More lens questions

[todd_torfin]

My current equipment 5D, 40D, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and 2x teleconverter,

580EXII flash.

 

Of these lenses if you could add one or some combo to this setup I already have

which one would you prefer. Keep in mind I shoot lots of stuff primarily auto

racing, then potraits, sports(wrestling/soccer) then landscape/wildlife. I

have the opportunity to add to may collection and just want to make sure I add

something that will be the most useful since I have two camera bodies one will

have the telezoom and the other wide.

 

I have the 24-70 but if I went with the 16-35 should I sell the 24-70 and then

add 16-35 and the 100-400. Since I have the FF and non FF camera bodies would

it be worth it to sell the 24-70 and get the 17-55 for the 40D since the 17-55

is little cheaper and then get the 100-400.

 

My thoughts are leaning towards the 16-35 only that way I would have coverage

from 16-200 all 2.8 L lenses and not worry about the 100-400 since I have the

2x that I can use on the 70-200, thoughts, suggestions, questions please bring

them on I need some advice. I guess it boils down to the 16-35 or the 100-400.

I have tried the 28-300 and it was great with lots of light but very expensize.

 

Canon 100-400

Canon 16-35 2.8

Canon 28-300

[alam eldin]

Hi Tod,

 

None of your needs will apply to 16-35 as 24-70 od 5D is best for land scape when ultra wide needed.

 

My sugestion to you is to get 100-400L as it will open a new world for you specially when adding 1.4TC on your 40D.

 

You can sell 2xTC as it will not focus with 100-400.

 

You may add 85mm f1.2L(any version as it is one of the best canon lenses) for portrait and low light or you may prefer one of the 50mm models :f1.4, 1.8 or even 1.2L. If you find later that you need wider than 24 on 5D you may get 16-35 2.8L or 17-40 F4L.

 

So you are ready to any kind photography.

 

Good luck.

 

Mohamed Alam ELdin

[colinsouthern]

16-35/2.8L II - and forget the 100-400.

[alam eldin]

Hi Todd,

 

None of your needs will apply to 16-35 as 24-70 od 5D is best for land scape when ultra wide needed.

 

My sugestion to you is to get 100-400L as it will open a new world for you specially when adding 1.4TC on your 40D.

 

You can sell 2xTC as it will not focus with 100-400.

 

You may add 85mm f1.2L(any version as it is one of the best canon lenses) for portrait and low light or you may prefer one of the 50mm models :f1.4, 1.8 or even 1.2L. If you find later that you need wider than 24 on 5D you may get 16-35 2.8L or 17-40 F4L.

 

So you are ready to any kind photography.

 

Good luck.

 

Mohamed Alam ELdin

[nhut-nguyen]

1. the 24-70 works on both FF and 1.6, why trade for something that only works on 1.6?

 

2. for wide angle shot the 24-70 should be pretty wide on your 5D, unless you really really need ultra wide angle of the 16-35

 

3. get the 100-400 for wildlife, it's definitely better than the 70-200 with 2x telconverter

[andrew robertson]

I would get a fast lens of some kind, like the 50 f/1.2 (seems like you like the L lenses) or

the 85 f/1.2 or the 24 or 35 f/1.4s.

 

f/2.8 is OK for outside photos, even with overcast skies, but if you want to expand your

working environment you may want to go faster.

[vadtel]

What about 300/4.0 IS with 1.4TC. You'll get extremly sharp 300 and 420mm. And 17-40 if needed. 24-70 is one of the best - stay with it.

[m_barbu1]

If when using the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM on your 5D, you don't find yourself needing something wider, then I don't think you need the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. If you do find yourself wanting a wider field of view, then that lens would be a very good option. I don't think you'll be happy with the quality of the 100-400, given your existing equipment, and would suggest either a 300mm or 400mm prime lens instead, if you want longer, instead of wider.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I think Vadim pretty much hit the jackpot here.

 

 

 

On the telephoto end...

 

100-400 will not work very well with either teleconverter, no AF at the long end even with 1.4X, sorry. Also, zooms simply don't work as well with teleconverters as primes do. This lens does offer a lot of "apparent" reach, though, when mounted on the 40D.

 

Personally I'd probably add 300/4 IS and 1.4X (which will be better on the 70-200 than the 2X is, too). 300/4 will work with 1.4X on either camera, but you would lose AF with the 2X on that lens. Note that the IS of the 300/4 needs to be turned off when it's on a tripod. This lens uses an earlier version of IS that requires this. With IS, this lens remains reasonably hand holdable, especially on your 5D. On 40D, this lens alone would give you effective reach of a 480mm, and with 1.4X attached it would give an effective reach of 672mm.

 

The most affordable alternative to the 300/4 would be the 400/5.6, but would mean tripod work much of the time, since this lens lacks IS. It's not useful with teleconverters, either, since it's already an f5.6 lens.

 

If you could cost justify the 300/2.8 IS, which would work quite well with both 1.4X and 2X, it would be almost the ultimate lens for many of your tele purposes. It's marginally hand-holdable, but really more of a tripod/monopod lens due to size and weight, and especially with any teleconverters added and/or when mounted on the 40D. With the hood reversed, it's relatively compact, too, for what it is. It will fit in my LowePro Mini Trekker backpack even with a camera w/grip attached (it's a tight fit!).

 

400/2.8 or 500/4 would be your ultimate options, and certainly the most extreme in terms of price, weight and size.

 

 

 

At the wide end of things...

 

I'd add the 17-40/4. This would give you plenty of wide on the 5D, and work quite well on the 40D too. If you just don't need that wide a view, but still want wider than the 24-70 gives on the 5D, get a 20/2.8.

 

The 16-35/2.8 II is a more "premium" option, but I think a bit of overkill. f4 is fast enough in most situations, at wide angle focal lengths.

 

This probably won't be your last lens purchase. So if you buy whatever is most important to you now, and plan for what else you'll eventually want to use, you can add incrementally and spread the cost over a period of time.

 

Using a combination of a full frame 5D and a 1.6X crop 40D is certainly a good way to "leverage" your lens kit for all it's worth.

[William Michael]

>>> just want to make sure I add something that will be the most useful since I have two camera bodies one will have the telezoom and the other wide. <<< (TT)

 

 

I disagree with M Barbu in regards to solely predicating the REASON for selecting the 16 to 35 or not.

 

Even if you do NOT want wider than (equiv 135 format) 24mm, it might be that you could get great advantage from the 16 to 35, because of your two format system.

 

There might be many occasions where the two body kit has the 16 to 35 on the 40D and the 70 to 200 on the 5D.

 

I picked up on this point as I too have a dual format system (20D + 5D) and have purposely NOT bought the 24 to 70 (yet), as I see better functionality for me with the 16 to 35 (coming soon) and the 70 to 200 (I have) and a set primes to compliment.

 

In regards to the long end, I think you will get more mileage from the x1.4MkII than the x2.0MkII, (especially on the 70 to 200F2.8 zoom) I have both.

 

Also I see value ofr money in the 300F4LIS and the x1.4MkII. I have rethought that combination with a 20D + 5D + 70 to 200F2.8, and come to the conclusion that it is a very inexpensive addition for great improvement to the scope of the kit.

 

However if I already HAD the 24 to 70F2.8 I would not sell it.

 

I am not a fan of the 100 to 400, but many here are: I do not like the varying maximum aperture across the zoom range and it is soft wide open at around 280 onwards when fully open IMO.

 

In regards to primes the best value for money set to compliment the zooms, the tele extenders; a 300mmF4; and a two format system are: 24F1.4; 50mmF1.4; 85mm f1.8 and 135F2L, though I would like the 35F1.4 and the 100F2.8 macro also, later.

 

WW

[m_barbu1]

William, what benefit can be gained from having the 16-35 on the 40D and the 70-200 on the 5D, that wouldn't be mitigated by having the 24-70 on the 5D and the 70-200 on the 40D?

[William Michael]

Dear M Barbu:

 

I am sure you are baiting me, that is a very silly question, (IMO): the answer is obvious.

 

Let`s talk FoV in 135 format to give clarity.

 

The 16 to 35 on the 40D and the 70 to 200 on the 5D: = 26 to 56 and 70 to 200.

 

But the 24 to 70 on the 5D and the 70 to 200 on the 40D: = 24 to 70 and 112 to 320.

 

Now surely you will accept that in most shooting scenarios missing 56 to 70 is much less important than not having the 70 to 112 at you immediate disposal.

 

? :) ck!

 

WW

[m_barbu1]

Actually, I'm not that certain that 71-111 would be much more missed than 57-69. But if in such a scenario, why not put the 24-70 on the 40D and the 70-200 on the 5D? Surely a scenario where the 71-111 is more greatly missed than 57-69 would also be a scenario where 16-38 would not be that greatly missed? At least, not instantly, since the lenses could always be swapped.

[William Michael]

Dear M. Barbu

 

That is an excessively careful answer avoiding all the traps, and you planted one for me I see.

 

We have already assumed we do not want wider than 24/26ish: that is what you wrote originally and that is what I was addressing: so the 16 - 38 bit is totally irrelevant.

 

Really, it all comes down to the value of 71-111 vs. 57-69. That is the topic of debate: it is good technique to debate off the topic, but only if you can get away with it. :)

 

BTW: You very politely corrected my absolute incompetence in stating what is actually missing and what we actually have.

 

Touche! I bleed.

 

(yeah too lazy to do the acute)

 

 

So back to the topic.

 

 

We do not really need to be `certain` which range, either 71-111 or 57-69 would be more missed: just take an educated guess, which would you rather be without in a two camera set up?

 

WW

[m_barbu1]

No traps planted; merely a polite discussion between the erudite and the curious, me being the latter. :)

 

I would, however, like to reiterate that neither of these ranges would be absolutely missed, since a lens swap could take place at any moment. The only thing that would be missed is having the range "instantly", at any given time.

 

In my opinion, and for my needs, I think I would find greater handicap in using two different body models, than in having to pick one of the two ranges to do without until a lens swap is possible.

[William Michael]

:)

 

Dear M Barbu,

 

You are indeed a difficult one to nail down for a direct answer.

 

I however agree that when moving quickly and using two different bodies one `s head has to be together and the two different camera bodies create an extra dimension to that headspace.

 

The extra dimes inion can be mastered with practice, especially by those who are curious enough: I have no doubt about that. ;)

 

I do not really know where to go, (in this polite discussion), from this point, save to state that personally I see the (16-35 + 70 200) + (40D + 5D) a much better working combination.

 

Obviously that combination allows F2.8 coverage from (equiv 135 format): 16mm to 56mm and 70 to 320mm, leaving a gap 57mm to 69mm.

 

However the 24 to 70 and 70 to 200 combo with those two bodies has no wide (16 to 23) but has full range 24 to 320.

 

But, with the latter combination it seems quite UNlikely that one would have 24 to 70 on the 40D, BECAUSE one would have a silly overlap 70 to 112 and nothing wider than 36.

 

So, I must assume that the 24 to 70 would be on the 5D MOST if not ALL of the time and thus the 70 to 200 on the 40D: rendering the 71 to 111 gap being there most of the time.

 

I think that is silly. I would not like that.

 

Hence I, (personally), have planned in my progressive adoption of the EOS system: 20D + 5D: I have the 70 to 200 and the next zoom I get is the 16 to 35.

 

Most likely I will get the 24 to 70, later.

 

As I mentioned in the original answer IF I had the 24 to 70 I would not sell it, but for a dual format system I think the 16 to 35 is far more flexible and a better choice of mate for the 70 to 200 than the 24 to 70.

 

WW