Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Lens dilemma, seeking advice

  1. #1
    Senior Member Photog82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    321

    Lens dilemma, seeking advice

    I'll start off with what I have and scenarios:

    I moved from 7DMKII to 5DMKIV and am happy with the move, the quality really is something else but that left me in lens dilemma.

    Canon 5DMKIV
    Canon 24-105 f4L II
    Canon 35 1.4L II
    Canon 16-35 F4 (just purchased)
    Canon 70-300L
    Canon 100 F2.8 L

    For my portraits that we shoot, I used the 35 A LOT on my crop sensor and it was nearly perfect for what I need in group shots or close ups. But now that I'm on FF it's only good for limited scenarios. I currently use the 100mm Macro for portraits and am considering the 85 1.2L as I rented it and really liked it. I'm also waiting for a newer Canon 50 1.2 to come out as the current is just too soft and slow.

    With that said, I recently purchased the Canon 16-35 F4 because I wanted to replace my Canon 10-22 EFS lens that does not fit my 5D. It just came in, it's a great lens, leaps and bounds better than the 10-22, especially in the corners. I woke up this morning and started to think about lenses; I feel that I may have a little bit of an overlap and potential waste in money right now. I have the 16-35 F4 and the 35 F1.4 lens, would I be better off to return the 16-35F4 and sell the 35 1.4 and buy the 16-35 F2.8 III? I could use it for my UWA Landscape needs and zoom in to 35 f2.8 for certain portrait needs.

    I'm going to re-read Bryan's review on the lens but are the corners on this lens closer to the 10-22 or 16-35 F4? I also noticed that the 16-35 F2.8 has a filter size of 82mm vs 77mm on the F4 version. That's a bummer as I have a really nice B+W CPL that I use on the 24-105 and was planning on using for the 16-35 lens.

    Note, the 16-35 would not be used for portraits, but for Landscapes. There's been a few times where I've used 35mm for portraits and so I would use this lens for that as well if warranted.

    Thoughts? I hope this all makes sense, I'm still weaning myself off of cold medicine.
    Last edited by Photog82; 11-04-2016 at 03:25 PM.
    --

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,110
    Full Frame opens up the potential of the 35mm f/1.4L II. I always enjoyed that combination.
    It is really only needed in your kit for shots f/2.0 or wider, (shooting at night and giving you that incredible bokeh all the time). I would suggest you play with it a while before you unload it.

    I sold my 16-35mm because I never used it. I just didn't lean toward a UWA lens, if I did I would look at a prime. I have the 24-70 and it covers much of the 16-35mm range so to me a prime would make more sense.

  3. #3
    Administrator Sean Setters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    3,360
    Maybe sell the EF 35mm f/1.4L II and pick up a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art and EF 35mm f/2 IS USM instead? You'd gain a wide aperture prime that's in your butter zone for portraiture and you'd only be giving up 1-stop of maximum aperture at 35mm (while gaining IS).

  4. #4
    Senior Member Photog82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    321
    I agree that the 35 1.4 is a great lens, I'm just trying to get the most out of my money and am wondering if the 16-35 2.8 will cover both needs. I do shoot UW for certain landscapes so the 16MM is going to be in my bag- I just need to determine which one.

    At some point I'll worry about the 50 and 85 but for now I need to cover my UWA needs.
    --

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,110
    It is not that the 35 is a great lens, you have three great 35mm lenses, it is a unique lens. And with the IQ you can get out of the other two it really has become more of a specialty lens.

    For me the answer is that the 16-35mm III will not cover the 35mm f/1.4 II's specialty attributes.

    You have 24-35 covered twice and 35mm covered three times.

    Why not sell three lenses and switch to a 24-70 II? It will give you a sharp f/2.8 and the only question is again what to do for uwa.

    Do you think you need f/2.8 at 16mm?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Photog82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    321
    I'd only use 2.8 @ 16MM for shots of the Milky way which aren't something I dabble in all of time. My plans for 16-20mm is for certain landscapes, city shots (mostly f/8-16).

    Right now, I only use the 35 for photos of my daughter inside which have worked out really well, primarily @ 1.4 and 2.8. I could use the 35 for group shots but is a bit too wide for my style.

    I had thought about the 24-70 lens but I have the 24-105II and I use that for my landscapes, not for portraits. I would only use the 24-70 from 50-70mm so it would not be worth my investment at this time as I'd rather have a 50 and 85 with lower apertures.

    I just feel like the 35II is not going to be utilized that much and condensing 2 lenses into one would be good. My biggest concern is the 16-35III's corner quality. The 10-22 was awful in the corners.
    --

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,156
    Get a 50/1.4. Ignore the fact that it doesn't have a red ring...lots of people use it day in/day out for lots and lots of shooting. It'll give you what you had with 35mm on 1.6x crop.

    Although I shuffled our wide-angle lineup before the 16-35/2.8III was announced and I do have the luxury of a 14/2.8 on the shelf, I sold my 16-35/2.8II when I got the 16-35/4IS and I haven't missed it AT ALL. I've since added the 35/1.4II and would never, ever consider selling it, as it's got a "look" that's just so spectacular.

    I don't think you're giving the 50/1.2 enough credit, but we've debated that already I think. The 50/1.4 won't break the bank, will perform very well, will fill a specific gap that you've identified, and will hold its value reasonably well if Canon were to actually do a new edition of the 50/1.2 (so you could sell to trade up). I don't see the value in returning a $1000 lens to buy a $2200 lens for a stop of aperture and to surrender IS. I also think your lens collection is on the verge of being big enough that you may soon just have to accept that not every lens gets used a lot...that's OK.
    We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Photog82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    321
    Part of the problem is that I'm trying to have lenses that cover both areas (Portrait side of my photography & general landscape/wildlife). If I keep the 35 and just use it for the portrait type use I'd be fine with my new 16-35 f/4.

    Sometimes I wish that I could easily get to B&H to test lenses but that could also be a bad thing.
    --

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,168
    The effective length you are missing is 50, the 50 Art is a heck of a lens.

    UWA, wondering if you can ditch the 24-105 & 16 -35 f4 and go 16-35 v III + the 50 art.

    I know the 24-105 is just a darn handy range, if the new one is sharp above 70 I may go back to it, but it sounds like you are looking for the 50 for bokeh/portrait and UWA? All the reviews rave about the new V3 16-35
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  10. #10
    Senior Member Photog82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    321
    The topic is getting a little lost and it could be due to a groggy morning when I wrote this. I have no plans of getting rid of the 24-105. I was basically wondering the difference between the two 16-35's and contemplating selling the 35 1.4.

    I've been reading, thinking, etc and I will probably stay with the 16-35 f4 and 35 1.4 for now. The 16-35 f4 will be great for my UWA needs and the 24-105II will be perfect for landscapes as well.
    --

Posting Permissions

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