I'm looking to revamp my kit before the year is up, how's this end result look?

[Kayaker72]

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...

• 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

[DavidWare]

...

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.

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.

...

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!

[Kayaker72]

.... 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.