Upgrade Path

[Kayaker72]

I purchased the 5DIII with the 24-105 lens kit at the end of January and early February. With that addition, my primary kit became:

• 24-105-General Purpose Zoom
• 50 f/1.4-low light/full body portraits (usually shoot it f/2-f/2.8)
• 100 f/2.8 L Macro--lower light--primary portrait lens
• 100-400 L - Wildlife and travel lens

Honestly, it isn't a bad kit and it has worked pretty well for my needs. But my plan had been to take this year to get to know the kit and then look to upgrade for my more permanent FF kit.

While I have given this a lot of thought, I am interested in your help and thoughts on the best path to upgrade.

First, a bit about my photography needs. As you have probably seen from my posts, I like to shoot just about everything. Or at least it feels that way to me. I am usually using natural light, but plan on augmenting that with flashes more often. What I shoot breaks down to something like:

• Family events-~25%
• Dedicated "portraits"-~10% (usually friends or family)
• Landscapes-~25%
• Wildlife/BIF/etc-~25%
• Misc-~15%

Family events are shot somewhat in a journalistic style. Landscapes, I tend to shoot a lot of horizons/mountains/hills/waterfalls but want to get into nightscapes. My current usage patterns, I see a lot of use at 24 mm, 100 mm (prime lens) and 400 mm. I see a good amount of use from 24-~50 and ~80-105mm. I should also note that when I shot on the 7D, I always had significant peaks at FF equivalent to 136 mm.

A few other characteristic I need to consider for my kit:

• I sometimes target wildlife from land, but just as often, from my kayak.
• I travel a fair amount both for work and vacation. And if I am listening to my wife, I should expect more. It seems that photography is my "thing" and I think travel is becoming hers. So, I want a good travel kit.
• I prefer to not be changing lenses all of the time.
• While I consider myself to be a hobbyiest/hacker photographer...my goals are to pretty ambitious in terms of the images I want to capture.
• My goal is a good flexible kit, eventually consisting of 4-6 lenses.

So, if you've noticed, every time someone posts about a lens, I tend to pop up and talk about how I've been evaluating it too....that is because, well, I've pretty much have been looking at Canon's entire lineup. I have been considering primes, zooms and ultimately, a combination of primes and zooms.

So, please let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions. For now, let's ignore budget . It will come back into play.

Thanks in advance...
Brant

[ahab1372]

Brant,
what's missing? You don't say anything about what limitations you experience with your current kit - maybe there aren't any and you can stop looking?

The only thing I could think of based on what you wrote is a Rokinon 14 or 24mm prime for nightscapes .

[Joel Eade]

Everything I have studied says that for stars it's hard to beat the Canon 24mm f/1.4L If you are going for the best supertele bird lens probably the 600mm f/4L II is tops. You seem to have all the mid-range focal lengths covered pretty well now unless you think a 70-200mm f/2.8L would be useful. If a top notch landscape/architectural lens is desired then you could also consider the 24mm f/3.5 Tilt-Shift lens which has amazing corner to corner sharpness.

[Kayaker72]

Brant,
what's missing? You don't say anything about what limitations you experience with your current kit - maybe there aren't any and you can stop looking?

The only thing I could think of based on what you wrote is a Rokinon 14 or 24mm prime for nightscapes .

....Arnt...I do not believe you understand the nature of addiction......

Seriously, you make a couple of very good points. And I have considered that maybe I need to take a step back and this kit is enough.....

Looking at it from the perspective of limitations is a good idea...it is partially limitations, but it is also that there are a few weaknesses. To name a few:

• Reach. Has anyone that tries to shoot birds and wildlife ever thought they had enough reach? More specifically, assuming that 70 ppi is sufficient to define a subject, I am limited to ~75 ft range at 400 mm on the 5DIII.
• Shutter speed at 400 mm. I have shot 400 mm at 1/100th. It works, but it isn't great. For BIF, for example, on my latest puffin cruise, I was often at ~1/600th. Pretty low for BIF. I believe I was trying to keep ISO <800-1600. But a stop of speed, so f/4, would be very nice at the long end.
• Portrait range. I am covered from 50-105 mm f/4, but it does get a little soft. I have coverage at f/2.8 at 100 mm and good coverage at 50 mm. It works, but it is a little limiting. I do miss the FF equivalent 136 mm reach of the 15-85 on the 7D. So I could see focal length addition and faster glass in the portrait range.
• Wide angle. I have tried to take shots of the milky way with the 24-105. I have no doubt that part of it is skill, but I have been surveying shots that I would like to emulate and most if not all are hit the EV -4 to -6 range (~15 sec, f/2.8, ISO 3200) or faster. So, at a minimum, I think I need a f/2.8 lens at 24 mm.
• Ultrawide angle. I have nothing. I had the 10-22 on the 7D, but hardly ever used it. Still, eventually, I would like something wide.
• DOF. I can get pretty good DoF at 50 mm and 100 mm. But that is about it.
• General optics. What I have is good, perhaps very good. But I am noticing that my favorite shots are often coming from my primes.
• Niche lenses...A TS lens could be great for waterfalls.

BTW, I have already purchased the 24-70 II. But that was mostly because I have been evaluating it and didn't want to pass up the deal that occurred two weeks ago. If I decide that the 24-105 plus a prime or two fits my kit better, it will be sold or returned.....and that is assuming I ever get one that doesn't click while zooming

[HDNitehawk]

You will find one without the click, just keep swapping till you do.

Your question was to wide to nail down really pointed suggestions.

This was your breakdown;

• Family events-~25%
• Dedicated "portraits"-~10% (usually friends or family)
• Landscapes-~25%
• Wildlife/BIF/etc-~25%
• Misc-~15%

If I were to analyze my needs I would prioritize them. I would suggest you do to.

I take quit a few portraits, but it is not my passion. I play with lighting a bit and friends and family ask me to do shoots and I take it as a challenge to try.
It may comprise 10% of my shots but the end results are not as important to me. So as portraits go, I have the 100mm macro IS and it does fine for the portraits I would want.

Family events for me are documentation time. When I look back at the pictures they are bringing back memories. I don't know about you, but other than as a photographer I do not remember bokeh. So as lenses go for my kit you would have it well covered for the family.

Landscapes, I like landscapes. It would be my second favorite. From looking at your work over the last few years it appears to be a big focus for you as well. I think you could benefit form the 24mm TSE or the 24mm f/1.4. Perhaps even one of the Zeiss primes. Even though you are buying the 24-70mm II I would still suggest one of the primes. While the zoom may be as sharp the primes still win in other areas such as distortion and flare.

Wildlife, my favorite. Sometimes BIF but really wildlife in general. I know you like it to, and I know that you backpack and as you mention Kayak.
So the 600mm might not be the wildlife lens for you. The 300mm f/2.8L II lens would be somewhat portable, but carrying it on a Kayak? Do you find the 100-400mm to be to large on the water? It would be simple for me, I am land locked and the 600mm or 500mm would be the choice. Size and how large would be to large would be a good place to start the decision process. Possibly even use this type of thinking, if I am in a boat on the water I might choose my wife's t4i and a 300mm f/4 before the others. Why? Because dropping a $2000 rig in the river is much more acceptable than dropping $20K

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Everyone...this is doing exactly what I wanted, in that it is provoking thoughts and looking at this from different angles. Ultimately, I am considering making a pretty good sized investment and want to feel a bit better about it. I also need to take a step back from looking at charts and reviews to make sure this is something I really want to do.

Your question was to wide to nail down really pointed suggestions.

Understood.....I think this is broad as I am essentially considering blowing up my whole kit. It is an odd conclusion that I have been coming too, as I am mostly happy with it. I started off thinking I would augment the kit with a specific lens here or there, say the 135 f/2, or the 24 f/1.4. But then I starting thinking of the 85 f/1.2 for portraits, the 35 f/2 IS or f/1.4 and a TS lens. And, as has already been mentioned, I set my sights on the 600 f/4 II for my big white.

Very quickly what was augmenting my kit was getting very costly and the shear number of lenses I wanted was getting large. So, right now I am in the process of circling back to look at my core kit. Perhaps if I improve it, I wouldn't want so many other lenses.

What I have been thinking about for a little while is:

• Ultrawide---unknown at this time...shoot to develop a need and there are only a few times that I've wanted more than 24 mm.
• General purpose: 24-70 f/2.8 II (but still considering 24-105 augmented with primes)
• Telephoto: 70-200 f/2.8 II (but still considering f/4 IS with primes or keeping the 100-400L)
• Macro (which I do very little of)--keep the 100 mm L, but I am debating this.
• Big White---Rick, you already mentioned it, but because of travel, potentially kayaking, and $$, the 300 f/2.8 II.
• 1.4x and 2x TCs

Then my primary travel kit would be the general purpose lens + telephoto.

I can see waiting a while and shooting with the above kit to develop a need, say something at 24 mm or maybe the 85 f/1.2. Of course, I am not sure I can afford the above kit right now. But instead of building a kit by piecemeal, I am trying to decide the overall kit I want and start working toward it.

BTW, I hear you on having $20,000 on a kayak. I am actually concerned about travel. I was fine having $3,000 worth of gear on my back while traveling. Now I am thinking of having my travel kit be ~$8,000??

[peety3]

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. You may want to consider these for random things, whether to rent or to buy:

Canon 14/2.8II seems massively better than the 16-35/2.8.
Zeiss 15/2.8 is way better than the Canon 14/2.8.
Zeiss 21/2.8 is quite good, though not as stunning as the Z15.
Old-model 24-70/2.8 seems to have some sort of magic in it compared to the 24-105...can't speak to the new model
85/1.2 is a stunner for portraits. Just got it over the summer and love all of my results with it.
Zeiss 100/2 Makro isn't a true macro, but who cares: it will blow away the results from your existing macro. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
You ought to try the 400/4DO. It may not be as sharp/contrasty as the II supers, but it's LIGHT, and it really seems to take a 1.4x well. A 4-pound 560/5.6IS is a killer tool. (We rented that setup plus a 1Dx for our last Alaska cruise. Even with two 7D and a 1D3, I chose to put the DO on the 1Dx to gain the better high ISO to offset f/5.6 plus to get the better AF, and we really liked it.)

[Joel Eade]

• Big White---Rick, you already mentioned it, but because of travel, potentially kayaking, and $$, the 300 f/2.8 II.
• 1.4x and 2x TCs

Then my primary travel kit would be the general purpose lens + telephoto.

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.

[Joel Eade]

I should add....if you want to go all primes the 300 2.8 does blow away the 100-400 and it is very consistently good with the 1.4TC but it not always so with the 2.0 TC. With good light it will be stellar but won't compete with a 500 or 600 prime.

[HDNitehawk]

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

But seriously, the 300mm is going to be much more portable than the 600mm and quite a bit better IQ than your 100-400mm. As far as size I think the 100-400mm would be comparable as bulk goes with the 300mm. Often I carry my 300mm on a black rapid strap and to me it feels very similar to carrying my 70-200mm f/2.8. If you do not have problems with the size of the 100-400 you might be ok with the 300mm f/2.8.

Depending on what Canon does with a 7D II, a 300mm f/2.8 and an imaginary fantasy 7D II might be a very nice portable set up. I have been impressed with the wife's t4i and I wouldn't hesitate a minute taking it and the 300mm on an adventure that requires a light set up and long reach.