My upgrade path...looking for outside thoughts

If you had the following:

1Dx, 1Dx, 1D3
16-35/2.8II, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.2II, 300/4IS

And you were considering the following lenses:

Zeiss 15/2.8, 100/2 Makro, 135/2
Canon 35/1.4, 135/2, 70-200/4 (non-IS), 200-400/4&1.4x

What order would you buy them? What other lenses would you squeeze into the sequence?
How would the $80 mail-in rebate on the 70-200 and/or $100 rebate on the 35/1.4 and (Canon) 135/2 influence your sequence, assuming the rebates end on 3/31/14?

Figure you deposit $500 to $1500 into the lens fund twice a month, there's $2500 in the pot currently, but the pot needs to be emptied by the end of the calendar year.
Factor in a July cruise in Alaska (though rentals are already reserved for the relevant items listed above), and an October "Peter Read Miller Sports Photography Workshop".

As much as I want the 200-400, I don't know that I can get it in time for the July cruise. The rumor mill somewhat suggests the 35/1.4 is getting "mark twoed" soon. I think buying the Canon 135/2 and the Zeiss 135/2 is redundant, though my wife may enjoy the Canon if I get the Zeiss (she has a bag of gear totally separate from the list above). That said, I think buying the Zeiss 100/2 and the Zeiss 135/2 may end up redundant as well. The 70-200/4 (non-IS) is intended to give me an inexpensive (and much lighter) outdoor sports option.

Thoughts? Comments?

Peety,

Sorry, I don't intend to hijack your thread, but I'm planning to post my 135mm f/2 L for sale in the short future. I bought it retail February 2012 and have kept it in good shape. If you're interested and in the USA let me know. I'd be looking for $825 and would include covering Paypal fees and Fedex shipping (signature required).

I haven't taken photos of it yet, but plan to over the next several days.

Dave

Hi Peety3,

My turn to help you spend your money :D

My first disclaimer, but I don't own the Canon EF 135 f/2. But it is on my list. You have mentioned magic, the way I hear people talk about the 135 f/2 being in a different class from the 70-200 f/2.8 II makes me think it has some magic. I can understand being tempted by the Zeiss 135 f/2, it may be one of the sharpest lenses out there, but it lacks AF and comes with a price tag ($2,100) that is more than double the Canon. You didn't mention what you may be using the lens for, but I don't think I could live without AF at 135 mm f/2. If you can, then it is at least worth discussing.

Regarding the 35 mm focal length, you didn't mention the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art. I just picked one up. The test charts look great, and I will spend the next little bit testing it out in real world shots. I'll let you know what I think. I rationalized the choice because of sharpness at f/1.4. A few shots around the house have not disappointed.

A couple general thoughts:

1. You didn't mention if your 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 are mk i or mk ii. It may be worth upgrading if they are the mk i versions. I am biased, but right now I am giving Canon time to fix production issues with the 24-70 ii. But the 70-200 ii I received is quickly becoming my go to lens.
2. You mention the 70-200 f/4 non-IS as a sport lens. Just a thought, but I know of a person that has the 70-300 L for travel purposes because it packs so well, that may add something to your kit.
3. You may already have this, but with 300 f/4 your longest lens, I'd at least want a 1.4 tc if not the 100-400L.

Withe that said, if I had your kit and already had the 70-200 ii, I'd work off your list this order:

1. Canon 135 f/2 by March 29 (according to BH website)
2. Canon 35 f/1.4
3. Zeiss 15 f/2.8 (Bryan seemed to have loved this lens in his review)

Good luck,
Brant

You have really good glass from 16mm to 300mm and maybe a little higher with converters. I don't know if adding primes in those ranges will really mean that much to you. So I would rate the 200-400mm f/4 as your first priority then maybe the Macro since you don't have one at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

So I would rate the 200-400mm f/4 as your first priority then maybe the Macro since you don't have one at all.

---

I was also wondering about a tilt/shift.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I was also wondering about a tilt/shift.....

---

+1

played w/ the 24 and 90 this summer. Had a lot of fun w/ them but didn't really get to understand them, clearly landscape stuff, hard to do anything fast with them. I would argue that the 90 makes for an interesting macro lens/ an extension tube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

You didn't mention what you may be using the lens for, but I don't think I could live without AF at 135 mm f/2.

---

Good point. The 135/2 would mostly be for portrait work, though I'd probably spend some time with it on the camera and no other lens handy, just to shake off some compositional cobwebs. The "AF assist" of the Zeiss lenses is rather useful though. Worthwhile "internal debates" on AF to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Regarding the 35 mm focal length, you didn't mention the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art. I just picked one up. The test charts look great, and I will spend the next little bit testing it out in real world shots. I'll let you know what I think. I rationalized the choice because of sharpness at f/1.4. A few shots around the house have not disappointed.

---

I'm a brand snob, for better and worse. Something to think about, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

A couple general thoughts:

1. You didn't mention if your 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 are mk i or mk ii. It may be worth upgrading if they are the mk i versions. I am biased, but right now I am giving Canon time to fix production issues with the 24-70 ii. But the 70-200 ii I received is quickly becoming my go to lens.

---

Both of these lenses are mk I. I'm sure the newer models are better, but I'm emotionally not ready to drop good bucks on new versions of lenses I already own. I do see both of these working their way up the wish list, but almost definitely after the 200-400.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

1. You mention the 70-200 f/4 non-IS as a sport lens. Just a thought, but I know of a person that has the 70-300 L for travel purposes because it packs so well, that may add something to your kit.
2. You may already have this, but with 300 f/4 your longest lens, I'd at least want a 1.4 tc if not the 100-400L.

---

70-200/4 is $709 - $80. 70-300L is $1599 - $200. I'm definitely not seeing value in the 70-300L, even if it has IS. I'm OK with f/4 on the long end, not really OK with f/5.6. And the 100-400 is not going into my bag unless/until it's updated. I just don't like it; it ranks very low on the "magic contained inside" scale for me, it's hard to balance on a monopod/gimbal head, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Withe that said, if I had your kit and already had the 70-200 ii, I'd work off your list this order:

1. Canon 135 f/2 by March 29 (according to BH website)
2. Canon 35 f/1.4
3. Zeiss 15 f/2.8 (Bryan seemed to have loved this lens in his review)

---

Appreciate the input. Lots to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

I don't know if adding primes in those ranges will really mean that much to you. So I would rate the 200-400mm f/4 as your first priority then maybe the Macro since you don't have one at all.

---

The primes buy me some faster fastness. My wife loved the 300/4 on a whale watch, so getting the 200-400 doesn't make the 300/4 obsolete (also good for me to have around when the 200-400 is just too big and/or heavy). Macro-wise, my wife has the Canon 100/2.8L Macro, so I can raid that when desired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I was also wondering about a tilt/shift.....

---

I've rented the 17TS (won $200 in photo contests with it, and did a great pano of my parents' kitchen), and I've rented the 24TS (got a few neat shots with it at a hockey game and a few other places). I enjoyed them, but really don't feel much urge to even rent them much. I suspect they're on the list after the "odd hundreds" (300/2.8, 500/4) get bought (which is before the even hundreds: 200/2, 400/2.8, 600/4).

Short-term update for the -3 people who are curious: I bought the 70-200/4L (non-IS) to get the $80 mail-in rebate. As I feared, Canon has rejected my rebate claim, saying the UPC was invalid. I'm awaiting an "investigation". Thankfully the rep said there's an alternate way to qualify by sending in a photo of the lens/serial number.

I "took a loan" from the lens fund to pay for our upcoming cruise. Now I'm in a very dynamic planning mode to decide what to buy before the cruise, mostly "little" things like a LensAlign, memory cards, an SSD and two HDDs for image storage, perhaps 1-2 spare camera batteries. Meanwhile, I've got to save up for my rental, and I'm debating whether to rent the 600 (alongside the 200-400).

Thanks for the update and sorry to hear there are any issues with the rebate. Did you buy the lens gray market?

I'll look forward to some shots from your cruise.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Thanks for the update and sorry to hear there are any issues with the rebate. Did you buy the lens gray market?

I'll look forward to some shots from your cruise.

---

I bought from B&H as a "US" model. I'm just going to assume it was a glitch in the rebate systems. I'm wondering if I need to shoot an "enveloping" video (along the same theme as those "unboxing" videos) to show that I cut the UPC from this box and put it in that envelope which I mailed to you losers...

Yep, less than 10 weeks until the cruise. :D I'm having an "enjoyable" debate/discussion on the Cruise Critic forums about whether to lug a laptop or lots of memory cards. Some cheesmo thought I was an idiot for paying so much for 160MB/sec 16GB CF cards when he can get a "Patriot" Class10 (with 10MB/sec write speed) SDHC card for $23 on Amazon. Oh, let's see: a 1Dx makes bits at a rate of ~250MB/sec, so if I fill the buffer (which I'm guessing is nearly 1GB) and drain it at 10MB/sec, I'd be looking at 1.6 minutes to regain the whole buffer on a 1Dx. No thanks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

Yep, less than 10 weeks until the cruise. :D I'm having an "enjoyable" debate/discussion on the Cruise Critic forums about whether to lug a laptop or lots of memory cards. Some cheesmo thought I was an idiot for paying so much for 160MB/sec 16GB CF cards when he can get a "Patriot" Class10 (with 10MB/sec write speed) SDHC card for $23 on Amazon. Oh, let's see: a 1Dx makes bits at a rate of ~250MB/sec, so if I fill the buffer (which I'm guessing is nearly 1GB) and drain it at 10MB/sec, I'd be looking at 1.6 minutes to regain the whole buffer on a 1Dx. No thanks...

---

Are they shooting jpeg? Depending on the camera body (buffer size) that would help a little, but using 10 MB/sec will likely end up in disappointment.

See a bunch of eagles or a few Grizzly bears and I would fill that buffer with RAW images pretty quickly. Also, depending the camera body they have, the buffer may not be much. I think very highly of the 5DIII, but two of its limitations are buffer size and the SD card write speed. If I am shooting action, I actually take the SD card out and reset the 5DIII to write only to the CF card (that doesn't happen automatically when removing the SD card). With SD card, I get no more than 12 frames (usually less) before the buffer is filled. Remove the SD card and I can get ~30 frames in the 5DIII before the buffer is filled and then it is ~ 3 fps.

It actually doesn't require the SD card to be removed as long as you are not writing to it


Arnt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahab1372

It actually doesn't require the SD card to be removed as long as you are not writing to it

Arnt

---

True....and I have to laugh at myself a bit...because, I do take my SD card out. It started off as process of elimination trying to get the number of shots I could take in a single burst up. I started by removing the SD card. That didn't work. I went in and adjusted the menus settings. That worked, so I stayed with it. :rolleyes:

Another follow-up, if anyone cares. I've been accepted into an organization as a photographer where I'm on-call for urgent shoots, rarely with >12 hours notice. As such, I'm hoping to adjust my inventory so I can have just what I need always in my trunk. The Zeiss 100/2 Makro has now shot to the top of my list, followed by a Profoto B1 Off Camera Flash and a Profoto Air Remote TTL-C to drive the B1. I've been doing OK with my D1 heads, but I don't like having to depend on a power cord, and it'd be nice to go back to TTL flash while still having enough power to drive a 1x3 or 2x3 softbox with a grid.

After that, who knows what's next.

B1 price is a little scary, but I expect it to last me for decades (other than the battery, which I plan to be a 2-3 year thing). One of my D1s got knocked over and the only impact was the glass plate knocked out, easily put back together. A flash would have probably cracked or shattered from that sort of fall.

I spent several years using a 580EXII as master trigger, then several years pulling my hair out with PW Mini/Flex. I slowly got good at balancing ISO/aperture/shutter so I'd have enough oomph from the flashes without having to wait a full 5 seconds for recharge, only to find pink color shifts and excess grain in my flash-lit shots. Now with my pair of D1s, it's ISO 100, f/whatever I want, and I have enough power to overcome a softbox with both layers of diffusion in, plus the softgrid. The B1 will give me cord freedom and hopefully power-up-and-ignore freedom when popping into a hospital room for a photoshoot, or at my day job where I occasionally get called for a hallway "award winner handshake" photo, etc. Yes, one B1 with remote is about what two D1s with remote costs, but there's a feature set to be had.