Total realignment of my body/lens quiver?

<p><strong>Background:</strong><br>

I've been shooting EOS since 1997 when I switched over from FD. I went digital in 2005. Shooting moved from portraiture and food to skiing, landscapes, travel, and backpacking. My wife and I acquired quite the setup and lens quiver. But we've been so busy the last 3 years. I realized I need to reduce the quiver of lenses, and maybe realign things. Here is what I have:</p>

<p><strong>Bodies</strong><br>

5D Mk1<br>

40D</p>

<p><strong>Zooms:</strong><br>

Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye<br>

EFS 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM<br>

EFS 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM<br>

Sigma 18-125mm 3.5-5.6 OS HSM<br>

Sigma 18-200mm 3.5-6.3 OS<br>

Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 EX HSM Mk2<br>

EF 70-200mm 2.8 L USM<br>

EF 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS USM</p>

<p><strong>Primes:</strong><br>

Sigma 24mm 1.8 EX<br>

Canon 50mm 1.8 Mk1<br>

Canon 50mm 1.4 USM<br>

Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX 1:1 Macro</p>

<p><strong>TC</strong><br>

Sigma 1.4x<br>

Sigma 2x APO EX</p>

<p><strong>THE PLAN:</strong><br>

Now our photography is mostly travel and landscapes with some skiing and astrophotography. I wanted to simplify, so I was thinking of selling most everything and end up with a simple quiver like my 5 lens setup back when I had my EOS 3 in 2004. <strong><br /></strong></p>

<p><strong>FIVE QUESTIONS:</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Body: </strong><strong>6D <strong>- </strong></strong>seems perfect for everything except am I going to regret dropping down to 4.5fps?</p>

<p><strong>Lenses:</strong><br>

<strong>Wide Angle/Zoom:</strong> Sigma 24mm 1.8 EX or return to a EF 16/17-35mm 2.8 L USM? <br>

<strong>Primary:</strong> EF 24-105mm 4 L IS USM ... f/4 is slow... or I could get the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 IS USM? But then would I need a 28-300 as a walk around?<br>

<strong>Tele Zoom: </strong>70-200 2.8 L USM or do I surrender to the amazing usefulness of IS and upgrade to f/2.8 IS or the much lighter and easier to travel with f/4 IS?<br>

<strong>Fast:</strong> EF 50mm 1.4 USM (I'll cry when I sell the 1.8 Mk1, what a gem)<br>

<strong>Macro:</strong> Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX or upgrade to an EF (or Sigma) 100mm IF IS USM?</p>

<p>W/A: I'd get the 16-35mm f4 IS. The 16-35mm f2.8 will probably be revamped soon.<br>

Primary: either choice is good. You might also want to consider the EF 24-70 f4 IS or 24-70 f2.8 IS: IQ is better.<br>

Telezoom: I'd get the 70-200 f4 IS in your shoes.<br>

Fast: You could get the 50/1.4, but I'm not sure I would bother. A new EF 50/1.4 is probably on the cards and the difference between the current f1.4 and the f1.8 is not all that great.<br>

Macro: I wouldn't change. The Sigma is very good and you have IS covered at 100mm with the 70-200 f4IS.</p>

<p>You won't regret the fps on the 6D.</p>

<p>My kit is the 5DsR with the 24-105mm f/4L IS, the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 14mm f/2.8L II. (I also have the 500/f4-II, with a 7D2, but you don't need that). However, I would add an EF 1.4x TC-III to your bag and an ET25 to use the 70-200mm as a macro at times. (I'm not sure of your usage, so I don't know if you need a dedicated macro, but you'll know). (A 70-200mm with a 1.4x or 2.0x TC and an ET25 gives very good magnification).</p>

<p>I don't feel your need for a fast 50mm, but I understand, so, for you, I'd keep the one that you prefer, based on usage.</p>

<p>High ISO performance has improved enough that you only need faster than f/4 for artistic preference, not IQ.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now our photography is mostly travel and landscapes with some skiing and astrophotography.<br>

<strong>6D <strong>- </strong></strong>seems perfect for everything except am I going to regret dropping down to 4.5fps?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

For those purposes, a relatively simple kit is all that is required. The largest gaping hole in your lineup is a 24-70/24-105, as it appears you have no good quality wide-mid zoom. This is something that is <em>very </em>helpful in travel, and landscapes. While some might argue that an UWA zoom is more helpful, unfortunately none on the market often a tight enough zoom to be able to isolate subjects, or areas of interest, at will - especially when (as frequently occurs during travel) you don't have specific control of your shooting location relative to your subject.<br /><br>

<br>

Were you to drop crop, and go all FF, this is a serious expenditure to consider. a 5 lens kit could consist of the following:<br>

... (UWA - say, as suggested, a 16/17-35)<br>

... (wide-mid zoom 24-105/4 or 24-70/2.8 or 4 IS)<br>

70-200/2.8 L (w/ Sigma 2x TC)<br>

50/1.4 USM<br>

105/2.8 Macro<br>

<br>

Frankly, It might be a better choice, given what you've already got in your quiver to upgrade to a 70/80D, leave the 5D at home, and then you have no giant gaping holes in coverage w/ :<br>

EFS 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM<br>

EFS 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM <br>

EF 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS USM<br>

(EF 70-200/2.8L + 2x TC gives better range, but at the cost of IQ (when used w/ the 2x) and IS (all the time) and weight.)<br>

Canon 50mm 1.4 USM<br>

Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX 1:1 Macro<br>

No lens purchases would be required. <br>

<br>

Doing so would accomplish ALL your objectives, and do so at a minimal cost. Not to mention the newer AF systems in the 70/80D will put those in the 40D/5D1/6D to shame when you see a fleeing skier... In your shoes, I'd probably happily go with option number 2<br>

</p>

<p>Use a solid tripod and lens quiver be gone! ;-)</p>

<p>Very good, PF :-)<br /> Only you can decide what fps you need from your camera body. I would just say that having had the 5D and 5DII, for my purposes the 6D is an excellent camera.<br />I agree with the suggestion of the 16-35 f4 L IS as it has very good sharpness over the whole frame.<br /> My kit which I use primarily for travel, landscape, wildlife is 6D, 16-35 f4 L, 24-105 f4L, 100 f2.8 L Macro, 70-300 f4.5-5.6 L, 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L, 50 1.8. I usually select 2 or 3 lenses from these to suit whatever subject I am shooting that day.</p>

<p>I think the costs of going FF would be covered by selling all those lenses I wouldn't need anymore. On the other hand, MI's 80D option ends up with money in my pocket.</p>

<p>1998-2005 my setup was this:<br /> EOS 3 + Elan IIe<br /> EF 17-35 2.8 L<br /> EF 50 1.4<br /> EF 70-200 2.8 L<br /> Sigma 105 Macro<br /> 2X</p>

<p>It worked great except I had to change lenses constantly due to the lack of a standard zoom. I loved 2.8 L lenses (of course there were few IS lenses then). I loved the EOS-3. When I went to the 20D in 05 was about the end of when I was making money from photography, even with my now unused 4x5 (which I am also going to sell now too *sniffle*) since then it is all for fun.</p>

<p>I worry about losing f/2.8. If I go to FF and have all f/4 lenses, I'll have the same DoF as f/2.8 on my APS-C. I also worry about AF performance. If I get an 80D, don't all the fancy cross sensors need f/2.8? A 24MP Rebel T6S with it's rear control dial and the 7D's AF sensors starts looking attractive re size/weight if I stay with APS-C.</p>

<p>On the other hand, 2.8 weighs a lot and costs a lot... and any day a lens is left behind because it is bulky or heavy... "The best lens is the one you use."</p>

<p>He's already full-frame.</p>

<p>Both FF and Crop, but not fully optimized to either...</p>

<p>If Robin Hood was a photographer, he'd have a lens quiver too...</p>

<p>It's possibly the skiing that would require faster shooting.<br>

My personal work is landscape and architectural mostly, so fps is not relevant to a high degree. I have stabilized for the last couple of years on a 5Dii and a 50D. I can't see anything soon that requires more than that.<br>

On the other hand, there is the unquestionable 'bling' value of having the biggest megapixels in your photo collective.... That siren call of 50+ MP! :)<br>

<br />Re Robin Smith on Robin Hood:<br>

the answer for lens quiver is Image Stabilization, eh?</p>

<p>Crop sensors have come a long way and the lenses are generally smaller and lighter. You also mention travel and skiing. So why not a 7DII (rugged, sealed, fast)? Sell some of the less used glass and older DSLR bodies and then re-evaluate. Otherwise a 70D or 80D.</p>

<p>Or sell the older bodies and get a modern rebel (for travel and skiing - smaller and still pretty rugged). Keep the 10-22 and 17-55 (nice lenses) and a few others and sell the rest. Use that money to buy a 6D and find one good full frame prime for astro work.</p>

<p>Another option would be go with a mirrorless (A72 series or A6300 series) which can use adapted glass. The initial benefit will not be size/weight reduction but rather not having to buy all new glass and then decide). On my A7rII, the 35L and 135L focus like they're still on old 5D2. I might buy a Sony Zeiss lens but have not felt the need yet. And the Canon diehard that I am - I just know they will one day have another hit like the 5D2 - and I will go back to their body (sorry Canon - just got tired of waiting - but love the glass and was really sad selling the old 5D2 friend!). Or maybe Canon will even announce a competitive crop mirror-less body......soon.....now.</p>

<p>All that being said, the 6D is a great camera and at its price point now its hard to go wrong other than the big lens disruption it would initiate and the added weight of the FF glass.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6509906">Brad Trostad</a>, said:<br /></p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>All that being said, the 6D is a great camera and at its price point now its hard to go wrong other than the big lens disruption it would initiate and the added weight of the FF glass.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

 

What "lens disruption"? He's already shooting a 5D and has a basket of lenses to get rid of. If he buys a 24-105mm in a 6D "kit", he's set.

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>Oops my bad, I thought the first 5 zooms and maybe one prime were for crop sensors and thus a switch to full frame would mean several to sell - which Aaron seems willing to do - sorry about that Aaron.</p>

<p>For travel, I'd ditch the 70-200 2.8L non-IS in favor of the f4 version. I owned a F2.8L and it was so heavy it was gone just months later - I think that is part of the reason they are such a good deal used.</p>

<p>I hate to love my EF-50mm f1.4. It has been repaired by Canon twice, same old problem as everyone else. If you are looking for a great quality / price / weight standard prime the 40mm f2.8 is awesome and excellent for travel. My niece now has mine and I will probably never get it back (nice problem to have).</p>

<p>I can vouch for the Canon 100L macro - awesome lens and pretty decent price when refurbished. That and the 35L were my most used lenses on the 5D2. I usually use the 100L on the Sony A7rII for soccer pictures, works good enough for me in servo mode - and it was really sweet for that sort of thing on crop Rebel at 160mm equivalent. </p>

<p>Whenever I travel, I always take the Rokinon 14mm f2.8. A bit heavy, but nothing beats the ultra wide angle option. That's another good price vs performance lens for a less common but fun focal length. If you were to stick with crop the equivalent is a bit smaller and lighter.</p>

<p>Another thing to ponder, if you aren't in a big rush it does seem like the 5DIV is looming (maybe August/September). The 5D3 prices (used and new) should drop and maybe give you another FF option (and awesome camera!) </p>

<p> </p>