Which SLR Lenses to Keep

j_k35 · January 13, 2014

Hello,

I have a question for people with more experience than I have with camera lenses.

I bought a Canon 1D-X to use with my 7D and I picked up some lenses for it to replace my lower end lenses and EF-S lenses. I am thinking of returning one or a few of them. I am wondering if my logic on which one to return is sound. Please let me know your opinions on my choice and what you would possibly choose instead. Also, if you think there is a gap that could be filled in the range coverage, let me know.

Lenses I have currently:

Primes:

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

Zooms:

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

Macros:

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Extenders:

Canon Extender 2x III

So, I am thinking of returning the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM and keeping the Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD instead. My reasoning is that the Prime lenses I have bought at the same time cover similar distances but with wider apertures. I am contemplating adding a Canon EF 50mm f/2.8L II, but don't think it is necessary because I think between the 35mm and 85mm primes I have enough covered and provide additional bokeh at the wider aperture that I enjoy. Likewise, I would keep the Tamron, which, while not as sharp as the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, has image stabilization. This would be useful with my kids and allow me more versatility with shooting in different lighting conditions.

All the lenses being discussed in the above paragraph can be returned. The other options are to return the Tamron instead, or to return both prime lenses instead, or to return both the Tamron and Canon 24-70mms and keep only the primes.

I feel like it is useful to get outside advice to see if there are any blind spots in my thinking. Thanks!

Marcus Ian · January 13, 2014

I assume that by ' Canon 50mm f/2.8L II ' you meant ' Canon 50mm f1.2 L' ;)

You left out a key piece of information for us to consider. What do you shoot? How do you shoot?

For example, if you shot a lot of fashion, with good lighting, the lack of IS on your 24-70/2.8L isn't going to make a bit of difference. However, if you frequently shoot in environments where you are shooting at the limit of your shutter speed, the VC on the Tamron becomes vastly more important than the marginally better sharpness you get from the 24-70L. You are right to recognize the limitation of the Canon vs. the Tamron, though admittedly, the 1Dx's excellent high ISO performance is going to allow you to minimize the advantage of the Tamron.

Without knowing what and how you shoot though, we can't give you anything approaching good advice.

j_k35 · January 13, 2014

Hi Marcus,

Yes, I meant Canon 50mm f/1.2 L. I copied and pasted the other one and then forgot to change the numbers!

I'm basically looking to leave as many avenues open as possible as far as shooting conditions are concerned, including shooting low light conditions and high speed objects.

I guess I am wondering what the limits of the Canon 24-70/2.8L will be where the Tamron will be useful. What shooting conditions will stretch the limits when the camera is handheld?

JDMvW · January 13, 2014

Why not keep them all now that you have them?

Each lens will have some kind of possible use, and perhaps you will acquire the "experience" to know how to use them in time.

This can serve as a classic example of getting ahead of yourself, however. Most people would invest this much into a set of lenses only after they knew why they needed them and for what purpose.

Welcome to Photo.net.

j_k35 · January 13, 2014

Hi JDM,

True about getting ahead of myself, but I had the option of buying them and trying them out first and figured that I would then keep the ones that I like the best.

I love the ones I picked up so far, but think there is too much overlap with two 24-70s.

mark_pierlot · January 13, 2014

I am contemplating adding a Canon EF 50mm f/2.8L II, but don't think it is necessary because I think between the 35mm and 85mm primes I have enough covered and provide additional bokeh at the wider aperture that I enjoy.

</blockquote>

I wouldn't bother with the 50/1.2 L. The lowly 50/1.4 is much better optically, and costs a small fraction of the price of the slightly faster prime. If you really want a 50mm prime, get the 50/1.4.

If I were you, I'd keep the EF 24-70/2.8 L II because it's such a damn fine lens. But your reasoning for offloading it in favour of the Tamron is pretty sound.

JDMvW · January 13, 2014

Well, I'll grant that two 24-70s are a bit overdoing it. I'd personally keep the Canon one, although I have nothing against Tamron at all.

These are all "more than decent" lenses.

I personally find 200mm a bit short as a maximum reach, especially on a 35mm-sensor camera. I went for the 100-400mm myself after a long debate. It's an older model but the 'replacement' 200-400mm is a bit rich for me at over 11K$

William Michael · January 13, 2014

Since buying into a Canon DSLR Kit, I have always had a dual format kit (i.e. at least two Cameras one APS-C and one 135 Format).

The 24 to 70 question: I have used all three 24 to 70/2.8 lenses (the two Canon and Tamron VC) before buying one of them – I bought the original Canon 24 to 70/2.8. In my opinion the Tamron, albeit with VC and that I would have used, but it still ran third in a three lens race. The Canon 24 to 70/2.8 MkII is a superb lens and I think that one needs more of a reason to keep the Tamron and sell the Canon than you have stated:

“I would keep the Tamron, which, while not as sharp as the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, has image stabilization. This would be useful with my kids and allow me more versatility with shooting in different lighting conditions.”

</blockquote>

Agreed that you will have more versatility in different lighting conditions, but it will be far less frequent that you’ll reap the benefit of VC for Portraiture, especially of children. The point being that more often than not: a relatively fast Shutter Speed will be determined by the necessity to arrest the Subject Motion – and that Shutter Speed will usually be faster than that which is necessary to arrest noticeable blur from Camera Shake at those Focal Lengths. Maybe you have a nice copy of the Tamron, but the two I used were stiff and displayed variable resistance in both the Focus and Zoom Turrets and were generally notably poorer than both the Canon lenses when used at F/2.8. I think that you need to think more about how you will actually use VC (IS) at the mid-range / wide end; considering that you have IS at 70 to 200 – then I can see worth in IS at slightly wide, for example I like shooting a lot of interiors of old buildings. using available light, so one of the wide prime with IS would be useful for me . . . YMMV.

The 50/1.2: I have a passion for this lens and I can see the relevance but it is a lens which needs to be used wide open, realistically - otherwise there’s not really a need to buy it. The overlaps: One of my reasons for having a Dual Format kit was to leverage a wider range of FoV with fewer lenses i.e. to be able to travel lightweight. In this regard – looking at the lenses that you have, the 24 to 70 is the superfluous zoom but the 35 and 85 are a nice pair of fast primes and a 50 would be superfluous, however the 50/2.5 could be useful addition IF you wanted Macro at different shooting distances.

The EF Tele-converter: Consider the x1.4MkIII as a useful addition.

WW

sarah_fox · January 13, 2014

Each of the lenses you have bought has a unique personality and purpose. Keep them all, now that you've bought them, and enjoy using them. They're all superb lenses. The alternative is asking the retailer to eat a loss, which it will pass along to the rest of us in the form of higher markups.

William Michael · January 14, 2014

The alternative is asking the retailer to eat a loss, which it will pass along to the rest of us in the form of higher markups.

</blockquote>

Sage

j_k35 · January 14, 2014

Hi William,

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response.

I wasn't sure when you were calling the 24-70 superfluous if you were stating that it is superfluous because I have the 35mm and 85mm

primes, or if you were stating that both would be useful because of the versatility of the zoom (making it superfluous) for certain situations

and the apertures of the primes making those useful for others.

Your advice was very helpful!

William Michael · January 14, 2014

I wasn't sure when you were calling the 24-70 superfluous . . . etc . . .

</blockquote>

Explanation:

You have a “dual format” kit.

The cameras you have are 135 format and APS-C format.

Consider ONLY the Field of View when a lens is placed on those cameras.

Now consider the trilogies of (L Series) Zoom Lenses:

16-35/2.8; 24-70/2.8; 70-200/2.8

AND

17 -40/4; 24-105/4 and 24-70/4; 70-200/4

Let’s take the first example of the set of three F/2.8 zoom lenses . . .

If you have only the UWA zoom (16 to 35/2.8) and the TELE ZOOM (70 to 200/2.8) then (using the two cameras) you have a FoV ‘equivalent of’:16 to 56/2.8 and then 70 to 320/2.8.

Thus rendering the 24 to 70 “superfluous” if you want a minimal kit.

Re the Primes that you have:

Referencing again FoV – the 35 and 85 and a very useful “pair” - and those FL are what I use for many Weddings and Social Events, when I use a Dual Format Kit – again because in terms of FoV those two lenses provide the ‘equivalent of’: 35; 56; 85 and 136 all at fast lens speed.

Following the same logic to leverage the FoV, another useful set of three primes for a Dual Format Kit is: 24; 50; 135.

WW

Robin Smith · January 14, 2014

Got to say it looks to me as though you bought all these lenses by looking at the Canon list and picking the most expensive and thereby assuming they are the best for you. They may be, but they may not be in reality. It seems the wrong way round to buy lenses.

Anyway this is what I would do:

Get rid of 100mm macro, 35 f1.4 (35mm covered with your 24-70 and 16-35). I'd keep the Canon 24-70 rather than the Tamron myself, but you need only one. Forget the 50L unless you are desperate for f1.2.

Many would think all you need at the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200mm and perhaps a 50 1.8 or 1.4.

j_k35 · January 14, 2014

Hi Robin,

Thanks! I will contemplate some of the things you are recommending.

As far as my criteria for buying the lenses is concerned, some of the lenses I had already and I was using them on the 7D. Not everything on the lists is new. Also, I researched them extensively before deciding. This included reading 100s of buyer reviews on different websites that sell them and reading review articles. I chose the 35mm and 85mm versus the 24mm and 50mm originally because of all the issues people seem to be having with one pair versus the other. I definitely wanted two primes with excellent bokeh for portraits: one that could take in a decent amount of background and another that would be more closeup. I also wanted to get a zoom that would replace my EF-S 18-135 that I was using on the 7D that I can't use on the 1DX; thus, I picked the 24-70 to fill the missing gap. My priority was aperture size and quality. The macro lens is a staple for me I've had for over two years and I actually take macro shots of watches. I had the money to buy L lenses, so I bought L lenses. I don't think it is a bad move to buy higher quality and newer technologies if you can confirm that the pieces are truly higher quality via a redundancy of reviews.

Robin Smith · January 14, 2014

Well, in that case if you need macro (in my estimation for most people they are novelty that rapidly wears off) do you really need the 85mm 1.2? The 70-200f2.8 is a nice portrait lens as is the 100mm macro.

No one is disputing that all the lenses you have a good - indeed it is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy - because people pay more for L lenses it encourages them to believe them worthy of special qualities and this is reflected in many reviews. Many L lenses are however fast and this means big, and for me at least size is not a positive feature. Many people learn this to their cost. In my case, I am particularly impressed by the 35 and 24mm IS lenses, for example, that are not Ls but are outstanding nevertheless. I traded my 35/1.4 for the f2 IS simply because as great as it was I got sick of having a lens that was almost the same size as the 24-70mm II. I also am never disappointed by the old 50/1.4 although many find it mechanically doubtful.

Clearly however, you now reached the stage that you need to rationalize, so you will see where I am coming from. The biggest and most expensive are actually not always the right choice.

kirigoi · January 14, 2014

So that's what? 15+ grand of top-of-the-line pro-grade gear, and you're unsure which you should send back? My advice is less spending, more research next time, or take some time taking photos so you know what you need. I realise this comment is in danger of being dismissive, but I've little evidence that you're anything other than a troll here to bait people.

As for the lenses, they're all astonishingly good, most of which I either own or would love to own, and they would cover you in almost any situation you could possibly find yourself. The only direct duplication is the Tamron which I'd probably get rid of over the Canon unless I was short on cash (you mention they can both be returned, why on earth would you buy two almost identical lenses at the same time?); the primes and zooms can serve different functions depending on circumstances and I wouldn't forsake one for the other. I'd also suggest the 85 is not a lens for a beginner (your inability to judge the merits of such gear suggests you might be), and you may find the 70-200 serves you as well there with much better usability.

I wouldn't recommend just sending them back unless they're unopened and unused; that just drives costs up for the rest of us, and it's disingenious to buy gear solely with the view to test driving it with no intention of keeping it. That particularly applies to specialised lenses such as the macro and the 85L; if you don't have knowledge enough to know whether you need them you probably shouldn't be using them. Try them out by all means, sell them second hand and take the hit if you find they're superfluous.

j_k35 · January 14, 2014

Hi Mark,

I'm not a troll, but thanks I guess. I bought both lenses because I originally wanted one for taking video and the other for pictures, but I'm not sure both are necessary if I use a shoulder harness for the camera when filming. I plan on trying out some video tomorrow to see how it goes. I've never used primes except for the 100mm macro before this, so yeah, I don't have a lot of experience with them, but I wanted the extreme bokeh to play around with. So far I am extremely happy with the effects in the portraits I've done of my children around the house. It really draws them out of the surroundings and makes them pop.

As far as sending them back goes, the store I bought it from has a return policy and they said it was fine with them to return them if I decided I didn't want any of them. They sell the items as open box if they are returned. So, the next person who comes along gets a discount on them. That seems like a win/win situation to me, except that I chose to buy new and not open box, so I guess I'll end up eating the restocking fee if I return the Tamron. The store makes up the difference with the restocking fee I would guess.

I'll probably end up keeping them all anyway.

j_k35 · January 14, 2014

Thanks Robin, I will compare all three tomorrow (85, 70-200, and 100 macro).

kirigoi · January 15, 2014

Hi JK, thanks for the response. That's good to know you're doing things properly. I know some stores like B&H offer a return policy with no restocking fee, and I'm aware of a few people on this forum who have said they "buy" lenses just to try them out, with no intention of keeping them. I apologise for assuming the worst.

I imagine you would find the VR useful for video, even in a shoulder rig, if the performance is anything like my 24-105; it will allow handholding which simply wouldn't be possible otherwise. That said, you've definitely chosen the expensive way of doing things, and it depends on how much video you plan to shoot. DSLR video is not a simple endeaver, particularly at wide apertures.

One nitpicking comment; it's "extremely shallow depth of field"; bokeh actually refers to the character of the out of focus areas (i.e. good bokeh/bad bokeh), so "extreme bokeh" probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

j_k35 · January 15, 2014

Not a problem Mark. I had an opportunity to test out the Tamron quite a bit tonight, and unfortunately the one I received has some major focusing issues and strange VR hiccups, so it is going back anyway. I'm going to take it as a sign that I should just stick with the Canon 24-70 and use the shoulder support for video. I won't be taking a lot of video anyway. Mainly just clips here and there on vacations to piece together, so no huge loss.

Thanks for the heads up on the terminology. I'm not well versed in the intricacies of photography jargon.

William Michael · January 15, 2014

"I have used all three 24 to 70/2.8 lenses (the two Canon and Tamron VC) before buying one of them – I bought the original Canon 24 to 70/2.8." (WW)

</blockquote>

- - And - -

"I bought both lenses because I originally wanted one for taking video and the other for pictures . . .I'm going to take it as a sign that I should just stick with the Canon 24-70 and use the shoulder support for video. I won't be taking a lot of video anyway." (JK)

</blockquote>

The reason why I looked very closely at two Tamron 24 to 70/2.8 VC lenses, (specifically for the VC and Video) was because I wanted to use the Tamron Lens for mainly for Video. At that time I already had a 24 to 105/4 as my "walk about" zoom.

The sticky/sticking focus and zoom turrets on the two Tamron zooms were a big turn off – but the VC worked OK in the set of test Videos, that I shot.

*

The reason I bought the original EF 24 to 70/2.8 was because of the (superior) Lens Hood design, even though the MkII version of that lens, was superior optically. The 24 to 70/2.8 lens was one of the last available (new) at the time - it was somewhat of an impulsive purchase and in excess of my "needs" - but I like the lens and I use it quite a bit.

WW

dcstep · January 15, 2014

Congrats on winning the lottery.

I'm wondering what you're going to do with your 7D, now that you have a 1D X. The 1D X is a far superior camera for action, wildlife and high ISO. The 7D isn't even within shouting distance. If you use the 7D as part of a two-camera rig that's on your person as you shoot, then I understand. For instance, I have my 500mm lens on my 5D3 and keep a 70-200mm on my 7D and I carry both when I'm shooting birds and wildlife.

I'd suggest adding an EF 1.4x TC-III into the mix.

ruben leal · January 19, 2014

J K, I guess you considered it, but I would trade the 16-35mm for a Nikon 12-24mm with an adapter. The 16-35mm II is

my most used lens, followed by the 24-105mm f/4, so I know it's a great landscape lens, but it overlaps with the 24-x

lenses (which is good with my 24-105, as the 16-35 is better on the long end than the 24-105 on the wide end, but that's

not your case), and those 4mm in the wide end are a huge difference.

kirigoi · January 19, 2014

Ruben, I was under the impression (although I have not used it) that the 12-24mm Nikon lens is APS-C (DX) only? It would therefore be useless for his camera. I also don't think that encouraging J K to buy more gear is necessarily the way forward at this point ;)

The 16-35 is an exceptional lens, and I'd only recommend replacing it if you find yourself being seriously limited by its capabilities and unable to compensate with your other gear. You've got the complete f/2.8 trilogy of zooms, as well as a scattering of excellent primes. Short of lighting, tilt-shift lenses for architecture or superteles for sports/wildlife there is nothing else you could possibly need.

ruben leal · January 19, 2014

I stand corrected, Mark, I meant the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom, which is a FX (full frame)

lens, which seems to be the only missing lens in JK's list of full frame f/2.8 zoom lenses. I understand he may not need it,

but his arsenal will be incomplete if he doesn't includes it, which seems to be the logic behind this purchase.

Sign In

Which SLR Lenses to Keep

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in