16-35 and 100 macro

[harry_p1]

<p>I'm trying to replace 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 by something more sophisticated.</p>

<p>Anyone use 16-35/2.8 and 100/2.8 macro IS together?<br>

I'm not only inquiring about lens performance as much as about how these lenses work together as a system.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>That would be an extremely limited system unless you solely do UWA -> WA/landscape type work and macro. If you do however, they should work fine. I assume you are working w/ a FF setup. On the crop the range would be much less limited, though the 'gap' would also be effectively wider as well (over 100mm effective).</p>

<p>I guess that would work, but with solely those lenses, you probably have specific tasks in mind. As a 'general purpose' kit, I suspect you'd find them quite limited.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>First, it's typically wiser to upgrade your lens kit to fill a need, rather than for sophistication reasons...I'm not even sure what a more sophisticated lens is. But upgrading "just because" is more likely to leave you disappointed.</p>

<p>The 85 mm f/1.8 lens is truly a fine lens, so I wouldn't suggest replacing it, but adding other lenses to your kit. I haven't used the 28 mm to comment on that one.</p>

<p>As far as the 16-35 f/2.8, it's a heavy, expensive lens...the 17-40 f/4 is only a stop slower and costs half as much (and I'm certain it weighs a bit less, as well). Also, it leaves you with a large gap between 35 and 85 or 100 if you go that route. Since you haven't been shooting wider than 28 mm, have you felt the need to go wider? If not, perhaps the 24-70 mm f/2.8 would fill your needs better, and would certainly close the gap.</p>

<p>The 100 mm IS macro lens is truly a fine, sharp lens. However, if you don't plan to use it for macro, it's probably not a huge step up from your 85 mm in terms of image quality to justify the substantial cost increase.</p>

<p>So as a system, the two lenses you propose leave a huge gap through the normal to short telephoto range. If your current setup isn't holding you back by having the same gap, then only you can decide if that system will fit your needs better than your current lenses.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I own them both and like both lenses. I cannot say that I have ever thought of them as a system. It has been known for me to carry both on the odd occasion with no other lenses or a 50 F1.4 but I cannot say I regard them as a system. By the way the 100 F2.8 LIS and 85 F1.8both perform really well. The IQ of the 85 F1.8 and the 100 macro are both superb - you will not see an improvement with the 100. The IS can be useful and obviously you have Macro. I cannot comment on the 28 F1.8 as I do not own one (indeed I though it was an F2.8 lens) but I can say that the 16-35 is best at the wide end and gets fairly soft towards 35mm. You should also be aware that the 16-35 is a pain with filters. If you do not own a medium format system but use ND grads be prepared to drop $100 - $200 on filters. For example while Cokin P will fit it vignettes from about 21mm even with the wide angle holder - a square system (lee or Cokin) works fine but for example Cokin Z filters are $40-60 and the holder and 82mm ring about the same.<br>

If you shoot full frame I can recommend these lenses but I am not sure they are a complete system. On APS-C the 16-35 works well (this is what I use on my 7D) but I suspect that the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 gives similar results at a cheaper price.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I have travelled with only those two lenses. A MkI 16-35 and the L series 100 macro. For the way I worked it suited me very well. </p>

<p>But like Philip I'd more normally take the 16-35 and the 50 f1.4. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Phillip -- there is a EF 28/1.8 USM and a EF 28/2.8 DC, The 28/1.8 is pretty good WO at the center of the frame, but gets REALLY soft at the edges until you stop it down in the f2.2->2.8 range, from f4 on it's on par with the best lenses on the market.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The 85mm f/1.8 is actually a pretty good optic. I use it when I want optimal IQ instead of using my L zooms, especially if I'm going to shoot at very large apertures. If you don't need macro capabilities, there are other lenses in this general range that could be less expensive and quite fine as well.</p>

<p>The 16-35 is a fine lens, especially if you need a large aperture zoom for hand-held, ultra-wide-angle, low light photography. If that is your planned use, it could be a fine choice if you need to cover that particular focal length range on full frame. On the other hand, if you'll mostly shoot from the tripod and at smaller apertures then there is little advantage in this lens (many would argue that there is no advantage) compared to the 17-40mm f/4 L.</p>

<p>When I see terms like "sophisticated lens" without any descriptive qualifiers, I feel obligated to at least mention the following - with an advance apology if this doesn't describe you. (If it doesn't perhaps the perspective will be useful to someone else who reads this.) </p>

<p>Sometimes people who read a lot about photography stuff but perhaps don't have a lot of current experience actually using the gear under discussion can fall for some odd misconceptions about said equipment. These include the following very arguable assumptions: </p>

<ul>

<li>The lens with the larger maximum aperture is always preferable to the lens with a smaller maximum aperture.</li>

<li>The more expensive lens is always a better choice than the less expensive alternative.</li>

<li>More expensive lenses will always produce better image quality.</li>

<li>Truly good image quality requires primes.</li>

<li>Truly good image quality from primes only comes from premiere and very costly lenses such as the L series primes.</li>

</ul>

<p>All of these expensive and specialized lenses have their places, but they are most certainly not always the best choices. The best choice depends a lot of what you shoot, how you'll shoot it, and what you'll do with the photographs. For example, the 50mm f/1.2 L prime is a wonderful lens for certain purposes, but I would not trade my 50mm f/1.4 for one given what and how I shoot. Lens decisions must begin with your specific photographic needs, not notions like "sophisticated" and so forth.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Jay (et al.) is right. "Need" should determine upgrade strategies.</p>

<p>Frankly, though, for me personally it would be hard to imagine these two proposed lenses in a kit as being any kind of <em>system</em> at all, unless you are using an APS-C camera rather than a 35mm sensor camera.</p>

<p>Then on the other hand, if your idea of a kit now is a 28mm and an 85mm (I think you've "met" <a href="00ZGK5">Natalya</a>, you seem made for each other ;) ), maybe there's something in it for you. Only you can tell, since I wonder how many people will be using <em>only</em> the 16-35 and the 100mm macro.</p>

<p>For many years, since the beginning of 35mm photography, most people have built their lens assemblage around the 'normal' lens of ca. 40mm to 60mm on a 35mm sensor.<br>

The EF 16-35 (designed as an 'ultrawide' zoom on 35mm and a very fine lens in that use) may not necessarily be the best choice for APS-C cameras. Some people will mention the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 as an alternative.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>This is for an APS-C camera? That makes even less sense than I thought. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is in almost every way an equal or better choice than the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 <em>on cropped sensor bodies</em>. IQ is at least as good; larger focal length range; decent cost; f/2.8; image stabilization.</p>

<p>And why a 100mm <em>macro</em> on crop? It isn't impossible, if I try really hard, to imagine some situation where pairing that with a 16-35 might make sense in some oddball way, but it is really hard to see how this would be a great combo on crop, and it is doubly hard to imagine how the 100mm macro would be a significant improvement in this situation over the fine 85mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>I have a hunch that someone may be making decisions based on perceptions rather than photographic reality...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[matthijs]

I like my 17-40 plus 100 IS as a two lens combo. (I have others but when I go into Delft to take some shots -for fun or

art sake- it's the combo I most often bring. The others are two 50mm's, a 28 and a 70-200.)

 

Whether yours will work for you is totally up to you.

[paddler4]

<p>+1 jay and G Dan. I was trying to find a way to say what D Dan did, but he beat me to it and did a better job of it. Lenses are tools. Tools are not 'sophisticated'--they just vary in quality and, even more important, appropriateness of the job at hand. Buy a lens if you need it to do something you can't do with your current kit. And read reviews, because often there moderately priced options that do very well indeed.</p>

<p>OP--you say nothing about what you actually want to shoot, which makes it impossible to give you a sensible answer about what to add, if adding anything even makes sense. For most people, but maybe not for you, the most pressing need would be something to fill the huge focal length gap between your current lenses, not replacements for the two of them.</p>

<p>The 100mm L macro is a wonderful lens--I am on my second, having dropped the first into a lake--but you have not mentioned an interest in macro, and if you don't want to do that, it's not clear why you would want to replace a good prime with this one.</p>

[harry_p1]

<p>Pfew, quite a few comments. Thanks, I'll read through everything later. Gotta run now.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think you've "met" <a rel="nofollow" href="00ZGK5">Natalya</a>, you seem made for each other ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry if I came across rude in that other topic. Wasn't my intention :)</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Harry I assumed you were shooting full frame but on crop the 100 macro is getting rather long. It works fine for Macro use but I find it is too long for general use.</p>

[matthijs]

Although I usually shoot FF with the mentioned combo I think I could be totally happy with the same lens setup on a crop.

 

I love long lens portraits and landscapes. 160mm equivalent is not long. To me.

 

Have fun and "just do it!",

 

Matthijs.

[kerry_grim]

I routinely carry just a 100L when hiking without being burdened by equipment or weight. Often I will carry

the 17-40 should an interesting sky appear. I do macro and use a 40D body. These two lens usually cover

just what I need. Should I think I need the 70-200 2.8 L lens, I will bring it.

 

I do have to 50 compact macro but no longer use it since getting the 100. Reptiles, amphibians, etc work

great with the 100. The 100 macro is the perfect length for rattlesnakes.

 

So for me the 17-40 and 100L macro work well. The 16-35 never was a consideration because of the cost.

But, that is me and my type of photography. I have not used the 16-35 but have held one. I did not find it too

heavy or big.

[harry_p1]

<blockquote>

<p>Harry I assumed you were shooting full frame</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes full frame. 16-35 on crop doesn't make sense.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>For "full-frame" (grrr.), again, there are a lot of focal lengths between an ultrawide lens and that 100mm macro - not to mention on the other side.</p>

<p>I could never live with it myself, but I'm not you.</p>

[harry_p1]

<blockquote>

<p>For "full-frame" (grrr.), again, there are a lot of focal lengths between an ultrawide lens and that 100mm macro - not to mention on the other side.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can someone explain me what you need the focal lengths for inbetween medium wide and medium tele? Yesterday I had fun with a single lens, the 100L macro. You can check some shots <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/60805454@N03/sets/72157627473173541/">here</a>.</p>

<p>I never felt I needed a normal length. I tried fifty but never used it. In fact, the fifty doesn't stand up to the macro in IQ, unless stopped down. What I could have used was something considerably wider. Btw, the zoom goes to 35mm, that is hardly ultra wide.</p>

[lionel_rafferty]

<blockquote>

<p>Can someone explain me what you need the focal lengths for inbetween medium wide and medium tele?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's just another focal length and another perspective. If you feel you don't need it, that's your prerogative. Personally, I quite often use a normal focal length. It's a natural perspective when you're looking for realism.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Btw, the zoom goes to 35mm, that is hardly ultra wide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But it zooms <em>out </em>to 16mm. That is considered ultra-wide on a full frame.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p><em>"Can someone explain me what you need the focal lengths for inbetween medium wide and medium tele? Yesterday I had fun with a single lens, the 100L macro. You can check some shots <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/60805454@N03/sets/72157627473173541/" target="_blank">here</a>."</em></p>

<p>I'm tempted to simply write, "To make the photographs that require other focal lengths." I'm also tempted to ask, "Are you serious?"</p>

<p>If <em>your</em> photography can be done with only the 16-35mm range plus a 100mm macro, then that is precisely what you should get. I presume that your long-developed experience shooting full frame or 35mm formats assures you that this is, indeed, the case for your photography. Ahem.</p>

<p>FWIW, I shoot with focal lengths from 17mm to 400mm on full frame, and I find situations in which each of my lenses is indispensable. And focal length is not the only variable - zoom v. prime, large aperture v. smaller, IS or not. For the record, my kit is also divided half and half between zooms and primes. Not all of my primes are L primes.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dan_south]

I use these lenses. Both are very sharp (extremely sharp in the case or the 100). But I would feel rather limited if this

were all I had in my bag. Adding a midrange zoom would help.

 

That said, it might be ideal for your subjects. I don't even know what size sensor you're using, so it's impossible to

predict how these lenses would fit into your system.

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>Can someone explain me what you need the focal lengths for inbetween medium wide and medium tele?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One example (of many) would be portraits. Especially if you can't block off a street to back up further ;-) The medium wide perspective does not produce especially flattering portraiture, and often one can't back up far enough to utilize longer than ~85mm focal length. </p>

<p>Though of course your own experience should govern your choice. Personally, I <em>need </em>the flexibiliy to go from 14mm-200mm (FF) for different perspectives, and different framing. But that's me! If a 16-35mm + a 100mm works for you, go for it! </p>

[jeffrey_c1]

<p>I think 16-35L and a 100L may not be enough for multi-duty. I would also fill the gap with a 50mm.</p>

<p>This was the setup that I took to Yosemite this past weekend. <br>

16-35mm for landscape and general wide angle photos<br>

50mm for general photos<br>

100mm for mid-tele shots and portraits</p>