Which Lens Package would you prefer?

[Chris White]

Hi Christian,

1. “Natural” inside and outside Portrait shooting. I look for a superior background blur and highest quality pictures.


2. Improvement of shooting of family events in situation where a flash would destroy the light (e.g. going on a Christmas market)

For 1 and 2, you definitely want f/2.8 or a faster prime. I have the EF-S 17-55 for my 50D because it was my first DSLR and I needed a wider aperture and I found the kit lens (EF 28-135) did not allow me to get my whole subject in the frame. I love the 17-55. Having said that, like neuro, now that I have a 5D II I tend to use it for a lot of the indoor family shots; and it pairs very well for those with the EF 24-70. They are both f/2.8 which I shoot more than not. In addition, it gives me that creamy background blur you are looking for, which helps draw you to the subject.<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]

Why is the 24-70 instead of the 24-105 on your recommendation list Chris and wickerprints?

<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]I think you will find that most of us have the 24-70 instead of the 24-105 IS for the f2.8. I am fairly certain that were it available with IS, many of us -- such as me -- would have that version. Since Canon has ignored the pleas for a EF 24-70 IS for years, we use the non-IS version that is available. In the end it comes down to the simple fact for me that it lets twice the light in to the sensor as the 24-105 f/4.


Having a case of <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L <span style="color: #000000;"]disease, I also have the 24-105, which works very well for my daughter's outdoor soccer games.


<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]I recently shot pictures of a variety/talent show at a church audoritum using only the poor stage lighting and my 5D II with my EF 24-70 f/2.8 and my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM I and it came very nicely. I do not have one to insert now as I am at work, but if you want I could add one or two when I get home.


<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]Chris



<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]

[neuroanatomist]

They are both f/2.8 which I shoot more than not. In addition, it gives me that creamy background blur you are looking for, which helps draw you to the subject.

Just keep in mind that there are two aspects to 'creamy background blur' - quantity of OOF blur (i.e. thin DoF) and quality of OOF blur (aka bokeh). Both lenses produce a nice, smooth bokeh. As for quantity, it depends on how tightly you frame - DoF is determined by subject distance, aperture, and focal length. For a given subject distance (e.g. 3 m), 105mm at f/4 results in a thinner DoF (~35%) and thus more OOF blur than 70mm f/2.8. Of course, the framing is tighter, too. But my point is that you can get good OOF blur with either 24-xx zoom (although nowhere near what you'll get with the 85L).

[wickerprints]

Because there

[clemmb]

They are both f/2.8 which I shoot more than not. In addition, it gives me that creamy background blur you are looking for, which helps draw you to the subject.

Just keep in mind that there are two aspects to 'creamy background blur' - quantity of OOF blur (i.e. thin DoF) and quality of OOF blur (aka bokeh). Both lenses produce a nice, smooth bokeh. As for quantity, it depends on how tightly you frame - DoF is determined by subject distance, aperture, and focal length. For a given subject distance (e.g. 3 m), 105mm at f/4 results in a thinner DoF (~35%) and thus more OOF blur than 70mm f/2.8. Of course, the framing is tighter, too. But my point is that you can get good OOF blur with either 24-xx zoom (although nowhere near what you'll get with the 85L).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Good explanation Neuro


Mark

[SwissChris]

I&rsquo;m really impressed. I really appreciate all your time you spend on your answers. I guess I finally found the right community (I posted on some local (swiss) websites but the answers were not satisfactory at all).


John great insights which will help me a lot. It really seems your situation is/was really quite similar.


I have the same feelings about the 70-200 regarding the focal length. While it is a great lens I&rsquo;m expecting to use it more often on a FF Body. On my Crop I&rsquo;m using it mainly for outside events with enough distance between you and what you are going to shoot.


The 16-35 is already on my mind and will be definitely on my shopping list as soon as I go for a FF Body.


And I guess I&rsquo;ll do it just like you: I&rsquo;ll pick one Body dependent on what type of shooting I am heading for. And I guess for the ultra wide situations the full frame body will go along. So that would be a logical step to take.


Thank you also for your view on the Extenders. I probably will wait anyway for the III version review as there are also rumors around regarding a new 100-400 version. If the reviews of the extenders don&rsquo;t convince me and no new 100-400 version is announced I just go for the current model. It seems to do his job (wildlife). A bit disappointing for me is that the lens isn&rsquo;t weather sealed. Especially if you go out on safari there is a fair chance that you get unexpectedly caught by rain.


I had a look at your profile, your gear and some of your pictures posted on flickr especially those shots with the 85L. With your very cute daughter (I guess?) you got the perfect model. Congratulation ?


The creamy blur of the 85L is really sweet! That is exactly why this lens is kicking my mind. I guess there is no way around it&hellip; even though it is may a case of <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L disease ;-)


Leaves just the general purpose lens decision open.


Thank you wickerprints for the great summary of the advantages of aperture vs. IS.


Due to the fact that I own already the 24-105L I will use that. My feeling tends to agree to John (again). For real low light you are going to need a fast prime anyway.


It would be great to see your pictures of the church Chris. If you have the time to upload them I would appreciate it.


I guess the rational at the end dictates that the 24-105 will do fine for another year or two until deciding to go FF. On the FF we will see. Maybe the admired 24-70 2.8 IS is available. If I not a 35L enhance my low light capabilities.


The 17-55 would be a good option but I guess I won&rsquo;t go for it with respect to the upcoming FF upgrade.


It comes down to the following setup to go for:


10-22(EF-S) move to for FF 16-35L


24-105L keep unless a 24-70 2.8L IS is available


35 L (maybe at a later stage to enhance low light capabilities)


70-200 2.8L IS II keep


85 1.8 move to 85 L


100 2.8L IS Marco keep


Evaluate either 100-400 or Extender 1.4/2.0 III + 70-200 2.8


Best of breed or have I missed an argument?


@ John: May I get in touch with you? As you have nearly the same setup it would be great to get some advice on you Accessories (e.g. bags).

[HDNitehawk]

Evaluate either 100-400 or Extender 1.4/2.0 III + 70-200 2.8

I wouldn't be happy with the 70-200 2.8L with the 2x extender, especially on a zoom lens. IMO it degrades the image to much.


But have you concidered this. The 70-200 is going to out perform the 100-400L on the short end. So why not go with a prime. The 300mm F4L IS instead of the 100-400L.

[neuroanatomist]

I had a look at your profile, your gear and some of your pictures posted on flickr especially those shots with the 85L. With your very cute daughter (I guess?) you got the perfect model

Thanks! [:$]Yes, that's my daughter - she'll be 3 in January.

May I get in touch with you?

Certainly! The forums have a 'Conversation' feature (aka private messaging) - if you click my profile link, you should see a Start a Conversation link in the upper right corner. If it's not there for some reason, let me know here.


--John

[SwissChris]

@John: Great. I saw the private Message Option already but wanted to ask first. I'll contact you (probably tomorrow)


@HDNitehawk Right the 300 4L is an Option worth to consider. My thoughts Why I ruled it out for my purposes (Wildlife):


Less versatility which I would miss on a photo safari. Those wild animals move quite fast in and out ouf range.


Second Point according Bryan's Review the 300 is slightly better on 300 but gets on the lower end at 420 (1.4 Extender) vs. The 100-400.


So trading versatility for slightly better Performance at 300 but less perfomance at 420 is for my puposes Nothing to aim for.


If considering primes in my opinion it would Be necessary to get the 300 2.8 or Even the 400 2.8 to really make up for the lost versatility but those Lenses are Way off my budget.



But that is only Based on Reading Bryans Reviews. What is your Experience with those primes?

[HDNitehawk]

If considering primes in my opinion it would Be necessary to get the 300 2.8 or Even the 400 2.8 to really make up for the lost versatility but those Lenses are Way off my budget.


But that is only Based on Reading Bryans Reviews. What is your Experience with those primes?

First let me say, I like primes because of the quality of the pictures.


Iowned the 100-400L, in my opinion it is very weak on the 100mm end compared to other lens I had. I would take it off and shoot with my 100mm F2.8L IS macro rather than use it at the short end. The copy I had, performed best at around the 300mm range, and started to loose strength out to 400mm. Comparing the 300mm F4to the 100-400L the 300mm does out perform at 300mm, and does loose alittle at 400mm but I am not sure it would be enough to matter. The 400mm f5.6L would be a better choice if it had IS, no IS is why I would like the 300mm F4 better. I know when I went out with the plan on shooting wildlife with my 100-400mm it was almost always at 400mm (the zoom just didn't matter that much to me).


As for the 300 2.8L at this point in time it gets no better. With a 1.4 converter most people will noticelittle or nodegradation of image. The 400mm 2.8L I wouldn't concider for wildlife, it is heaver than the 500mm F4L which IMO the 500mm would be the way to go. You mentioned Safari, which in my part of the world most people would take that to mean trip to Africa. Taking any one of these three big tele's would be a job in itself. I thought about going to Africa last year, and decided to wait till maybe next. If I go the 500mm F4L will go to, and maybe buy the 70-200mm F2.8L II for the wife to take on the back up camera.

[HDNitehawk]

Oops clicked twice