Lens Rationalization

<p>I'm sorely tempted to go out and look for a 35/1.4L</p>

<p>However, due to cost control, if I go get that lens, I will probably have to get rid of my 70-200/2.8L non-IS.</p>

<p>Is this idea worth considering? the 70-200/2.8 has gotten used a grand total of... two times in the past year (it's vast bulk demotivates me). But I don't want to sell it away and then later regret doing so.</p>

<p>Currently I have the 28/1.8, 16-35/4L IS, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L, and the aforementioned 70-200. Using a 6D and 5D.</p>

<p>I could also get the 50/1.4 instead for a much lower cost (it fills the hole between 35mm and 135mm) or the 85/1.8 - but feel the 35mm focal length would get more use than a 50mm or 85mm. I'm thinking of having the 35 permanently on the 5D (or swap between the 35 and 135). Of course the 28/1.8 is quite close and is also very general purpose, but it doesn't have quite the same level of depth of field control and bokeh.</p>

<p>Or.. 85/1.2L? much more expensive, much less usable than the 35. But it fills my focal length gap.</p>

<p>The 35L is a nice lens! From all the rumors it appears that its much deserved replacement is now maybe just months away (versus years). That means the older, especially used, 35L's might get a bit cheaper if you want to wait a bit.</p>

<p>Like yourself my adventures with the 70-200 f2.8 non-is looked great on paper. I used it for just a few months and resold it. Without IS and with the new 70-200 f2.8 IS II version I would say upgrade to that if budget / work requires it otherwise the f4 IS version seems the way to go.</p>

<p>Back to the 35L - no lens is perfect. The 35L needs to be stopped down to about f1.8 or f2 to start getting sharp everywhere. And its kinda big and heavy. Maybe a more modern 35 f2 lens would be better? It is a very enjoyable lens to use though and once I put it on my 5DII it rarely came off for anything with family or in the evenings or around the house or around kids, ...... </p>

<p>Sigma now has some nice offerings that fall more in the middle - just not sure about autofocus.</p>

<p>I really, really like the 85 1.8 on the full frame cameras - hard to go wrong there at that price point vs image quality.</p>

<p>The other gem of a "affordable" canon lens is the 100L macro with IS. That is my second most used lens. Wonderful, sharp, nice colors and the IS is great. Use the focus limiter to keep it out of macro and it focuses fast enough for me for general purpose stuff. If you try the 100L you might not a 85mm that much and you may find yourself rarely using your 135L either.<br>

I had the 300 f4 L with IS and sold it for the 70-200 f2.8 non IS and always regretted it. That 300 f4 is a very nice lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You might look at the 35mm f/2 IS. It's much cheaper and a very excellent lens by all reviews I've seen.</p>

<p>I have the 85/1.8 and it's as good as everyone says.</p>

<p>I'd agree you should probably sell a 70-200/2.8 that you use so infrequently. I understand your aversion to the weight, but note the 85/1.2 is actually only 10 ounces lighter. The 85/1.2 is significantly heavier than the 135/2.</p>

<p>I don't really see why you would need a 35L as you have the 16-35 and a 28/1.8. In your shoes I would probably get a 50mm. For what it's worth, I had the 35L for a number of years but traded it for the 35/2 IS due its smaller size and weight - no regrets. The 35L is a great lens and, frankly, I don't think it needs a replacement in the Canon lineup (how about a new 28/1.8?), but it looks like it is going to happen anyway.</p>

<p>Thanks for the insights. Didn't know the 85/1.2L was that heavy!<br>

I did think about the Sigma 35mm ART - which allegedly fixes the autofocus inconsistency of the non-ART version. But resale's a b*tch, and you never know if the thing will keep working five years down the road. I have read that the Sigma is actually optically better than the 35L which is a pretty old design.<br>

In any case I happened upon a 35L for a pretty low price on ebay (my 300/4L also came from ebay..) and nobody else bid on it, so...<br>

<br /> I'll probably get rid of the 28/1.8 and the 70-200/2.8L non-IS. The 28 is redundant as it is (the only thing it has over the 16-35L is the f/1.8 and size).</p>

<p>Up to about 2006 I carried a medium format system with 6 prime lenses and a teleconverter. It was heavy and bulky and I was forever changing lenses. I didn't feel I should be leaving stuff behind, so on most trips I carried everything, weighing maybe 25lb. Then for commercial reasons I changed to Canon digital. I now have three L zooms-17-40; 24-105; 70-200 f4 with a 5Diii . All my photography equipment fits in one medium bag that I can carry- with the exception of a spare body and tripod. Preparing for a trip involves picking the bag up and making sure I have charged batteries. When I'm away I no longer spend time trying to anticipate what today's subjects might be so what I might be able to leave in the room safe. I don't spend time going back to the hotel to pick up a lens when my anticipation was wrong. I'm not changing lenses every few minutes, because there's a decent overlap between them and across a year I'd guess that 70% of the time or more I don't need to change lenses to take my next photograph.</p>

<p>Now I do understand that some people have requirements that are more complex than mine. So I'm not trying to sell those lenses or the approach I take. But I do just want to say how much simpler, more convenient, easier and lighter things are for me than how they used to be when I'm travelling and/or photographing. </p>

<p>I have to agree with David, particularly since Orlando's title is about rationalization. Thinking of getting a lens to cover a single focal length within the range of a zoom you already have could be argued to be the opposite of rationalization. As I think I mentioned earlier in another thread (not sure here), Orlando's "mistake" was not getting the 70-200 f4 IS which is, at least to me, the obvious choice and then you could "rationalize away" the other teles you have. Or you could keep just one in case you really need a fast tele (I'd go for the 85/1.8).</p>

<p>Every Sigma lens I've bought in the last decade has continued to work for as long as I owned it (except the one that got snapped in half after a tumble off some benches - can't blame that on the lens though, as that tumble turned the 580 into kindling too). I wish I could say the same about all my L's - especially since their warranties are a paltry 12mo... The ones I have chosen have also done a good job of retaining their resale value (when they were bought at street price)...</p>

<p>Frankly though, fitting a lens between the 28mm and the 135mm seems like a role that a 50mm or 85mm is better for than a 35mm. And even though the Sigma 35/1.4A is a mind blowingly good (yes, it trumps the legendary 35/1.4L) lens, the Sigma 50/1.4A is even better (and makes shooting with the EF 50/1.4 feel like a toy camera optic WO and near). You've made some pretty big compromises on your lens choices over the last few months for the sake of red rings, and I've got to admit, I think you are over thinking it. Quit debating over every last lens, and get out and shoot! </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>shooting with the EF 50/1.4 feel like a toy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's mainly because the Canon weighs 290 g versus the 815 g of the Sigma. The Sigma weighs about the same as the 24-70/f2.8. The Sigma's a good performer though, no question.</p>

<p>I second or third the call for the 70-200mm f/4L IS, with a 1.4x TC-III. This lens has great IQ, is light weight and fun to use.</p>

<p>With your zooms, use Digital Lens Optimization to get the most out of you zooms. DLO is part of Digital Photo Professional, that shipped with your camera, but you can add modules to Lightroom and it's part of DxO. DLO adjusts for geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc., automatically, at every focal length and every aperture. If you haven't already, try it with Raw conversion on your 16-35mm. You'll be blown away and soon questioning that fleet of prime lenses vs. two or three high quality zooms.</p>