Planning my lens kit

[Fast Glass]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Chears,


John.

[Colin500]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

</div>



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

</div>



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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Thanks for the very elaborate help and tips!


Colin

[Fast Glass]

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

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


John.

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

[Fast Glass]

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


John.

[Colin500]

Ok, it feels that I

[Colin500]

So how did this story end?


I