Help me Decide on which 3 out 4 L lenses!

[flying_tiger]

Hi there, I was considering getting into medium format and get a

Hasselblad 503CW kit with 80mm/2.8 lens. Tried it and liked it but

the price was just raised by a dealer outside the U.S. by over 10%!

Bad timing.

 

Therefore, I may decide to stay with 35mm format and complete my

line up of lens for EOS 3. Currently, I use 28-70/2.8L with EOS 3

and 50/1.8 AIS. 105/2.5 AIS with Nikon FM2n. Don't plan to buy DSLR

in the near future. Maybe after the Hasselblad....

 

Anyways, I intend to take advantage of Canon's triple rebate and get

3 L lens. My main interests are portraits, landscape, scenics,

architectures and candid sometimes. Here are my choices in priority.

 

(1) 70-200/4L

 

(2) 135/2L

 

(3) 17-40/4L

 

(4) 300/4L IS

 

I used to have the 70-200/2.8L non IS but found it too heavy. While

the 70-200/2.8L IS is nice but it's too expensive and heavy.

 

Also, I ever consider to get the TSE 24/3.5L for architecture but

it's NOT on the list for the rebate. So, I may want to give 17-

40/4L a try since my widest lens is the 28-70/2.8L, which is not

wide enough under certain siutations.

 

Is 135/2L redendent focal length because of the 70-200/4L and the

Nikon 105/2.5 AIS? Obviously, 135/2L is faster AF with better bokeh

I imagine. On the other hand, I really need a dedicated lens for

portraiture. Is 70-200/4L adequate portrait lens in terms of AF

speed, bokeh, etc?

 

Always want to get a telephone and I think 300/4L IS is an excellent

choice. Is it useful for portraits shooting?

 

Here is my 2 options:

 

(1) 70-200/4L 17-40/4L and 135/2L OR

 

(2) 70-200/4L, 17-40/4L and 300/4L IS

 

Which one should I get ? Thanks for your advice.

 

Richard

[david_boily]

2

[berton_chang4]

I second that 2. maybe add a 50/1.4

[scott_ferris]

Hi Binyuan,

 

If protraits are your thing and you only want a telephone (sic) to see what it will do, then

your answer is 1. The 300 f4 L IS is not a portrait lens, the 135 f2 is one of the best out

there and if you don't want the 70-200 f2.8 then there really is no comparison, the 135 is

not redundant if you get the 70-200 f4, four times more light, faster AF, one of the

sharpest lenses in the Canon lineup and creamy out of focus highlights and it also works

well with a 2xTC so you get a 270 mm f4 to see how you get on with telephoto lenses.

 

Take care, Scott.

[danny_lee2]

choice 2

[eos 10 fan]

Look for a used Hasselblad 503CW kit with 80mm/2.8 lens.

 

--

[olivier_de_lame]

Hi,

 

I have 135/2L, but I do not have (and do not like) zoom. The big advantage of 135/2L is that you can use it at F2 and get a very sharp photo. with 70-200/4L I assume you would need to go to F 4.5 or F5.6 to get the same sharpness, but than you won't have a much larger DOF.

 

I use F2 mainly to get this DOF.

 

I am not sure to understand why you envisage the 300/4L: only for posed outside model, I am not sure how you can use it for portrait.

Notice that 135mm is already quite long for portrait.

 

So you should see if you need F2.

 

Regards,

 

Olivier.

[isaac sibson]

I have the 70-200 F4L and 300 F4L IS. My father has the 17-40L and 135 F2L.

 

First point is that there is not a single bad lens among these four. Any combo will give you enough performance that the image is limited by your own skill (as this is definitely the bit I am contending with at the moment).

 

Second point is that no matter which way you go with these lenses, get the 1.4X TC. It is optically very good and I use mine a great deal.

 

If I were in your position, I would get the 17-40 for sure, and the 300 IS for sure. Then it's a toss-up between the 135 and the 70-200 (and I did consider the 135 for a long time). If you get the 1.4X, then you have 135mm and 190mm, 300 and 420. With the 28-70 being plenty usable at 70mm (unlike the long end of my 24-85), I'd probably plump for the 135 in your shoes.

 

But to stress it again, between the 135 and 70-200, you can not go wrong. Both are wonderful lenses.

[robert_geerts]

Hi Richard,

 

You can?t go wrong with the 135 some consider it the sharpest Canon lens available. You may consider the 200 2.8 MK II L prime lens instead of the 70-200/4L (they cost about the same). It outperforms the 70-200/4L, its lighter so you can use it hand held, and you can use 1.4 and 2.0 TC (Kenko) without losing AF.

 

Robert

[digitmstr]

>>Always want to get a telephone and I think 300/4L IS is an excellent choice<<

 

does it come free with the calling plan? I'll sign up now! ;-P

[flying_tiger]

Thanks for the advice so far.

 

BTW, I intend to obtain one telephoto lens, zoom or prime, to cover the long end when traveling and hiking(maybe). I ruled out 70-200/2.8L IS(too bulky and heavy) and I think 70-200/4L or the 135/2L with 1.4 X extender are 2 options.

 

With 135/2L I have 135 and 190mm covered while the zoom covers everything from 70-200 but 2 stops slower. Tough call!

 

What's your experience?

 

Richard

[scott_ferris]

Hi Binyuan,

 

My experiance is that although the 70-200 2.8 is heavy and bulky it is so versatile it more

than makes up for it, besides if you are going to take a 135 f2 and a 70-200 f4 along then

you might aswell just take the 2.8 instead of both.

 

However if portraits are your main focus and you don't want the fast zoom then the f4

zoom won't cut it, the 135 is a must, if you are really looking for telephoto use then get a

tele, the 300mm f4 IS is a good lens and better than better lenses used with TC's.

 

Take care, Scott.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>As has already been mentioned, all of these lenses are really, really good. It's just a question of what's best suited to your needs.</p>

 

<p>As a general-purpose kit, I'd go with 2. But you specifically listed a need for portraiture, and the 135/2L is a superb choice for that - much better than any of the other lenses you list. So I'd say that given your requirements, option 1 is better.</p>

[fj5]

I'd definitely go with (2)! *bites fist* SO JEALOUS!

[fj5]

Reasoning for (2)...

 

"My main interests are portraits, landscape, scenics, architectures and candid sometimes."

 

This is a pretty broad range of interests. 17-300mm seems pretty broad to me. =p

 

You might find the 300mm to have the reach you need to get to those far and otherwise difficult to shoot "candids". But if 200mm is enough for you... EF 50mm f/1.4 USM? Is this included with the rebates?

 

The 135mm f/2L does have a nice bright wide open aperture, but how often do you think you'd use that, given your versatile 70-200? If you need the wide aperture, then you know what to choose. If you want a versatile set... etc.

 

If you get the 17-40, 50, and 70-200, you would have basically completed my realistic EF wish list! ...BUMB! ^_^ jk