taking the FF plunge! Lens decisions?

[Cozen]

If I get the 24-70 2.8, maybe I can skip the 85 1.8 and go the the 135 2.0. Thoughts?





This will give me the lens combo of





20-35 3.5


24-70L 2.8


50 1.8


135L 2.0

[clemmb]

Sounds like a plan to me.

[Garrett-Grimsley]

This will give me the lens combo of


20-35 3.5


24-70L 2.8


50 1.8


135L 2.0
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Solid combo right there. With the 24-70 you don't need the 85, as good as it is. I'd defiantly get the 135.

[Chuck Lee]

If I get the 24-70 2.8, maybe I can skip the 85 1.8 and go the the 135 2.0. Thoughts?

I'm sure the 135 f2 is a spectacular piece of glass but IMHO I'd buy a 70-200 f2.8L non-IS before I'd buy the 135. For just a little more $, the versatility you gain will be far better than the 135mm IQ advantage. The next lens would be a 16-35 f2.8L or a used 17-35 f2.8L. Add primes later. You can then test out what focal length you tend to shoot at most often. Try setting your zoom on a particular focal length and shoot at some non-consequential event. Primes are awesome, but can be trouble if you can't move your feet. You will also open up the camera body more lens-swapping which will increase the dust build up onthe sensor filter.


I also have a 50 1.4 and the 100 f2.8 Macro which I enjoy shooting with as well. I find the 50 is much easier to use than the 100. It's easier to get closer most of the time, not so easy to get farther away. I love the 50 1.4 on the 5D. However, the 28-70 f2.8L zoom is the default mount.

[Cozen]

If I get the 24-70 2.8, maybe I can skip the 85 1.8 and go the the 135 2.0. Thoughts?

I'm sure the 135 f2 is a spectacular piece of glass but IMHO I'd buy a 70-200 f2.8L non-IS before I'd buy the 135. For just a little more $, the versatility you gain will be far better than the 135mm IQ advantage. The next lens would be a 16-35 f2.8L or a used 17-35 f2.8L. Add primes later. You can then test out what focal length you tend to shoot at most often. Try setting your zoom on a particular focal length and shoot at some non-consequential event. Primes are awesome, but can be trouble if you can't move your feet. You will also open up the camera body more lens-swapping which will increase the dust build up onthe sensor filter.


I also have a 50 1.4 and the 100 f2.8 Macro which I enjoy shooting with as well. I find the 50 is much easier to use than the 100. It's easier to get closer most of the time, not so easy to get farther away. I love the 50 1.4 on the 5D. However, the 28-70 f2.8L zoom is the default mount.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I agree with you on the versatility aspect. I think the 70-200 focal range on a FF is very ideal. But I think people have stated that the 150-200 range is hard to keep steady hand held without IS unless your shutter speed is very high. So getting the 70-200 2.8 IS would be significantly more. Another concern of mine is the size and weight of the lens. I've never used lens so big and for video I'd imagine it will be fairly difficult to use.


The more I think about all these options, the more my head hurts haha. I'm also thinking that the 24-70 will be too short on a FF.........

[Chuck Lee]

But I think people have stated that the 150-200 range is hard to keep steady hand held without IS unless your shutter speed is very high.

Cozen,


It's simple. 1/focal length = min shutter speed. I shoot 1/200 at 200mm most of the time indoors. That's the fastest shutter speed I can sync with flash fill with my 5D. A 135mm is going to want at least 1/135 shutter speed. Can you handhold slower. Yes, but the keeper rate is reduced. That doesn't negate the versatility. IS is fantastic, but you can't stop human motion much below 1/60th. There are many exceptions but I wouldn't accept IS as the sole remedy. I've shot wedding vows with a Tamron 70-300 f3.5-5.6 on a Pentax K100 at 220mm plus @ 1/15th shutter speed that are fabulous. Of-course the camera was on a tripod. I had IS but still opted for the tripod. It's not as restrictive as you might think. Especially with the "Slick" pistol grip I have.


The value I enjoy from my older used Canon L glass is worth the little extra I give up. Don't count out a used 70-200 f2.8L (non Is) Man, I hate designating that. From now on it is what it is


70-200 f2.8L


70-200 f2.8L IS


70-200 f2.8L IS II


Fabulous zoom lenses. All of them.

[Mr.Le]

I happen to use both, the 70-200 F4L IS &amp; 135L. Outdoor sports = 70-200. Portraits &amp; indoor sports = 135L. For weddings, depending on the condition these 2 get swap back and forth.


So it's all really depends on what you need to do w/ your equipment. I think you know which one will suite you best.

[Cozen]

I happen to use both, the 70-200 F4L IS &amp; 135L. Outdoor sports = 70-200. Portraits &amp; indoor sports = 135L. For weddings, depending on the condition these 2 get swap back and forth.


So it's all really depends on what you need to do w/ your equipment. I think you know which one will suite you best.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I'm almost debating skipping the 24-70/24-105 and grabbing both of the 135L and the 70-200 f4IS. Reason being the 70mm on a FF is almost wide enough for most uses other than group shots and wide landscapes. I can use my 20-35mm or 50mm for those applications until it comes time for a 24-70 range lens. How does the 70-200 f4 IS perform for indoor events (non sports such as concerts/bdays/weddings)?