Re arrange my lens line up

[tdigi]

<p>I currently have a 5D2 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 100L macro. I really like my lenses but I am finding many of the zooms big and cumbersome and lately I been mostly using primes since I now mostly use my camera for casual use ( portraits and travel too )<br /> <br /> Any thoughts on this? I was planning 24L 50L and my 100L and pretty much selling everything else but not sure I would use 24 a whole lot on full frame and I tried the 50L since 50 is a focal length I like a lot but really was not really blown away compared to the 50 1.4 but I am thinking of a more prime based set up is where I want to go since I can avoid a flash etc.<br /> <br /> Another possible setup is 35 85 1.8 and 100L and keeping a zoom ( maybe going back to the 24-105 )</p>

<p>Some details <br /> • I mostly shoot people<br /> • I don't really use ultra wide<br /> <br /> I would appreciate any thoughts. No real budget number I am looking for a good versatile set up cost is not a factor.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[tdigi]

Also the macro is the only lens off limits. Ideally I want a 3 or 4 good lenses

[b_christopher]

<p>Don't you hate changing lenses, though? I do. Yes, I keep my primes around, but really, I am working towards 3 body setup - first w/16-35 2.8, second w/ 24-70 2.8, and last w/ 70-200 2.8 or 100-400 2.8.</p>

[bueh]

<p>Tommy, I guess you should have kept that EF 28/1.8!</p>

<p>As a fellow 5D prime shooter I feel your pain. My setup is 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2 and 200/2.8. I have two superwides because I need the 20mm for <em>really wide shots</em> and party pics. And I got the 24mm at a really cool price -- optically it is superior to the 20mm and I love its small size and weight. So my two-lens kit usually is the 24mm and 50mm. I use the telephotos only when I need to or want that special flat-perspective look.</p>

<p>I had the EF 24mm L (Mk.1) but it was just too heavy and autofocus was hit and miss. It is pretty "glowy" wide open and has terrible bulls-eyes in the OOF highlights. The new version is supposed to be better but way out of my price range. Its weight is also a turn-off, again.</p>

<p>It is impossible to find that one-size-fits-all wide angle prime. Sometimes I think I <em>need</em> the 28/1.8 or a 35mm lens or wish for a 40mm prime. But in the end, the 24mm is very usable and full-frame leaves lots of room for cropping (if you don't like the "drama").</p>

[tdigi]

I did like the 28 but I seem to prefer 24 and 35 and I prefer lenses with usm and full time manual focus for when I

shoot video. I do think the L primes are large and probably more then I need but there is little choice on the wide end.

I tried the 35 and 50Ls and the 35 was excellent. But it's tough, carry 2 or 3 L primes and it's more then the 2.8 zoom

[tdigi]

<p>The FTM and USM are the main reasons I opted for the 28 1.8 but not sure its a FL I really like on full frame. I loved it on APS-C and I thought the quality was good on full frame too. Its a shame there is no option like the 85 1.8 on the wide end but considering the size and price I may just get a 24 2.8 and a 35 2.0 for now since its probably a lot more fun to shoot with then a 2 pound prime lens that is as big as a zoom. </p>

<p>I did think the 35 was pretty spectacular and I was able to see a difference shooting with that and my 24-70.</p>

 

[bueh]

<p>Yepp, try the EF 24 f/2.8! I am all for FTM and USM, but I am still surprised how that little "temporary solution" lens became one of my favorites. I wish it was faster, though, but maybe that is the reason to take a good look at the Canon 28/1.8 and Sigma 24/1.8...</p>

<p>I think the L primes are more or less specialist lenses. If you need them for specific applications/shootings -- great, but for casual everyday shooting there are more comfortable solutions that are pretty much equal in image quality.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Tommy, I've also been using my primes more than my zooms lately, but the 17-40 is the only lens I'm contemplating selling (I also have the 24-70, 24-105 and 70-200/4 IS).</p>

<p>While I love L primes, I personally wouldn't replace my 50/1.4 with a 50/1.2. I find the IQ of the 50/1.4 to be so good that I can't imagine the IQ of the L being any better, and from everything I've read, it isn't. With the 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm primes, it's a different story; for these focal lengths, I have opted for the L's.</p>

<p>One prime that you haven't mentioned that I heartily endorse is the 135/2 L. I know that many people have little use for 135mm, but I find that it's probably my most used focal length for outdoor portraiture. (Indoors, I tend to use 50-85mm the most).</p>

<p>By the way, I use only full frame bodies (1V and 5DII).</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Mark, to comment on some of your points.<br /> <br /> • I have seen some amazing work with the 50L so I am sure its capable but I had a difficult time with it. I was able to get sharp shots at 1.2 but I was surprised from 1.2 to 2.8 it was softer then my 50 1.4 ( this is where I expected this lens to excel ) I thought the 50 1.2 was a good lens but where it beat the 50 1.4 really required pixel peeping in many cases. The build is worlds better so while I did not keep it, its not a lens I did not like.<br /> I like the 35L better which I did get to play with for about 30 mins. Very sharp and everything just popped but I am not sure 35 is FL I would really love enough to spend $1400 on.<br /> <br /> • Realistically I doubt I would ever sell my 24-70 and probably never sell the 70-200 but I may and probably will sell the 17-40, just not a lens I ever use. I almost force myself to shoot with it. I use the 100L far more then the 70-200.<br /> <br /> • I never really considered the 135 because I love the 100L. its close enough to 135 and the macro ability allows me to use it at almost any distance not to mention it has IS. Just an overall fun lens, I don't think I would use 135 all that much.</p>

<p>I was just taking some shot with my 24-70 ( again I do enjoy the gear I have ) and it is a wonderful lens but just a handful to carry around. I am on another forum where it seems everyone swears a 35L 5D2 is the only thing you need but not sure thats for me or not. I may try out the 35 F2 for now and pair it with the 85 1.8 for a small travel set up. When I think of getting a GF1 or rebel or something small I am sure neither would hold a candle to a 5d2 and 35 F2 + 85. Sure its a bit bigger but I get a viewfinder and full frame in a pretty tight package.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Two thoughts - replace the 70-200 F2.8 with the F4 IS (or just add this lens - I use both, one for sports the other because the F2.8 lens is so heavy). Also consider the 24 F1.4. I have the 35 F2 and the 85 F1.8 and find that unlike the 85mm lens the 35 F2 is rarely used. I have never really been that impressed by the EOS 35 F2 - I actually tend to use my 24-70 F2.8 more</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Tommy, Philip's post has reminded me of how much I love my 70-200/4 L IS. It's very light and compact, and delivers prime-level IQ, so it makes eminent sense to replace your 70-200/2.8 with it (if you can live without f/2.8, that is).</p>

<p>I know that I've been tempted by the 70-200/2.8 L IS II, but its size and weight (not to mention its exorbitant cost) have put me off.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>For me, people shots are taken with an 85/1.2 II in varying light levels. Cannot beat f/1.2 at night without flash.</p>

<p>You can keep the 70-200 and see how much use it will get versus the 85/1.2 or even the 85/1.8. My 70-200/4L IS is the least used lens. My 85/1.2 II is the most used for people. Next will be the 100/2.8 Macro USM for people (and flowers). Then it's the 50/1.4 USM which really doesn't get that much use. My bodies are all 5D's.</p>

[tdigi]

I have considered skipping 70-200 all together. Great lens for wedding or whatnot but for any general use it just sticks

out to much. At least for me, still there are times I love using it.

[bueh]

<p>Have you considered Sigma's 50mm f/1.4? Much better build quality than Canon's f/1.4 (and heavier/bigger) and at least as good optically than the Canon lenses. I would take a good look at before I go the L route. Another new, interesting lens is Sigma's 85mm f/1.4. I haven't read much about it and haven't tried it yet, but the specs look promising.</p>

[tdigi]

I hear the sigma has an auto focus issue, at least that is what I heard. I wonder with the 50L if it was just me, I see many amazing sharp shots with it. I appreciate all the ideas.

[bueh]

<p>Sigma's autofocus issues are real, but overhyped (not <em>every</em> lens has them...). The worst that you need to do is have Sigma calibrate the lens to your body, but if you are smart you do this with your Canon stuff, too. And after all, you can get several Sigma 50mm lenses for the price of one 50L.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Not so sure I would go with the Sigma 50 but I am interested in the Sigma 24. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>In my opinion, there is no point having both the macro and the 85 1.8. If you must keep the macro then sell the 85mm. Replace the 70-200mm with the f4IS and you can also leave the macro at home for most of the time too except when you must take macro shots (how often do you really do that?). Get rid of the 17-40 and you are all set too, wide angles wider than 24mm are rarely used anyway in my case and the 24-70 is a better performer too. The 24 L is a big lens as is the 35L - to be practical you only really need one - the 24mm 2.8 is excellent and saves you a lot over the 24L. The 35/2 is not in the same league as the 35L. The 50L is, as you point out, the same or poorer than the 50/1.4 for most of its aperture range, so I wouldn't get the 50L. The Sigma 50 has pretty well the same performance as the Canon 50/1.4, so all you are buying is a bigger, heavier, and more expensive lens with superior build quality.</p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>Thanks Robin, good points, I did just sell my 17-40. For how I see it my 24-70 is pretty much my work horse lens that I use most of the time. With the 85 and 100 macro This is a tough one because I like the 85 for its compact size and fast aperture and I like the macro for the sharpness, IS and of course macro so I feel they are very different but still I guess they are very close in many ways. I don't do much macro so maybe I should consider an extension tube or close up filter, I purchased the 100L thinking I would sell the 85 but I really like the 85 so I kept both.</p>

<p>I really like shooting at 50 so I wish there was a better option here. I see a lot of people getting great shots with the 50L so I wonder if its just me I mean I miss focus with all my lenses on occasion so maybe I need to give it more of a chance. The 50 1.4 is good and all but I feel this thing could die on me at anytime and focusing in dark places is pretty poor so if it died today I would probably get the L instead. 35L is also interesting because I did very well with this lens in the short time I played with it but I am not sure 35 is where I want a prime so tough call, I do like the idea of 24 and 50 ( 24 2.8 would be fun, I would not buy the 24L )</p>

<p>Debated many times about the 70-200 F4 IS vs 2.8 but really to me both of these lenses stand out because they are white and neither is really small but still a good point and something I am considering. I am interested to see the new 70-300 lens as well. </p>

<p>- in the photo below I realize it would be a better photo stopped down but I wanted to see what the 50L can do wide open. It can be an impressive lens when you get it right. I just seemed to struggle getting a lot of keepers.</p><div></div>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>The 70-200 2.8 weight advantage is when it's mounted, relieving the camera bag of that weight. The equivalent range in quality primes not only weighs more than that 70-200, the prime collection winds up weighing you down more as two lenses remain in bag as you have the third mounted. Of course, there's more to it than weight, such as usage and image quality. But don't count out your fast 70-200 zoom to soon.</p>

[bueh]

<p>Tommy, don't you think the EF 50mm f/1.2 is vastly overpriced? I feel that at its current price point it should at least have Image Stabilization. As it is, it is truly just a "Luxury" for wealthy amateurs or very successful pros. If -- and only then -- my 50/1.4 breaks, I will test Sigma's offering throughly and then decide between the f/1.4 lenses (unless i can find a 1.2L at a reaaally good price, which seems unlikely).</p>

<p>And I doubt that a shot of the same subject above with the EF50 1.4 will look visibly different.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Yes the 1.2 is overpriced but much of this stuff is expensive if you think about it. a 17-40 to 16-35 is double the price for 1 stop so I guess is how you look at it. I really wanted to love this lens and when you get it right its spectacular and unique but I missed a lot with it.</p>

<p>I tested the 1.4 and 1.2 side by side and many times it was very similar so I decided not to keep the 1.2 but if and when my 1.4 breaks I will probably go with the L. I find mechanically the L is 10x better and that is really my only issue with the 1.4. Still I think I am going to pair my 50 1.4 with a 24 2.8 as a small/light travel kit instead of getting a four thirds camera or some smaller option. I know this range is covered in my zoom but its a lot of fun shooting with small primes ( another reason I kept the 1.4 )</p>

<p>I sold off 3 lenses ( 24-105, 28 1.8 and 17-40 ) so I have money to put toward a really good lens. I want a prime that I can use as a standard lens to use indoors so I will probably end up with a 35L at some point in the near future, from all I hear its much better then the 50L on full frame. Right now I use the 50 1.4 for this but focusing with that lens frustrates me but its still a great lens. </p>

<p>My basic thinking is I can go 24/50/85 for small setup and or 35/100L for higher end stuff. We'll see, whats funny is I have tried so many lenses and I usually end up using my cheapest lens most of the time.</p>

<p> </p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>but focusing with that lens frustrates me but its still a great lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To eliminate all low-light focus issues why not just use AF assist? Instead of spending a fortune on the 50L get an (equally overpriced, but cheaper and lightweight) ST-E2 -- if you don't want to use a Speedlite's AF assist beam.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>whats funny is I have tried so many lenses and I usually end up using my cheapest lens most of the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here. It is one of the truisms of photography that the more expensive the lens the less useful it is.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>"Same here. It is one of the truisms of photography that the more expensive the lens the less useful it is."</p>

<p>The 24-70 is pretty expensive and very useful but just not always something I want to lug around. I am going to skip the 50L unless my 1.4 dies. </p>