Originally Posted by jsridout
Agreed! []
Well, sort of. John, I may be wrong, but it seems to me like you're trying to cover too many bases. You're going to miss shots, that's a given. It seems like you're trying to proof yourself from this by buying more lenses. Believe me, a perfect combo of lenses is propped up next to that fountain of youth. Until Canon makes a 14-800mm f/1.4 lens, though.
brendan
Hi Jeremy,
Welcome to the forums, and thanks for your insightful comments! I do like the simplified lens collection, and zooms are clearly called for there. There's a reason the 16-35mm f/2.8L + 24-70mm f/2.8L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS are considered the 'holy trinity' of zoom lenses - f/2.8 and spanning 16-200mm. On a crop body, I think the 10-22mm, 17-55mm, and 70-200mm f/2.8 represent a similar trinity (though I'd prefer a faster UWA, most of what I use that lens for are landscapes where I'm stopped down anyway). I know I'll never miss the 55-70mm range, but I'd not want to give up the 17-24mm range on my 17-55mm 'walkaround' lens. I shoot in the 17-24mm part of that lens' range a lot. I think the combination of the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 (IS II) is a formidable 2-lens combo that will meet the bulk of my shooting needs - but not all of them.
I also think primes have their place. If I was forced to choose, I'd go with zooms for versatility. But sometimes f/2.8 just isn't wide enough, either for low light with moving subjects, or for a really strong OOF blur in a portrait. There's also a reason the 35mm f/1.4L, the 85mm f/1.2L, and the 135mm f/2L are the 'holy trinity' of primes! I do still use my EF 85mm f/1.8 - when I want to shoot close-up portraits of my daughter, for example. I've gotten some wonderful shots with that lens - indoor, ambient light where the couch 2 feet behind her face is blurred to an abstract color pattern, with a shutter speed that is still fast enough to freeze her motion and emotion, and those are shots I couldn't have gotten with an f/2.8 zoom short of ISO 6400. The need for a dedicated macro lens is rather obvious, if one intends to shoot macro. Although they're not on my current list (I'd have no idea what to do with one...yet), the TS-E lenses allow for substantial creativity and fill an important niche for particular types of shooting.
So, overall I agree that a small set of high-quality zooms is the most useful overall, in particular for travel/family/documentary shooting. However, for other types of shooting, other lenses come into play. The 100-400mm is really a great lens for wildlife - a 200mm lens just doesn't have the reach, even on a crop body. The fast supertelephoto primes are even better for that - but priced rather steep for me as a non-pro shooter.
I'm firmly of the opinion that there's no such thing as too much gear. Too much to carry at once, sure. But too much? Naah. [:P]
Thanks, Mark - I may end up there down the line, but the jury's still out, and will be for a while after I get the 70-200 II. It's not the weight/size difference that matters in terms of that lens, but carrying another lens on an outing. For me, there are three kinds of outings, 1) no real reason to bring a camera and/or no convenient way to do so; 2) something where the main purpose is not photography, but photo op's are going to happen; and 3) going out specifically to shoot pictures.
For #1, the solution is my P&S with a 10x optical zoom. Fits in a pocket or the glove box, maximum convenience, minimum obtrusiveness. For #3, I load up the Flipside 400AW with every lens that will fit, strap the tripod on the back (and/or the forthcoming monopod on the side), and go. Those are the easy ones. #2 requires more thought - I decide on the main purpose, pick the main lens, and add supplementals until I'm out of room. Indoor playdate? 17-55mm on the body, 85mm f/1.8 and 430EX II flash. Short, scenic hike with family? Still probably the 17-55mm on the body, also the 10-22mm and the 200mm f/2.8 prime. Or the 70-200 f/2.8 and only the 70-200mm f/2.8, based on space requirements in the belt pack (often, my toddler will be in a back-carrier for those hikes, for now at least).
So, I think I'll have uses for the 200mm f/2.8L prime, even after I get the 70-200 MkII. Time will tell. As you probably recall, I got such a great deal on a used copy of that lens that it won't bother me to let it sit around for a while to see if I have a need.
I'm sure I'll get the 50mm f/1.4 sooner or later, though. A great value and a great lens!
I think you're probably right, Brendan, but I don't have a particular problem with that. Lots of folks say that your camera is just a tool, something good to keep in mind. But in the world of repair, sometimes you need a 12" long, 5/16 star-head center-pin hex driver, and that's the only thing that will get the job done. Now to me, that's like an MP-E 65mm or a TS-E lens - very, very specialized and not something that belongs in everyone's kit. Zooms are like crescent wrenches and screwdrivers, and primes would be torque wrenches and metric allen keys - not everyone needs them, but they can sure come in handy in certain situations. I don't have a torque wrench, though... [] ...but, believe it or not, I actuallydo have a5/16 star-head center-pin hex driver!
Also, to me it sometimes spurs creativity. On some photo outings, I don't 'bring everything and the kitchen sink'. I bring the 100mm macro and the tripod. Or the 10-22mm and the tripod.
_____________________________
Thanks once again to everyone for the opinions and advice. My desire for the 24-105 f/4L IS has waned substantially, and my desire for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is as strong as ever!
If you know what you'll be shooting, a prime is the way to go. They're not outdated, sometimes-useful lenses. Until zooms can give me the same IQ at the same price, there is a huge niche for primes. I meant you're trying to cover too many bases (zooms or not) so that you'll buy so many lenses you'll never miss a shot. Good luck [:P]
At this point the 70-200 f/2.8 does seem like a good choice IMO.
brendan
Agreed. Both have their purpose, and a place in my kit, for sure.
Thanks for the endorsement, Brendan!
Agreed. Both have their purpose, and a place in my kit, for sure.
Though if you already *have* the zoom that gives you the same or better iq than the prime, price is not an issue. (Weight may still be, of course).
Just curious... why aren't you considering full frame? It might actually save you money in the long run. For example, the 50mm f/1.4 is cheaper and effectively faster and, unless I'm mistaken, will give you better IQ on full frame than the 35 f/1.4 on the 7D. You say you want the 135mm f/2? The 200mm f/2.8 you already have or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II you're thinking of getting on full frame are effectively slightly faster and will give better IQ than the 135mm f/2 on the 7D. Etc.
Good point! Primarily because I want the extra reach (due to the crop), shooting speed, and better AF of the 7D. It's not 1-series AF, but it's pretty darn good, and the price is right. I can see having a 5D (MkIII?) down the line, though, for portrait/landscape shooting.
An alternate take: I would spend the money going somewhere great to take pictures.
Your gear is already looking good.
Ah, freedom. I seem to recall it dimly, somewhere in the far reaches of my distant past...
OK then, why are you asking this question? Just buy the 70-200 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 5D Mark II, 135 f/2 and heck a 500 f/4 right now. Since there is no such thing as too much gear.
One of the things more gear does is ensure you'll never figure out how to take a good picture, just how to get gear to do it for you.
I think many of us will agree that Vincent Laforet is a pretty good photographer and he's an admitted "gear head". Check out some pictures of the various lenses he uses here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote