Ideal Collcetion

<p>What can be the ideal collection of lenses for general photography? Which we all will need for a general purpose like landscape, family, people, etc. Not a spesific need. Not talking about f number but the lens and zoom coverage.<br>

My list is like this:<br>

Primes:<br>

25mm f/2 (Zeiss),<br>

35mm f/1.4 (Sigma)<br>

50mm f/1.4 (Sigma)<br>

85mm f/1.8 (Canon)<br>

100 mm f/2.8 (Canon)</p>

<p>Zooms:<br>

16-28mm f/2.8 (Tamron)<br>

24-70mm f/2.8 (Canon)<br>

70-200 mm f/4 (Canon)<br>

100-400 mm f/5.6-6.5 (Canon</p>

<p>Which lens would you like to have in addition of these lenses ? Sure some of you saying not SO NICE words though. <br>

By the way the body I use is 6D</p>

<p>Happy shootings...</p>

<p>Personally, I like primes and would add 70-200 to those. However, you likely would not need anything beyond 24-70 and 70-200....well, you could add a fast lens like 50 or 85 for nice bokeh. </p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Leszek, I already have them ... ;)</p>

<p>That sounds like an ideal collection of lenses for collecting lenses, which can certainly be a fun hobby but is not the same as photography.</p>

<p>Very funy Ed. You just play with my broken English... Anyway that's true the list doesn't mean "photography" and certainly not a "fun hobby". At lleast for me. Thx for contributing...</p>

<p>Not sure what else any typical photographer could possibly want. 15mm fisheye? Some people like to spend more money on tilt-shift lenses or super teles. Tamron don't make a 16-28mm - did you mean Tokina? What about an Otus or three?</p>

<p>You don't say what you shoot, but I'm assuming that it doesn't include a lot of action or wildlife, since you're using the 6D (an excellent body) as your body. If your shooting includes birds and wildlife, then you need a 500mm or 600mm f/4L IS II. You're missing the ultra-wide end. I use the excellent little EF 15mm f/2.8 diagonal fisheye and usually de-fish the images. I'm thinking of borrowing the 14mm rectilinear and the 11-24mm from CPS to get something a little sharper at the edges. </p>

<p>If your 100-400mm is not a Series II, I'd upgrade that, since the S-II is that much sharper, particularly at the long end. If you do shoot wildlife with that, then get a 7D MkII for that type of shooting. It has the same resolution as the 5D S and will run circles around the 6D in that usage. </p>

<p>About all the primes, I'd pick the one that I favor for portraits (two at most) and get rid of the rest. If you need that much bokeh, then you're using it as a crutch. Bokeh has its place, but it can get in the way also, just like too much saturation. </p>

<p>About your zooms, make sure you're using Digital Lens Optimization in all your Raw conversion. DLO will automatically correct for geometric errors, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc., at every aperture and every focal length combination for your zooms. Seeing the result, you'll ditch the 24mm.</p>

<p>Thank you Robin and and David for your inputs. <br>

That's right, it is not Tamron, it is Tokina, sorry for that mistake.<br>

You both suggest 15mm fisheye. Considered Rokinon 14mm for astrophotography. Gave up for already having Tokina 16-28mm.<br>

I shoot planes and I think 100-400mm II is enough for it. Don't think I need 500 or 600mm as I don't shoot birds. Infact I bought a Sigma 150-600mm but sold it cheaper after some test shoots. It is not a sharp lens and not so easy at handheld shooting. </p>

<p>Why not a round image 180 degree fisheye? That would have to be 8mm. They are highly amusing to children and make good, if old fashioned, family groups.</p>

 

<p>Sami, I agree, the 100-400mm II is perfect for planes. It's also great for outdoor sports.</p>

<p>When you get into the 14, 15, 16mm range, every mm counts for a difference that you can really see. Having worked with the 15mm diagonal fisheye a lot, I'm seriously considering Canon's rectilinear 14mm. You can do some magical things with ultra-wides. I love them for "big-sky" images, where there's lots of interest in the clouds. They're great for Milky Way shots and certain landscapes. A true, circular fisheye is something that I think that I'd get very limited usage out of, but some seem to use theirs more than I think that I would. Any novelty effect can wear off fast.</p>

<p>I'm a member of CPS and plan to borrow at 11-24mm and a 14mm from Canon to see which I like in my hands. They're both expensive, but show great IQ in the tests that I've seen. Here are a couple of examples of how I use my 15mm:</p>

<p><a title="Fall Color 1" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7456/10338029055_cfe8be5a24_c.jpg" alt="Fall Color 1" width="800" height="533" /></a></p>

<p><a title="Twilight Clouds Over Mount Evans" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7523/15751272781_4799047730_c.jpg" alt="Twilight Clouds Over Mount Evans" width="800" height="400" /></a></p>

<p>Thank you for contribution David.<br>

I agree with rectilinear 14mm. How about a Samyang/Rokinon 14mm instead of Canon? Or Tamron rectilinear 14mm f/2.8.!</p>

 

<p>I couldn't find a direct compare with the Tamron, but the Samyang is on The-Digital-Picture (pnet will not allow me to post a direct link for some strange reason) and I couldn't live with the difference. Doing astro, you'll want to be wide open and the softness of the Samyang will show. For daylight use you'll stop down to f/8 and the differences still show.</p>

<p>I'd rather go with a used Canon, in this particular case, than new Samyang. In a similar type situation, I started with the Tamron 15mm f/2.8 diagonal fisheye and ended up buying a used Canon after unhappyness with the edges on the Tarmon. Those were roughly equal cost. I don't know what a used Canon 14mm goes for and it'll probably be hard to find a used Series II, but I'd think about that. The current model L-series usually don't drop below 80% of their new cost, for good reason.</p>

<p>You own some lenses with stunning IQ. Once you've gone down that road, I think you'll regret compromise later, if you buy simply on price.</p>

<p>I will not buy a cheap lens which I will complain later about the quality or softness. I didn't go for Rokinon/Samyang but Tamron can be ok quality. Used Canon 14mm II around 1200 on ebay.<br>

Just bought the 100-400mm II and 1.4 III so don't have budget for few months. May be I can buy one in the summer...<br>

Don't know which will be better in this case though: 14mm rectilinear or 11-24mm f/4 ? <br>

As I already have Tokina 16-28mm which I am happy, may be better to have a 14mm.</p>

 

<p>My past experience with Tamron would say it's not going to match a Series II, L-series Canon, by a good margin. I'd go with the used Canon unless you can show me a comparison test where the Tamron holds up. (They actually do with a few lenses, but I haven't seen one equal a Canon Series II lens yet).</p>

<p>I really like the concept and the IQ of the 11-24mm f/4, but it's large, heavy and VERY expensive. Also, the f/4 is not ideal for astro-photography vs. an 14mm f/2.8. Still, I'm very undecided and plan to go the extra step of borrowing both from CPS before buying.</p>

<p>A used 14mm II is around 1450 - 1500 not 1200. 1200 is the former version I.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which lens would you like to have in addition of these lenses ? </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would sell them all and get a 24mm 2.8 (IS), 50mm 1.8 or 2.5, a 70-200mm 2.8 (IS), a powerful flash and a small messenger bag.</p>

<p>That's pretty much what I've been using when <a href="http://huwelijksfotograaf.wix.com/lumicino">realising these pictures</a>. </p>

<p>With that set, you can also make landscape / travel shots similar to these <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dd9f?start=50">at page six</a>.</p>

<p>I'm not gonna post family pics because that's personal, but you understand that the above lenses are more than suited for family pics.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tamron 15mm f/2.8 diagonal fisheye</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you meant Sigma 15mm. I don't think Tamron have ever made a fisheye. The Sigma and the Canon fisheyes are excellent and the 8-14mm Canon zoom fisheye is even better, but the zoom is really too specialized for most. I also regard the 11-24 as very specialized and think the 16-35 f4/IS is more useful for most people. But, if you need them, then you need them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I couldn't find a direct compare with the Tamron, but the Samyang is on The-Digital-Picture (pnet will not allow me to post a direct link for some strange reason) and I couldn't live with the difference. Doing astro, you'll want to be wide open and the softness of the Samyang will show. For daylight use you'll stop down to f/8 and the differences still show.</p>

<p>I'd rather go with a used Canon, in this particular case, than new Samyang.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> That's odd, because photozone's review has the Samyang coming out demonstrably sharper than the EF 14/2.8 L. Perhaps The-Digital-Picture was testing the earlier, inferior version of the Samyang 14/2.8.<br /> <br /> Photozone's review does note the lens's pronounced mustache-style barrel distortion, which is an issue for architectural photography but not so much for landscapes.</p>

<p>Yes Robin, you're right about it being a Sigma. It's a very good value, but not as good as my used Canon version.</p>

<p>I see the 14mm, 15mm and 11-24mm as extension lenses, beyond what most people do. If you know the situations where they really work, they can add a whole new layer of interest to your portfolio. I'd rather jump all the way there (from a 24-70mm or 24-105mm) than play in that middle ground of the 16-35mm, but I see where many would want to go with that very-wide lens instead of my suggested ultra-wide lenses.</p>

<p>You really need a "vision" to produce ultra-wide images that are of great interest. Just pointing it towards some mountains isn't usually going to cut it.</p>

<p>I don't have any personal "vision" for a circular fisheye. I tire easily when I look at the work of others with a fisheye. I guess I'm a rectilinear guy. ;-)</p>

<p>Mark said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br /> That's odd, because photozone's review has the Samyang coming out demonstrably sharper than the EF 14/2.8 L. Perhaps The-Digital-Picture was testing the earlier, inferior version of the Samyang 14/2.8.<br /> <br /> Photozone's review does note the lens's pronounced mustache-style barrel distortion, which is an issue for architectural photography but not so much for landscapes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nowhere in Photozone's review do I see where they say its "demontratably sharper" than the EF 14/2.8L II, which is what we're talking about. It's clear to see on The-Digital-Picture that the Samyang's IQ does not compare. The barrel distortion is atrocious. Wouldn't Samyang change the model name slightly if they came out with a new version? I can't find a date on the TDP Samyang testing.</p>

<p>David</p>

<p>My reading of the Samyang is that if you get a good one the overall image sharpness/resolution is really good, but some people don't get good ones (perhaps like the Digital Picture), but it does have very weird distortion. That's how they got the sharpness to be so good. The focusing ring markings are also completely inaccurate. The Canon I think has excellent distortion control, but it's sharpness across the frame is perhaps a little disappointing - although finding reviews of the Canon 14mm is quite hard. Do let us know how you find the lenses. The 11-24mm is very good I'm told. I think you will find it better than the EF 14mm (and the Samyang of course).</p>

<p>Besides its barrel distortion, the Samyang doesn't report EXIF and requires manual aperture change, but you might consider that part of "the bargain." Canon has some unit-to-unit variance also so it's unfortunate if The-Digital-Picture gets a bad example of either. The-Digital-Picture is low budget and I wouldn't be surprised if they often asked for loaners. I wouldn't be surprised if the manufacturer wouldn't hand pick the loaners that they send to reviewers. We don't get full disclosure from the reviewers, so it's hard to know what's being compared.</p>

<p>Assuming The-Digital-Picture has representative samples of everything they test, I like them because they post charts that let you see for yourself. I'm drooling over the results I see for the 11-24mm. At 14mm, it's even slightly better than the prime at 14mm and f/4, just slightly. I guess $3,000 does buy you something. I'm just worried about how I'll carry it in the field. The little 15mm fisheye fits in a pocket in my photo-vest. I really like that, but I might just strap on a case to carry the 11-24mm if it blows me away.</p>

<p>Useful as The-Digital-Picture is, it doesn't show you processed images. I use Digital Lens Optimization software on all my Raw to JPEG conversion. It can make a huge difference. When I do my comparisons, it'll be after DLO.</p>

<p>For someone interested in general photography you already have a good lens collection, unless you want a wider focal what would drive you to the expensive 11-24mm zoom but would leave the longer side with no options for your interest to shoot birds.<br>

Buying a longer tele would not be cheap and would add an new heavy piece of equipment and this the reason a lot of people in that kind of photography uses crop body cameras.<br>

Have you ever consider buying a 7D Mk II crop body? <br>

This would give your 100-400 mm a reach equivalent to 560mm and offer and useful 10 fps shooting capabilities, apart from a good AF and high ISO, for a much lower bill.</p>

<p>Just to add something, besides it think it's obvious:<br>

My suggestion implies you keep your FF body to take profit of the wider lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nowhere in Photozone's review do I see where they say its "demontratably sharper" than the EF 14/2.8L II...</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> True, but this is beside my point. You have to read their review of the EF 14/2.8, and compare it to that of the Samyang, to see that the latter is obviously sharper across the frame. So my words stand, notwithstanding your difficulty in understanding them.</p>