Upgrade Path

[Joel Eade]

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

.

That's true

[Kayaker72]

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

[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

[Kayaker72]

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....

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.

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.

[Kayaker72]

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.

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.

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.

[Kayaker72]

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.

[Busted Knuckles]

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.

[Dave Throgmartin]

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

[peety3]

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).

[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.