Going FF - need to settle on a lens-logic!

[jrw]

One thought in favour of the zooms is less lens changing. If outside on a windy day will you really want to expose camera innards (sensor) to all of the dust and sticky pollen that is being carried on the breezes? You also mentioned starting with just 2 lenses, if that is the case will you have sufficient versatility for your shooting style with two primes?

Have 70-200 in f4 and 2.8 varieties. Like the f4 for landscapes, details not vistas, and critters in good light. Less weight is nice for longer hikes. Can not match f2.8 at dawn and dusk, for portraits, sports or anything else where shallow DOF or action stopping is desired. In terms of IQ, the f2.8 II is no slouch when compared to the primes in the same range. There is a reason why so many journalists and travel photographers use this lens. Do carry it on longer hikes when I think I'll want it with no problems.

Tele-extenders are a very convenient way to zoom in on a subject when you can't get closer. Don't make the mistake of thinking that they magically transform a lens into a longer focal length, as their use does come at a cost in terms of IQ. For closer subjects that fill most of the frame the difference will seem small, but if you try to use them with smaller subjects that are further away thinking you can crop down a lot you will find the loss of IQ to be more noticeable, especially with a 2x TE. Changing them in and out when on a hike can also present its own challenges, three objects to deal with and only two hands. We each find a way that works for us, but compared to a zoom lens it isn't as fast nor as convenient and exposes your sensor to dust more frequently.

[panopticon]

It seems the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II gets a lot of praise, so I'll probably take it into further consideration. I'm aware that going primes only is quite a compromise and may cause quite a few missed opportunities, but I kind of find the challenge of composing the picture from scratch at a fixed focal length a little intriguing (at least when sitting here in front of the trusty old computer ). I'm quite picky when it comes to taking pictures to begin with, so I don't think I'll be too annoyed with the 'missed opportunities'. With all of that said, the 70-200 does indeed look like a mighty fine lens, that can offer me the IQ I'm after and the 'only' expenses being its weight/cost/size.

I hadn't actually looked into other brands than Canon for lenses, but the Zeiss/Rokinon lenses for the wide range could be an option too. I don't know how much a problem manual focus only is in the ultra-wide end of the scale, but I imagine it could be a little stressful if the lens was to double as a street-lens?
I'll research these lenses a little further nonetheless.

[Ehcalum]

Panopticon: welcome!

I used to do a fair amount of backpacking, including thru hiking the AT. For a combination of light weight yet good coverage and IQ I would suggest a wide fomat zoom, a mid range prime and a telezoom. I primarly shoot sports and events and my entire lens collection consists of a 17-40 F4, a 50mm 1.8, a 24-105 F4 and a 70-200 2.8. The only IS is the 24-105, personally I hate IS but thats another rant. I have a 5D Mk I and a 1D Mk II (now with over 300K clicks!). I love the range of the 24-105 for bopping around town and general travel photography. The 17-40, 50, and 70-200 f4 non IS would be a good lightweight full coverage option for you that wont break the bank either if you buy used (another thing I always do)

FYI, for a widey wides to really pop you need to get up close and personal with the subject.

Good luck!

[panopticon]

Panopticon: welcome!

I used to do a fair amount of backpacking, including thru hiking the AT. For a combination of light weight yet good coverage and IQ I would suggest a wide fomat zoom, a mid range prime and a telezoom. I primarly shoot sports and events and my entire lens collection consists of a 17-40 F4, a 50mm 1.8, a 24-105 F4 and a 70-200 2.8. The only IS is the 24-105, personally I hate IS but thats another rant. I have a 5D Mk I and a 1D Mk II (now with over 300K clicks!). I love the range of the 24-105 for bopping around town and general travel photography. The 17-40, 50, and 70-200 f4 non IS would be a good lightweight full coverage option for you that wont break the bank either if you buy used (another thing I always do)

FYI, for a widey wides to really pop you need to get up close and personal with the subject.

Good luck!

Thanks for the comment, you mention quite a few different lenses, but I'd be interested to know what you bring with you, when hiking the AT?
I was also wondering how much you use that 50mm and for what type of shots? There's been quite a few recommendations for a prime in that range already, and checking my lightroom statistics I have next to no shots in the 30mm area (with crop factor that should be around 50mm).
But then again, if I take pictures of people, I'd rather get a close-up of an intense facial expression than their whole posture for some reason - I guess I find a facial expression more expressively dense than a model-like fullbody pose, but that could just be me.
The 24-105mm sounds like a good all-round lens for travelling purposes, but if I want to get myself accustomed to primes then I'd probably better save it for later.

[Ehcalum]

Thanks for the comment, you mention quite a few different lenses, but I'd be interested to know what you bring with you, when hiking the AT?
I was also wondering how much you use that 50mm and for what type of shots? There's been quite a few recommendations for a prime in that range already, and checking my lightroom statistics I have next to no shots in the 30mm area (with crop factor that should be around 50mm).
But then again, if I take pictures of people, I'd rather get a close-up of an intense facial expression than their whole posture for some reason - I guess I find a facial expression more expressively dense than a model-like fullbody pose, but that could just be me.
The 24-105mm sounds like a good all-round lens for travelling purposes, but if I want to get myself accustomed to primes then I'd probably better save it for later.

I did the hike back in college around 2002, name was Winz Factor. I brought a small 35mm point and shoot on that hike. If I were to do it again with what I have and not worry about being a gram weenie, then it would be the 5D, 17-40 and 70-200 f4 (which I don't have but would borrow or trade).

I love the 50mm for product shots/still life and macro with DIT reverse ring and a stack of extension tubes. I spent a whole year with only the 50mm on my old 40D unless I was working. I'll do the same for a month at different zoom level, just tape the zoom at said value.

[panopticon]

Ok, I was under the same impression. I think a wide-angle and tele-lens will do just fine for a hike or travelling in the wilds - the middle area (50-ish mm) will have to be covered later on. Whether I should go with zooms, primes or a little of both, well... That's still unsettled

[Dave Throgmartin]

I shoot a crop camera and really like the 135L + 1.4x tc ii. I've had it almost a month.

Some samples:

f/8


2012_04_08_4170_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr

f/2.8


2012_04_01_3839 by dthrog00, on Flickr

f/4


2012_03_28_3583 by dthrog00, on Flickr

The ones I've taken do date are at:

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

Dave

[FastGass]

What is your shooting style? Mostly landscape? Portriats? A little of everything?

If it's landscape then zooms are the way to go for your base kit, a great combo would be the 17-40mm L, 24-105mm and 70-200mm f/4 IS or 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L.

If it's portriats then the 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2 and 135mm f/2.0 being considered the "holly trinity primes" and makes a killer portriat setup.

If it's a little bit of everything then the 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 (II would be nice) and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (II if possible). There isn't much this combo can't do very well.

Here is a link that might help you out http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=7.

Edit.

Here are some sample pictures for you.



In this picture I used my tele-lentar 135mm f/2.8 on a 60D, as you can see if you are carfull about the background the bokeh is very clean and smooth. This would have the DOF equivalant of f/4.5 on a FF. The point is not to negate the 135mm L, but to show that there quite a bit of "wiggle room" with longer lenses. Because you can be more selective on the background.


http://community.the-digital-picture...8&d=1334037193

http://community.the-digital-picture...9&d=1334037202

http://community.the-digital-picture...7&d=1334037182

These shots show less "Wiggle room". They were taken with my converted (MD mount) 35mm f/2.0. This has the DOF equivalent of f/3.2, while it still shows good subject isolation there would be a more obvious difference with primes here.

Cheers,
John.

[panopticon]

Thanks for the samples, Dave. I think those are quite convincing.


John: I read your link, and I think it makes a very solid point on the ultra-wide angles being sensitive to composition. That's my own experience as well using the 11-16mm - the lines in the picture change a lot with every mm down there. Since you can't quite rearrange the scene in landscapes, that could be a good argument for getting a zoom to cover the wide-angle end of the spectrum at least. On the other hand, I've often ended up in quite desolate places with next to no light polution, which would be ideal for a few night-landscapes of the milky-way. As I can turn the ISO up a fair bit higher than I could with the 50D, do you think it would be possible to take those nightshots with the 16-35 or 17-40 without getting startrails?

As to my general shooting style, I'd say 50-60% landscapes, 50-40% people, and maybe 5% wildlife (tele-kinda-stuff). Well that doesnt quite add up to 100%, but I hope it gives some indication anyway

By the way, only your first shot of the dog seems to be showing up on my screen (the other links lead to a blank page). I think it's a good point about the wiggle-room for bokeh though. Of course it takes a bit of planning to arrange the background on unsuspecting people, but that can be overcome.

Edit: Your linked photos seem to work fine now. For some reason those things always only work after mentioning them

[HDNitehawk]

As to my general shooting style, I'd say 50-60% landscapes, 50-40% people, and maybe 5% wildlife (tele-kinda-stuff). Well that doesnt quite add up to 100%, but I hope it gives some indication anyway

If landscapes are 60% of your work and you are serious about landscapes I don’t think the 16-35 II really compares.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=480&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API= 4&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =2&APIComp=0

If your serious and want the best for landscape you should be comparing the Zeiss 21mm distagon and the TSE 24mm F/3.5L II Tilt Shift as well as the 24mm F/1.4L II.

Here is another thought, and really if I look back on how I acquired my lenses and how my kit came about. As most people do I bought zooms that gave me coverage. I added primes for the things I love to do. I started with Macro, then later the super telephotos and then landscape. Primes are specialty tools that are exceptional at what they do and can do jobs other than their specialty well. Acquire your first primes around what you really love to take pictures of, in other areas accept lesser lenses for coverage.