William Michael Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Well, permission to play the Devil`s Advocate? Using (limiting onself) to a Prime on when on Holiday does make one think about `how to` when faced with the wide not being available:<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 And: there is no way that any zoom get these shots in a club or bar:<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 I love this thread. Devil's advocates do good work - what do they charge? (Ah yes, souls.) Nice shots. Yes, prime forces you to work. Sometimes we get lazy. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 OK - I started with just now buying the 16-35 2.8L II. And already the first few test shots - wow, I love it! Selective DOF at 16mm, amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve.elliott Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is timely, been thinking about where to go with lens selection and my current setup. 1D Mark III and 5D. I also much prefer using the 1D and might well just use the 5D as a backup. I currently have a 16-35 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 and was considering a 70-200 f2.8 and either 35 f1.4 or a 50 of some sort. After this debate I'm not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 22, 2008 Author Share Posted July 22, 2008 Stephen, So we have virtually identical setups: 1D3, 5D, 16-35 2.8L, 24-790 4L - and then I have the 70-200 4L and would like to instead have the 2.8 IS. But now I may instead get a 50mm 1.2. I too use the 5D as a backup camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve.elliott Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 That's right, so it was good to take a look at this thread of yours. ;-) My thought was to use the 24-70 (around 30-90 with crop) for most things, then switch to wide or zoom as required (plus a fast prime). William makes an interest suggestion of using the 16-35 and 70-200 (with a fast 50 for the gap and low light). I could trade the 24-70 for the 70-200 f2.8 IS...something to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 22, 2008 Author Share Posted July 22, 2008 Ditto. My only problem: I also shoot things like soccer/baseball etc club portraits, and 24-70 on the 1D is ideal for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_ziegler2 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 While the 24-105 L IS F/4.0 is not quite as fast as a 2.8 (only one stop) it is terrific on both my 5D and Mk3 and should be considered. I miss not having the IS function on the 16-35 and the 24-70. I shoot mostly with the 24-105, 70-200 2.8 and my most recent addition 300 f/4.0 using the 1.4 extender when needed (which is more convenient that the 100-400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 22, 2008 Author Share Posted July 22, 2008 I agree re IS on the 24-70. Don't need it on the wide lens, but wish I had it on the others. But that extra stop is tremendously important to me. It's all the difference in so many situations (low light and selective DOF) taht I would be loth to give it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 I currently have the exact setup you do (er, did) sans the 30D in favor of a 40D (and sans the 1d3 because my budget doesn't stretch that far). Personally the 24-70L is worth it's weight in gold, although I agree IS would be nice. I've never found that F4 on the 17-40L to be that limiting... perhaps due to my typical usage of the lens in less demanding situations. However, my next step will be to pick up either the 5D replacement or the 1D3 next year, and trade the 70-200L F4 for the 70-200L F2.8 IS. I love the 70-200, but certainly find the F4 and lack of IS to be pretty limiting for a lot of situations (1/250 is just to slow, and the lens is too long to make flash photography much of a viable option in a lot of cases) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve.elliott Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 I regret trading the 70-200 f2.8 IS I once owned. David the 1D Mark III is a superb camera and I would recommend it to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvw photo Posted July 22, 2008 Author Share Posted July 22, 2008 Yup. trade the 70-200L F4 for the 70-200L F2.8 IS, that is my next item to. Now to find the, um, $2000 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 ``William makes an interest suggestion of using the 16-35 and 70-200`` The background to that thinking might be of interest to the participants of the thread, the short story: I sold my (film) W&P studio a while ago. I did not pick up a camera for a couple of years. Coincidentally two separate instances impacted on my life: my wife bought me a 20D as a surprise, and the owners of the Studio contacted me and that lead to me planning the studios cut over to digital, he wanted to go with Canon. Though I knew a bit about photography and cameras, the whole Canon system was new to me: and in that regard I had an advantage, I think, because I started form the ground up. I spent about six months coming to the decision that a dual format system was the best, most flexible, and most economic for a digital W&P studio supplying quality work, and that film 645 and 67 could supplement. I choose the 30D and 5D as the core units. From that point, as system redundancy is crucial for Wedding Coverage, and obviously there was need for considering the budget, and weight and size of the system, all EF-S lenses were ruled out: even though I very much liked the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS as the core working lens for the 30D. So then I had to look at the 16 to 35; 24 to 70 and the 70 to 200 F2.8L trilogy of L zooms . . . which obviously was the `kit` for most press pools working with135 format film cameras. But it hit me that in designing a kit, the FoV difference of the two formats (APS-C / 135) could be exploited such that the 24 to 70 need not be bought at all, and that just left just a judicious choice of primes . . . the rest you can work out for yourselves. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob 101 Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 35 1.4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob.velkov Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Someone mentioned the 24 1.4L, while it is a great lens the 35 1.4L is better and much better complement the holy three (35L, 85L, 135L). Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve.elliott Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I'm probably going to buy back the 35 1.4 (yep traded that as well) as it's a superb lens - then the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve.elliott Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Still think the 24-70 (around 30-90) on a 1D is a superb general lens. But I don't use wide angle shots that much. Think I'll just get the 50 f1.4 as I can't justify the 1.2 version right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now