Lens Recommendations?

Hello,

 

I have a fair amount of money to spend on some lenses. I was saving for the

Leica M8 and decided to bail, and just upgrade my Canon system.

 

Here is my current system:

1) Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Digital

2) Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

3) Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

 

My 70-200 is great for sport/portraits/action shots.

The 24-70 2.8 stays on the camera at all other times.

 

I mostly enjoy portraits and Landscapes. Some of the primes that Canon has

really intrigue me like the new 50mm 1.2L, I am also considering the Canon

85mm 1.2L for portraits. The primes would seem nice for the days that I do

not feel like walking around with a heavy zoom.

 

I am very critical of my landscapes. Is the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 comparable to

some of the Wide Angle primes for Canon.

 

In addition, I am considering a Macro Lens.

 

Suggestions are welcome.

 

Thanks

Steve

I'd suggest you get the three TS-E lenses for landscape work. They make 24mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses with tilt and shift. They all work quite well. I use them along with a converted FD 35mm Tilt/Shift.

TS-E lenses may be useful for some landscape work where you want to include more than usual amounts of foreground or background while maintaining vertical elements, like trees. However, they really are more suited for architecture which has much more dependency on maintaining verticals.

 

 

I don't use the 50mm focal length for much of anything and the 50/1.4 appears to be almost as good as the 50/1.2 L at less than 1/4 the price. You can't go much wrong with the 85/1.2 L.

 

 

My most used landscape lens is a 14mm lens. While the 24-70 is likely a very good landscape lens for you, I understand your desire for something wider. It's just that Canon has not provided much in the way of lenses for wideangle. The 16-35 is very expensive and overlaps your very expensive 24-70 by a lot. The Canon EF 20/2.8 is supposed to be quite good but not stellar, and the 14/2.8 L is extremely expensive and may be too wide for what you want. Anything wider than 24mm on full frame is a challenge to compose images with, but when you are successful it is very rewarding.

 

 

For macro I would narrow it down to the Canon EF 100/2.8 or the Canon EF 200/3.5 L. The 100 gives you good working distance while the 200 provides even more, but in a larger package. Both are likely capable of superb optical performance.

I have been leaning towards the 16-35 2.8 and the 85mm 1.2

 

The overlap is not that bad considering how lazy I am when it come to bringing along my camera gear on long hikes. I have been really wanting to experiment with a wider angle than the 24-70mm lens provides. Personally, I love portrait work, and from what I read the 85mm 1.2 is an awesome lens. How does that lens compare with 70-200 2.8 IS USM?

You may well want to look at stiching together images for your landscapes. So a suitable head, tripod and that fruit, plus a 200 f1.8L.

 

There is an image of the foyer of the US Library of Congress done that way, well worth your looking at.

"I am very critical of my landscapes. "

 

You might take a look at upgrading your computer, software, and getting a pano head for the tripod. Take a look here:

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics/

 

I've just started to do digital mosaics again, and with more seriousness this time. Boy, the readily achievable resolution and sharpness is absolutely stunning.

 

As for lenses, I have the 24-70 f2.8L as well. I bought a 17-40 f4L to get back some decent wide angles for the 1.6x crop body. This lens is optically excellent; no reservations. The relatively slow f4 isn't a concern for landscapes.

Well, some of these primes are pretty darn heavy themselves, especially the 85mm. If I had unlimited funds, I would be tempted to get the 35L, the 85L, the 135L, and a 1.4x. This-- along with the 200mm f1.8 (yeah right) and two bodies is my dream set-up.

 

If you require a 50mm, get a 50mm f1.4 and spend the money elsewhere. Or, I can also recommend the 50mm compact macro if you don't need 1:1. I have found 1:2 just fine for nature macros. This is a sharp lens.

 

I have heard that the 16-35 flares badly when shot into the sun--so this may not be suited as a landscape lens. It is a workhorse for PJs b/c of it's utility, but the general opinion seems to be that the optics are not as good as Canon's wideangle L primes at larger f-stops. However, I doubt there are differences a f-stops narrower than f5.6.

 

Or, how about this, spend 1,000 bucks on some Pocket wizards, flashes, and a basic portrait studio set-up. This would be great for portraits.

>> I have been leaning towards the 16-35 2.8 and the 85mm 1.2

 

Go for it.

 

>> In addition, I am considering a Macro Lens.

 

 

To shoot which macro objects?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Canon wide angle prime lenses are not the best in the world. It seems like Zeiss 21 and 25mm or Leica R 19mm provides better performance (with an adaptor on the EOS body). The use of TS-E lenses can be very helpful in landscapes since you can tilt the plane of sharp focus. A former poster did assume that TS-E lenses only shift, which is not very useful in landscaps, but the tilt opportunity is fantastic when the sceen is right ( most of the time its not thou). There are fantastic software in the market that let you take up to seven pictures of the sceen at different focus distances, and then select the sharpest pixels and combine them into one final picture ( it even works in windy conditions). I recommend anyone intersted in sharpness to read the two articles in luminous-landscape.com under tutorials with title focusing in the digital era.

Thanks for the input. The idea about stiching or multiple shots is something I considered in the past but never really pursued it. I think I will follow-up on the idea. Furthermore, I am ordering the 85mm/1.2. I can think of so many uses for this lense. I am very excited about it.

 

Thanks,

Steve