Help! Which 2 of the 5 Canon Lens to take?

[stevenraub]

<p>I am going on a 1 week photo shoot with my primary focus on Lanscapes and city/street images</p>

<p>I can only take two of the following 5 lens'. Please list your top 2 and why.</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

<p>EF 35mm f/1.4L USM<br>

EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM<br>

EF 135mm f/2L USM<br>

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM<br>

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM<br>

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I'd take the 35/1.4 and 24-105/4.</p>

<p>Why? The 24-105 is my most used lens. I rarely leave home without it.</p>

<p>My next choice would be the 24/1.4, but you don't list that as an option, so I'll go with the 35/1.4. Gotta have something to use in the dark. :)</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Steve, if you don't mind me asking (so I'm in a slightly better position to answer), why only two?</p>

<p>My knee-jerk reaction was to take two primes: the 35/1.4 and the 135/2. The 85/1.2 II, as great as it is, is too unweildy for street use.</p>

<p>My considered response, however, is to take two zooms for their versatility: either the 17-40 or the 24-105, depending on how wide you want to go, and the 70-200/2.8 II, a lens we're all lusting over.</p>

[stevenraub]

<p>Hi Eric,<br>

Thank you.<br>

Mark,<br>

It is a weight factor. If I were to pick 3, which would you suggest?</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Nice lens collection!<br>

I would expect only you would know the pro's and con's of each individual lens, it's sweet spot etc., etc., and in the end . . . the decision is yours.</p>

<p>FWIW, if you are shooting full frame, then the 24-105 will probably be mounted most of the time. Then if it were me, I would take the 17-40 for scenic Landscapes/Cityscapes. A lot could also depend on what part of the world you are going, it's climate etc., is it cloudy most of the time, sunny, rainy? Then, you may want to throw in the 35 f/1.4 . . .</p>

<p>If the only purpose of this trip is for a "photo shoot," then one may have other idea's.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Assuming you're shooting FF, I'd take the 24-105 and the 35/1.4. The 24-105 will handle most of your stated needs beautifully (unless you have a thing for longer or shorter focal lengths), and the 35/1.4 will handle the rest. But it's your call, and while these are my choices, your mileage will vary.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Steve, it would be the three zooms. That's my "walkabout kit," except that I have the 70-200/4 IS rather than the f/2.8. The two longer zooms have IS, so they are good for lower light shooting of static subjects. And you'll have 17-200mm covered, which is 99% of what you'll want.</p>

[stevenraub]

<p>Hi Mark,<br>

Sounds good. A bit of weight but I will give it serious consideration.<br>

What about the 35 1.4 for a trade of one of the zooms?</p>

[wayne_woodruff]

<p>I'm with Eric, my 24-105 goes EVERYWHERE I do. </p>

[stevenraub]

<p>Friends,<br>

I believe I am going with the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM,<br />EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM</p>

<p>Thank you all for your help.<br>

Steve<br /><br /></p>

 

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Steve, that's exactly what I would have done. The 70-200 is by far the heaviest lens under consideration, and arguably the least useful for land- and cityscapes.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I'm still getting used to this page-by-page format.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Sorry...</p>

[stevenraub]

<p>Thanks Mark,<br>

I lost track of the second page as well.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>When I do such things, in most cases I would take the 24-105 accompanied by either the 17-40 or the 70-200.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p><em>Is</em> it full frame? Anyway, my 2 cents: the 17-40 and 24-105. If 3, bring the big boy.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>35/1.4L and the 85/1.2L</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>17-40mm and 70-200mm...and throw in the 50mm f/1.8, its small and light, you can hide it somewhere. I hate to leave the 35mm out, but if you can only have two, then this gives the most versatility. What camera are you using, that makes a big difference too. If its full frame, you may be able to get away with the 24-105mm, but I think I'd still take the 17-40mm for dramatic landscapes and city shots. With APS-C, 17-40mm is a must, anything longer will be difficult to shoot with. I'd take the 70-200mm so I have no overlap. I'd hate to have only 2 lenses and them overlap. You never know when you may need that extra reach. A lot of great landscape shots are taken with telephotos as well.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>Sounds like a good combination. You never mentioned your camera.<br>

You are missing the 135mm f/2 in the list of 3, but then you can't have it all. Someone once listed using 24mm and 85mm on a full-frame for a travel setup, and I thought that was a usable combo.<br>

Whatever the combo, you might miss some shots from missing a lens but you'll get others. I know what it's like to bring too much gear, 70-200mm f/2.8 being one of them. But i did use that lens primarily and I glad I did bring it. It wasn't a city kind of trip though. <br>

I like using a wideangle zoom for that focal range, and then for telephoto i would like a 105mm or so, so probably I would pick 17-40mm and 85mm from your lineup, just because i haven't used 85mm f/1.2 much -- that would be a combo i'd want to try.<br>

I like your choice (for you) of the 3 lenses. For me I would pick<br>

1) 17-40mm + 85mm<br>

or<br>

2) 24-70mm f/2.8 + 135mm [i know you listed 24-105mm, i am just not crazy about that lens :-) ]<br>

or<br>

3) 2 primes would be an interesting exercise: 35mm f/1.4 + 135mm f/2</p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>+1 to 17-40 plus 70-200 plus 50/1.8.</p>

<p>Gives you the widest range of options.</p>

<p>However... recently I started using primes more and more so a simple combo of 35 and 135 might be very satisfying as well.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>If it's only 2 lenses, it would be 24-105 and 70-200, but that would suite my style (and I use the 70-200/4 non IS when weight is a factor).<br>

The 24-105 is the all day lens, you might find the 35/1.4 a better evening/low light option even though it's not that wide.</p>

[William Michael]

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"I'm still getting used to this page-by-page format."</em></strong><br>

<strong><em>"I lost track of the second page as well."</em></strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Mark, Steve:<br>

Open: [My Workspace] (Top RH portion of Page)<br>

See: [Account Options] (Top RH corner of Page)<br>

Select: “Show [all] posts on page in forums”<br>

Click on [update]</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Mark:</p>

<p>I still don’t understand how this conversation is ongoing, without knowing:</p>

<p>A) What camera Format(s) you have<br>

B) How many cameras you are taking</p>

<p>WW</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>35 and 85, it's all you'll need for your trip.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>Steve,<br>

I have no intention to be offensive, but for someone who has a (obviously) top quality lens collection, you should know which lenses to take? The answers you get are heavily biased on personal preference, personal shooting style, personal experience, etc, etc.<br>

Only you can know those aspects about yourself. Do you prefer to shoot with zooms or primes? Are you carrying a tripod, will you need IS? And so on.<br>

My advice? Research about the place you are visiting, and plan whatever you can in advance. Find books about the place, see what type of photos you can or expect to take. I find this type of information invaluable. When travelling, researching in advance will save a lot of frustration later on...</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>where is the photo shoot at?</p>