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]

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.

[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.

[conropl]

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.

Congratutaions on the lens.

This does look like a good deal. I was going to wait until after Christmas to see if the prices would come down to this level. I am in the U.K. this week, I hope it is still available at this price when I get back, and then I will see if I can swing it or have to wait a little longer. I have been wanting this one for a while now.

Pat

[Dave Throgmartin]

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.

I've recently gotten into the Olympus OM mount Zuiko lenses. They are easy to adapt to EOS mount and have no reported mirror interference issues on Canon full frame. Others like the Carl Zeiss lenses in Contax/Yashica mount and which give much the same look as the current Zeiss "ZE" lenses for native Canon mount. Some of the Zeiss C/Y mount lenses do have mirror clearance issues.

There's lots of other stuff too... some really like Minolta Rokkor lenses, but they are not as easy to adapt to EOS mount and could have mirror / infinity focus issues. Others use Takamur, Yashica, etc...

One lens you could try to see if you like all manual everything is the OM Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 It costs about $40, is tiny, and has a great reputation for being sharp right into full frame corners. You'd need an adapter, I'd recommend the $15 OM to EOs adapter from Fotodiox.

Here's an image of mine


2013_10_24_4442_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr

I haven't processed many of my Zuiko images yet, but here are some:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6825585...uikoolympusom/

Dave