Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: I'm looking to revamp my kit before the year is up, how's this end result look?

  1. #11
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidWare View Post
    .... but local shows where there is low light and a flash isn't always allowed depending on the venue.
    This being the case, conventional wisdom for shooting concerts, etc, I think would still push you to prime lenses. Say a 35 f/1.4, and 135 f/2. But one of the things I am watching is just how much of a game changer is the high ISO performance of the 6D/5DIII/1DX. By game changer, I basically mean that the importance of getting light through the lens may become less significant. What I am finding is that I can take shots up to ISO 12,800 on the 5DIII and be very happy with them. The non-visible quality isn't as good as I am noticing that the higher I go with the ISO, the less ability I have to crop and/or post process the photo before I start to see too much IQ degradation. But for visible IQ, if I nail the shot in camera, ISO 6400-12,800 has good IQ.

    An illustration of this is that a few people that previously have said that f/2.8 isn't enough for low-light indoor photography are starting to say that with the new bodies, f/2.8 is enough. I am still getting used to the abilities of the 5DIII, but thus far, I've yet to put my flash on the 5DIII and have shot two indoor "events" (meeting my new neice and Easter) with the 50 f/1.4 at ~f/2.8.

    Aperture will always have the advantage for those situations where you want thin DoF, but it may becoming less important for light gathering. Just something I am watching in my photography and in what I see posted.

  2. #12
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716

    I'm looking to revamp my kit before the year is up, how's this end result look?

    Quote Originally Posted by eldarhau View Post
    I would also consider swapping the 100-400 with the 70-200 f2.8l II and a 2xIII extender. From both an IQ perspective and versatility perspective, I believe that is superior to the 100-400.
    I wouldn't say that's true. Bryan's ISO 12233 crops show the 100-400 is a bit sharper than the 70-200 II + 2xIII, and my own experience with them matches that. But the difference isn't huge - real world shots can be hard to tell apart.

    I think if you routinely need 400mm, the 100-400 is the way to go. For general use and portraits, the 70-200 II is a great lens on FF, so if 400mm is needed only occasionally, adding the 2xIII makes sense.

    Worth noting that the 70-200 II + 2xIII is double the cost of the 100-400.

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Asker, Norway
    Posts
    79
    Agree. But from 70-200 it is in a different league and with the extender it is not that far behind, so overall, I still say that it is a better combo. If 400mm is the main objective I would seriously look at a used 400 f5.6L

  4. #14
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716

    I'm looking to revamp my kit before the year is up, how's this end result look?

    Quote Originally Posted by eldarhau View Post
    Agree. But from 70-200 it is in a different league and with the extender it is not that far behind, so overall, I still say that it is a better combo. If 400mm is the main objective I would seriously look at a used 400 f5.6L
    Better...if affordable.

    The 400/5.6 lacks IS, for me that was a deal-breaker. I find even the 2-stop IS of the 100-400mm useful.

  5. #15
    Hi David. I have been on an upgrade journey myself. My current kit is as follows.

    60D
    Sigma 10-20mm
    Canon 24-105mm
    Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II
    Canon 50mm 1.4
    430 EX Flash

    I recently sold my Canon 100mm Macro and Canon 70-300 IS. The end point I see at the moment is going full frame, the 2x III extender for travel wildlife, and maybe the 17-40 down the road.

    Here is my reasoning.

    My primary uses are travel/landscapes, family gatherings, and my kids activities (indoor and outdoor sports)

    For vacation travel and outdoor sports I am constantly finding myself in rough environments. I have had problems with both dust and moisture. I really like Sigma, but as we speak it is loaded with airborne grit from my last trip and needs to be sent off for cleaning before I damage it. For me full weather sealing is important.

    I have not been shooting Macro very much, so the 100m was primarily being used for portraits. It was sold when I upgraded to the 70-200.

    I was also considering the 100-400mm as an ideal travel lens and decent for outdoor sports. Although not totally sealed, it provides a level of protection that is better than the consumer lenses. The thought was that I would keep the 100mm Macro for indoor sports. The problem was that 100mm was not providing enough reach for the type of indoor sports I was shooting, so I then stated to consider the 200mm f/2.8 prime.

    This all started to get a bit silly, so I went back to the drawing board and determined that the 70-200 2.8 IS was the way to go. I only occasionally need 400mm for wildlife, so an extender will be perfect. It is nearly the same size/weight as the 100-400. Both the 24-105 and 70-200 are totally sealed (as is the extender), have current IS implementations, and the 70-200 is fast enough for indoors. Early impressions are that the 70-200 is really an amazing piece of gear. Very sharp and very accurate AF. With the newer IS it is very hand-holdable. Although I have a decent tripod I like the freedom that a good hand-holdable setup provides. I kept the 50mm for very low light situations and for now have the 10-20mm for the wide stuff.

    While I really like the extreme look of the 10-20, I don't use it quite as often as I expected. When I finally switch to FF, I wonder if 24mm might be wide enough. If not I will likely add the 17-40mm since I am usually at f/8 or narrower with the Sigma.


    If you think you will end up with the 70-200m, my advice is to wait if you can. I personally think selling gear is a hassle and you will likely lose a few hundred in the shuffle. If you can't wait you may want to check out Canon refurbished to help limit your loss.

    Best of luck,

    -P

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by eldarhau View Post
    One added comment, which is an important one in my book, concerns the 5DIII AF system. If you get the 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400, none of them will take full advantage of the AF system of the 5DIII. A 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 would.

    Also, just an observation, it seems to me you are looking at the 5DIII as the long term investment and the glass as something you will swap in the not to distant future. I believe you should reconsider. Glass lasts much much longer than a body. Ref. a 6D outperforms a 1DsIII on everything but weather sealing, at a fraction of the price. In a couple of years you will see a very high megapixel camera with 1DX class performance, around the 5DIII price mark. I believe you would want to have the higher quality glass then.
    +50
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  7. #17
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidWare View Post
    Currently, my setup looks like this.
    T3i w/grip
    18-55mm
    55-250mm
    50mm f1.4
    100mm Macro
    11-16mm Tokina

    I'm thinking of making the jump to full frame and I think the following setup will have most of my bases covered, but not necessarily excelling in one area. Any suggestions otherwise would be greatly appreciated.

    5D Mark III w/grip
    16-35mm
    24-105mm
    100-400mm
    50mm f/1.4
    100mm Macro

    The only thing I can see myself doing differently from above is the 17-40mm instead of the 16-35.

    Any input would be greatly appreciated.
    David,

    It's good to have a road map, but at the same time your lenses will behave quite differently on FF than they do today. My suggestion would be to get the kit you suggested and try the 24-105, 50, and 100 for a little while and evaluate where you are again.

    One other comment is that coming from the T3i is the 5D III with a grip is enormous! One very positive aspect of the rebels is their portability, although perhaps that is not true with a grip.

    Have fun shooting.

    Dave

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    708
    Hi David,

    5D Mark III w/grip
    16-35mm
    24-105mm
    100-400mm
    50mm f/1.4
    100mm Macro

    Looks like a good set up there. It should cover almost everything you need to shoot.

    However there are a few things I want you to consider. When I started photography my goal was to own every lens for every purpose, wide angle, general purpose, tele zoom you get the idea. Then I found and fell in love with bird photography and that's what I mostly shoot these days. I use my super-tele 95% of the time now. I still have my other lenses simply because I've had them but if I have to do it again (revamp my kit) I would put all my money in the best super-tele and body that I can afford. My point is if you have found a discipline that you shoot more than anything else, you should use this opportunity to put all your money into the lens(es) and accessories for this discipline. Down the road you can add more stuff to your kits.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,038
    The 5D3 is a wonderful camera....here's the dream lens line up I would consider

    1. 17-40 f/4L....almost as good as the 16-35 f/2.8 for less than 1/2 the money
    2. 24-70 f/2.8L II....overall awesome lens, much better than the 24-105
    3. 70-200 f/2.8L II.....the version 3 converters (1.4X and 2.0X) work well here to get you 320mm and 400mm focal length respectively
    4. Optional: 300mm f/2.8L II.....very expensive but totally awesome, great for indoor and outdoor sports and also works great with teleconverters to get you out to 600mm for birds and wildlife

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Portsmouth, NH
    Posts
    335
    Wow, so much great information from you all, thank you so much!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •