thinking I will get the 70-200 f/2.8 II and try it out. So my core kit will look like:

• no ultra wide lens
• 24-70 II (assuming it checks out and I like it; I may keep the 24-105 as a travel lens, it depends on what I can get for it)
• 50 f/1.4
• 70-200 II
• 100 mm f/2.8 L
• 100-400L, but still debating this range

I'll keep the 50 f/1.4 and 100 f/2.8 L, but if they end up not being used, I may sell them as well.

Regarding the big white. I could likely get the 300 mm f/2.8 II in 2014. I won't be able to afford the 500 mm f/4 or 600 mm f/4 until at least 2015, maybe 2016. I had hoped that Canon would have released the 100-400L II so I could upgrade and get better IQ/AF/IS now to help in waiting the 1-2 years until I have the money saved. But that doesn't seem to be happening. So I am still left with potentially getting the 300 f/2.8 in 2014 and waiting until 2016-2017 for either the 500/600 lenses. Or sticking with either the 100-400L or the 70-200 f/2.* plus 2x TC for another year or two.

As the next time I think I'll need ~400 mm is February, I think I'll potentially rent a lens in then to test it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

As I am a hobbyist, really, I am after any sort of thrill I can get from my hobby. But, I also think 1,000 x 1,000 crops that I publish online look better if the original file was very sharp. There is likely a point of diminishing returns on that, but so far, IMO, it holds true.

---

Well said.

I was having this type of conversation last night with my Nikon buddy who was lamenting Nikon's last move. We chased ourselves in circles for awhile, the observation we came back to is looking at the photo experience in a fashion similar to how one describes the flying parameters of a plane - a "flight envelope." IQ, weight, size, features (FPS,Video, weather proofing etc), focal range, iso range. The idea was to do map out the maximums, 90th percentile, etc of our expected shooting experiences. For example, not withstanding Jonathans wonderful Aurora shots, I don't see myself hanging out in sub 0 F environments tacking pics.

As a hobbyist looking for thrills, the goal isn't to pick a limiting set, rather to see where my interests don't match up with the parameters of my equipment and where there is overlap. This last summer I rented the 24 & 90 T/S, glad I did. T/S will remain a rental vs. owned item.

What was an interesting "aha" moment was the breadth of capabilities already in place - and the weak link is the 24-105 on the FF. I have been reticent to swap it out for the 24-70 F4 for the range issue, so the solution would be the 24-70 2.8 on the crop body (M2 is in my future if it has the dual pixel sensor). ( I really don't care how it looks - and I hold the lens far more than I hold the camera and my right hand doesn't cramp).

Once the M2 comes out, I am hoping Canon brings out a true wide prime for it - the imaging horsepower of an M2, 5dIII, 22-M, 24-70,70-200, 2x TC,50 1.4, M-wide prime or adapter wide EFS, ext tubes, and 600 ex, all of which fits in my small back pack - is just pretty darn amazing. I am "ok" w/ not have a super tele and relying on the 2x,70-200,adapter & M, the few times have to reach out to 640mm - I know it will look "odd" but my only real concern is how the image looks.

Everyone has their own "photo envelope" and I don't expect anyone to share mine, just a concept that might help others.

The other "aha moment" was that I am working WAAAAAYYYY too much and need to get out of the office. :)

Brant,

If you're open to manual focusing, given the mention of Zeiss, there is a whole world of manual lenses from the past that have great character and image quality and often don't cost that much money.

One comment I would make is that if you mix different lens brands (Zeiss, other alt lenses, etc...) you may end up with an inconsistent look in your finished images.

Dave

A few more random thoughts: consider the 300/4IS instead of the 300/2.8, since many of the newest cameras are providing more than one stop of ISO improvement (offsetting the aperture difference). My wife and I are looking to get one, as I rented both that and a 500/4IS II for a whale watching trip, and she came home saying "I really want that 300/4 next time we do whale watching, it was much easier to use".

Consider the odd-hundreds long before the evens. In other words, the 300/2.8 and the 500/4 are much less cheaper than the 200/2, 400/2.8 and 600/4, because they aren't pushing the outer limits of focal length for a given aperture (and you could include the 135/2 in the odd-hundreds list against the 200/2).

Thanks everyone. I've jumped on the $1,899 deal for the 70-200 mm f/2.8. Concerns about its size, weight and if it is really the best option for me linger a bit, but I'll evaluate it over the next couple of weeks. I'll pick it up Friday. And while I am likely no longer in the market for a new lens, feel free to mention some of these older manual focus lenses that are well liked. I know nothing about older lenses and if they are inexpensive enough, I may give one a try. Especially for landscapes.

You will like this lens.

I think the biggest advantage of this lens over the 100-400mm is the exceptional IQ between 100-200mm.

If you use the 2x III with it let me know how you think it compares to the 100-400mm at 400.

Enjoy! It's my second most-used lens...

Thanks Guys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

If you use the 2x III with it let me know how you think it compares to the 100-400mm at 400.

---

Will do. I am going to order the 2x TC in separately in a week or two once I check out the lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I've jumped on the $1,899 deal for the 70-200 mm f/2.8. Concerns about its size, weight and if it is really the best option for me linger a bit, but I'll evaluate it over the next couple of weeks. I'll pick it up Friday.

---

Congratutaions on the lens.

This does look like a good deal. I was going to wait until after Christmas to see if the prices would come down to this level. I am in the U.K. this week, I hope it is still available at this price when I get back, and then I will see if I can swing it or have to wait a little longer. I have been wanting this one for a while now.

Pat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Thanks everyone. I've jumped on the $1,899 deal for the 70-200 mm f/2.8. Concerns about its size, weight and if it is really the best option for me linger a bit, but I'll evaluate it over the next couple of weeks. I'll pick it up Friday. And while I am likely no longer in the market for a new lens, feel free to mention some of these older manual focus lenses that are well liked. I know nothing about older lenses and if they are inexpensive enough, I may give one a try. Especially for landscapes.

---

I've recently gotten into the Olympus OM mount Zuiko lenses. They are easy to adapt to EOS mount and have no reported mirror interference issues on Canon full frame. Others like the Carl Zeiss lenses in Contax/Yashica mount and which give much the same look as the current Zeiss "ZE" lenses for native Canon mount. Some of the Zeiss C/Y mount lenses do have mirror clearance issues.

There's lots of other stuff too... some really like Minolta Rokkor lenses, but they are not as easy to adapt to EOS mount and could have mirror / infinity focus issues. Others use Takamur, Yashica, etc...

One lens you could try to see if you like all manual everything is the OM Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 It costs about $40, is tiny, and has a great reputation for being sharp right into full frame corners. You'd need an adapter, I'd recommend the $15 OM to EOs adapter from Fotodiox.

Here's an image of mine

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7448/1...64de8eeb_c.jpg
2013_10_24_4442_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr

I haven't processed many of my Zuiko images yet, but here are some:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6825585...uikoolympusom/

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Thanks everyone. I've jumped on the $1,899 deal for the 70-200 mm f/2.8. Concerns about its size, weight and if it is really the best option for me linger a bit, but I'll evaluate it over the next couple of weeks. I'll pick it up Friday. And while I am likely no longer in the market for a new lens, feel free to mention some of these older manual focus lenses that are well liked. I know nothing about older lenses and if they are inexpensive enough, I may give one a try. Especially for landscapes.

---

I have the 2x as well and I think this is my favorite lens. Yea it is heavy, but you get used to it - I doubt you will regret it.

A quick update and then my current questions. I am absolutely enjoying the 70-200 II. I am using it all the time. The weight really doesn't bother me. I have heard a comment or two about the size. It definitely stands out, but, more important, it does not seem to cause people to act unnaturally. At least, not any more so than with another lens on my 5DIII.

So, for those of you that have followed my upgrade path. I had no luck with the 24-70 II. I continue to read about issues so I am going to hold off on that lens for awhile longer. I flirted with a sale on the 500 mm f/4. But that flirtation ended after adding up everything I would want to go along with it and checking that amount against my budget :(

So, I've turned my attention to enhancing my kit with a dedicated "landscape" lens. I thought that would be easy. :rolleyes: First complication I ran into: the 24-105, which I own, is already Bryan's #1 rated landscape lens. And looking at different charts, I can see why. It isn't the "best" but it is consistently good from f/5.6 to f/11 over a wide focal range. So I started thinking about types of shots that I currently can not make and came up with three categories that, of course, would result in 2-3 different lenses: 1) Tilt Shift (TSE 24 f/3.5 II). In addition to being perhaps the sharpest wide angle lens corner to corner, I've been very interested in correcting for perspective distortion in a variety of my shots, and experimenting with different focal plans. 2) A fast prime a little for a little thinner DoF and low light shooting but primarily for nightscapes/milky way shots (Canon 24 f/1.4, Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 or 25 mm f/2); and 3) a UWA lens (Canon 16-35 or 17-40). While 24 mm is typically wide enough for me, it occasionally isn't and I have recently booked a trip that includes half a day touring slot canyons in Arizona, where it will be needed (or course, I could rent for this one trip).

To complete my kit, I have started leaning toward the EF 16-35 II. Potentially, it could be used for both UWA and nightscape shots. But, I have rarely seen such divergent analysis results from review sites for any lens and you don't have to search too far to find a number of people spending a lot of time complaining about it's soft edges, coma, and general lack of sharpness. It is almost as disparaged as the 24-105.... ;)

So, my question to those of you that have the EF 16-35 II....is it really that bad? Or is it actually a really good UWA zoom and at least a pretty good lens for nightscapes/milky way shots?

Thanks in advance.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

So, my question to those of you that have the EF 16-35 II....is it really that bad? Or is it actually a really good UWA zoom and at least a pretty good lens for nightscapes/milky way shots?

---

We've owned a 16-35II for about five years, and a EF-S 10-22 for about two years. Now that we're moving to FF (she has a 5D3, I have two 1Dx), the 10-22 is on loan to my dad, the 16-35 is in my bag, and the 14/2.8 is in her bag, but honestly I "steal" the 14/2.8 whenever she's not using it because it's got a nice magic to it. That said, I'm looking to get into more sports photography, and while shooting a HS girls basketball game Friday night, the 16-35 was a fun alternative to the 24-70/2.8 (alongside the 70-200/2.8IS) and the zoom versatility was very useful. In prep for tonight's game, I've decided to put the 14/2.8 on my "old" 1D3 as a floor remote, partly to overcome crop factor and partly to keep zoom functionality available to me.

If someone asked me for advice, I think I'd tell them to either go big to get the 14/2.8, go small and save their pennies with the 17-40/4, or go balls to the wall with the Zeiss 15.

Re the 16-35 - I've had mine over a year and previously had a 10-22 - I love it, I don't worry about the softness that people go on about.

My mistake in retrospect was to buy the 16-35 before I got the 24-70 II - a lens that blows me away - looking again, I'd get a 14/15mm prime either Canon or Zeiss

Other than that, still love my 135L but what next ? I'd probably be looking at adding a 70-200 2.8 IS II and a 8-15mm fisheye - I'd love something longer than my 70-300L but a 500/600 is probably many years away for me.

What else ? A second body perhaps. ?

I suspect you would love the 16-35mm II for landscapes....my son-in-law has one and I have used it and it is very nice. Landscapes look great to me but I am not a pixel peeper. I have read that the coma effect is a problem for astro-photography but I have no experience there. I have used it for indoor shots at family events too....it functions quite well as a general UWA zoom but not as useful as the 24-70mm f2.8 in that regard (I understand you are not considering it now but that focal length range is really nice and it goes so well with your 70-200 too)

I do own a 17-40 and a 35 f/1.4 both of which I really like. I have no complaints with the 17-40 on landscapes but I am sure the 16-35 has slightly better IQ especially away from center. I bought the 17-40 because of the cost differential and I did not think I needed f/2.8 For indoor/lower light events I crank up my 1DX ISO or add some fill flash. Currently I do not do any astrophotography.

I think the Canon 24mm f/1.4 or 14mm f/2.8 or Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 would be the best (and most expensive) for starscapes as the 35 is not wide enough.

You could try some stitched-panos with your 70-200 too, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

To complete my kit, I have started leaning toward the EF 16-35 II. Potentially, it could be used for both UWA and nightscape shots. But, I have rarely seen such divergent analysis results from review sites for any lens and you don't have to search too far to find a number of people spending a lot of time complaining about it's soft edges, coma, and general lack of sharpness. It is almost as disparaged as the 24-105.... ;)

So, my question to those of you that have the EF 16-35 II....is it really that bad? Or is it actually a really good UWA zoom and at least a pretty good lens for nightscapes/milky way shots?

---

Brant;

I recently went through a similar search and ended up with the 16-35 II. I strongly considered the 17-40 as well, but settled on the 16-35 II primarily for the faster f2.8 vs f4. Partly this was just for general lower light use (I take this when travelling so personally don't want to take several primes), but I was also hoping this could double for nightscapes (haven't done many, but interested to try more).

After having this lens for a few months (including one month of nonstop travel), I have to say I'm quite pleased. Overall image quality is excellent, but being a UWA I really need to watch for the perspective distortion at the wide end. Admittedly, most of my usage is at around f8 so I could do with the 17-40 most of the time, but I like the option of f2.8 when I need it. Question is whether that alone is worth the money...

As for your specific question on nightscapes, I've tried a few night shots and there is noticeable coma wide open at the edges when viewed at 100%. Not too bad if viewing smaller and it decreases when stopped down (pretty much unnoticeable by f5.6), but that somewhat decreases it's usefulness for milkyway and nightscape shots. Here is a quick example at f2.8 (note that the focus was off a bit for this shot). View at 100% on flickr to see the coma effect on the stars, particularly in the upper right.

https://v4s.yimg.com/sk/3807/1260110...7a1b16e8_z.jpg

kauai_148 by NFLD Stephen, on Flickr

Hope this helps. But in any case, I don't think there is a wrong choice with the lenses you are debating.

Stephen

Brant:

For milkyway shots - the wider the lens, the longer the exposure you can use before you start seeing star movement. The rule of thumb for the maximum shutter speed to produce sharp pinpoint stars is: Tv(max) = 500/(Focal Length). For example, at 16mm, the max shutter speed is around 31 seconds which is probably do-able at f/2.8, but now you are wide open with the 16-35mm where the lens is not at its best. For a 24mm lens, the max shutter speed would be 21 seconds which I can typically do at f/1.8 - f/2 with my 24mm f/1.4L and it is not wide open (good thing). I guess my point is: If you are going to use a lens that can only get to f/2.8, then it had better be pretty wide, and it should be good wide open (rokion 14mm f/2.8 seems to hold some good reguard wide open).

Not living in the land of great mountain views and other large vistas, I find 24mm on full frame to be pretty wide; and in many cases, to wide. I thought about the 16-35mm, but for the landscapes I shoot I think it would be too wide. I would like it for the occasional need of an ultra wide, but it just would not get used enough. And I still like my 24-105mm... in fact, I like it even more with the FF. I have actually been thinking about the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art lens. It would be a pretty good focal length for me and it is good wide open... so I could get to the 15 second max shutter speed wide open for milkyway shots.

Having said all that... I have seen a lot of really great shots with the 16-35mm. I am not sure you go to wrong picking one up.

Pat

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. Work has gotten a busier, so I've had to put in longer days Monday and Tuesday leaving me with less time to evaluate. I did start moving off of test charts and reviews to looking at photos on flickr for each lens. This has lead to one observation that when I think "ultra-wide" the shots I am trying to emulate seem to be in the 14-16 mm range. So I am now looking at 14 mm a little more. This brings in the Samyang/Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 in addition to the Canon 14 mm f/2.8 II (tough to agrue with magic ;)). I am also looking at the Sigma 35 f/1.4, as Pat suggested. I, like I am sure everyone else, has been tempted by this lens in the past. More for low light indoor photography/and DoF, but I do sometimes use this focal length for landscape/waterfalls. It may also be a better low-light indoor pair to the 70-200 f/2.8 than the 50 f/1.4 I currently use. It also had less coma than the 24/25 mm lenses. The Sigma/Samyang combo would also allow me to save some money away for a later purchase.

Anyway, I didn't want to go too long without thank you all for your input. I am trying to have this resolved in a week or so. Thanks again.

For landscape photography I'd prefer using a zoom. I don't believe either 14mm takes filters all that easily. If you're shooting f/8 - f/11 then the 17-40 is likely good enough unless you need f/2.8.

There's a huge difference between 17mm and 40mm and having the choice of focal length quickly available to you is greatly valuable.

As a bonus the 17-40 is fantastic against flare.

Dave

Just a quick update, but as part of this process, I decided to try the Rokinon (Samyang) 14 mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC. This is the current model and is an improvement over the Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 IF ED MC (released 2009). I only bring this up as I wasn't aware that there were two recent models floating around. For awhile I have seen photos taken with this lens that I really liked. After reading about some quality control issues, I brought two of the lenses in from amazon. Sure enough, one of them within 2 minutes of testing was vastly inferior to the other.

But the main reason for my post is the main knock I've always heard about this lens was the distortion (other than lack of AF). Before buying I found this link about a profile for Lightroom for the Samyang 14 UMC. Adobe themselves don't provide one.

Below are the results:

Brick wall....no correction for distortion:
Attachment 2161

Same picture using the Lightroom profile provided for in the link:
Attachment 2162

While not perfect, the profile does seem to correct the distortion pretty well without too much loss.

If I find I really like 14 mm, I may someday upgrade to the Canon for AF and a few other things. But, for now, I'll see if I like the focal length for $325.

BTW...here is a quick one I took from my front lawn....
Attachment 2163

+1 on the Samyang/Rokinon.
I ended up with two (one Samyang, one Rokinon), and the second one seemed to be slightly better at infinity focus. It seems the first one doesn't let focus to infinity completely.
All in all it can be a lot of fun for little money