Purchase of a Canon System

[matt_bradley]

I am considering the purchase of a Canon system that will enable me

to do the sorts of photography I list below. My question is--which

lenses and additional equipment would the list recommend purchasing.

Money is not really the issue,but ease of use, airplane

compatibility, portability in the field, and lack of redunant

equipment is of major importance. While I don't make a living at

photography, I do sell some of my images so the balance should be

tilted in favor of publishable images versus the back-breaking work

of carrying a 600 F4 around. I list below what I'm thinking about

now. I don't want to have a lot of lenses and other equipment that I

seldom would use or need. So my goal is to buy what I will use for

what I want to do without buying redundant equipment.

 

Photographic Interests:

 

1. Macro Photography--insects, flowers,

2. Birds--home feeder and field trips (Ding Darling, Blackwater)

3. Alaskan and Yellowstone mammals--hiking involved

4. Horses (eventing, fox hunting, stepple chase)

5. East Africa (by vehicle)

6. Portrait

 

What I'm considering--what should I also consider or substitute?

What I don't want is to be in Alaska and say to myself, "Why didn't I

bring X rather than Y"

 

Eos-3

EF 28-135 3.5/5.6 IS USM

EFL 70-200 2.8

EFL 100-400 4.5/5.6 IS uSM

EF 100 2.8 macro USM

1.4 X extender

2.0X extender

EFL 600 f4 IS USM

Gitzo 1548 Carbon Fiber Tripod with Wimberley Head

Polarizing filters for each lens

550 EX flash

Hoods for each lens

 

What should I add or eliminate as redundant?

 

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

 

Matt Bradley

[kevin_bassler]

Add a second body, and something to get the flash off the camera, either an ST-E2, or an off-shoe camera cord. Also, east african landscape shots, or close ecounters with elephants :), might require something wider than 28mm.

[gooseberry]

Matt,

 

If money is not an issue for you, I'd substitute EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (which, by the way, is not yet available) with EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM. Why? -- mainly it's an issue of a minimum working distance (both you and your subject may have comfort zone greater than few inches); additionally, with Extender 2x you can get 2:1 magnification ratio! Talking about macrophotography, have you considered Extension Tubes and/or Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX. And there are tons of useful accessories: Angle Finders, special flash brackets, remote releases, etc.

 

Following on Kevin's advise, I'd add EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM. I totally agree with suggestion to get Speedlite Transmitter ST-E2; also a second, and maybe even third Speedlite 550EX won�t hurt ;^)

 

As far as EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM goes, I'd wait to see if Canon comes up with an upgrade equipped with the Image Stabilizer (IS) feature.

 

If quality is so important to you, how about EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM instead of EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM? I know, IS is very nice and highly desirable -- let's hope they'll introduce IS version of 28-70L.

 

Regarding filters, you need only UV or Skylight (or KR1.5) for each of your lenses. One Circular Polarizer in each of your lenses� size would be more than sufficient. Consider, however, a few other filters, such as Color Compensation and/or Correction ones. Look for multi-coated (B+W, Heliopan)

 

With respect to a head, Wimberley is perfect for a 600mm glass, but it�s a severe overkill for smaller lenses � add Arca-Swiss B1 or similar head; moreover, with a second camera body (EOS Elan IIE vs. EOS-1V HS), and considering that you will not always carry your 600mm super tele-photo with you, lighter and smaller tripod may come handy. And don't overlook quick-release clamps and plates -- I'd recommend Really Right Stuff (URL: http://www.reallyrightstuff.com)

 

And last, but not least, start thinking how you�re going to carry it all� (finding the right combination of cases/bags is not that easy!)

 

Take care,

 

Tomasz

[james]

Extension tubes 12 & 25 are very usefull. They help with macro work as well as the 600f4 with minimal light loss.

[rob_s.]

Only experience will tell you what you need. You are not a beginner, envidently, so why not start with a Canon system that mirrors your old system and build on it. It takes time, but it's the only way.

 

On the other hand, if money isn't an issue, buy everything Canon makes and hire some porters to carry it for you!

[Brian]

If money REALLY is no object, you don't need to try to do everything with a Canon system based on one body. I think Nikon or Olympus would supply better macro systems, and Hasselblad or Mamiya would give you better results with portraiture. Then you can go birding with your Canon EOS 3 and 600 f4.

[c_terry]

I would look into the 500 f4IS vs the 600 f4IS purely for weight savings. It could make a HUGE difference in how much you use it and how deep in you take it. I shoot a bit of sports, and was in the market for a 400 f2.8 a while back, and after using one for a weekend quickly decided to go with a (6.5 pound lighter) 300 f2.8 instead. At the end of a hike yesterday I was thinking how glad I was to not haul the extra weight (and that I was able to carry my lighter weight tripod too) on my shoulder all morning. The 600 is a fabulous lens, but a lot more work. (or maybe I would add a 300 f2.8IS to the list too. What a lens !)

[c_terry]

Heck, looking at the numbers there is only a 3 pound difference between the 500 and 600 IS, so maybe not such a big deal.

[john_slonina]

my answer. wide angle zoom, 100-400IS, and 500IS, 1.4x and 2x teleconvers, 180 MACRO (FOR THE REASON MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS POST)

 

500 is better for carryon for airplanes and it more portable in the field.

 

filter: check singh-ray. it fits the cokin filter holder so you can use one of each type of filter for all your lens (expect 500 or 600 F4). its cheaper to buy multiple size filter holders than multiple size filters.

[cliffcalhoun]

Since money is not an issue, I would suggest getting the Canon pro zooms; 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8. Unless weight is an issue, very versatile system with pro quality glass.

 

Also, go with the 180mm macro for increased working distance. And, since you did not state that birds are a primary concern, go with the 500/4 IS to save weight and make for easier transporting on airlines. Also, without the 600/4, you could buy the Arca-Swiss B-1 (or equivalent) head saving more weight and bulk.

 

You may want to substitute a 300/2.8 with converters for the 500/4 IS. Perhaps the 100-400 IS will work as your long lens. Only you can decide which will fit your needs best, with these more specialized lenses.

 

Good luck.

[dan_smith]

You might check the Exactly! for photographers site for a package deal on some gear. They just put up a special package for 'members' that comes out about $500 below B&H pricing. It isn't exactly what you name but could be a good start.

[gary_s_meredith]

Dear Matt

Your choice seems to be A good one in all the lens choices but 2

of them first the 600 (go out and rent A 600 f4) if you are A big

guy you wont mind lugging around this BIG fine lens ( BACK ACHE )

after all the 600 IS weighs 11.7 pounds while the 500 IS is over

THREE POUNDS LIGHTER it weighs in at 8.5 pounds both these lenses

AUTO-FOCUS with both the 1.4 or 2.0 tele-converters.

On the other lens by all means go with the 180 macro it is A much

better choice for INSECT PHOTOGRAPHRY, just dont use it for butter-

fly photographry my own choice is the SIGMA 400 f5.6 this lens

close focuses to 5.5 feet ( butter-flys are skittish insects .

[nico smit]

If money is no problem and I have to do what you want to do this will be my list:

 

2 x EOS 3 + PB-E2, Canon 20 /2.8, Canon 28-70 /2.8 L, Canon 100 /2.8 macro USM (the new one), Canon 70-200 /2.8 L (or 135 /f2 L), Canon 300 /f4 L IS, Canon 400 /2.8 L IS, Canon 1.4x and 2.0x TC, 2 x 550 EX Speedlight, TTL off shoe cord, 12 mm and 25 mm extention tubes, LowPro Nature Trekker, Good tripod (Bogen or Gitzo) and ballhead (Swiss Arca B1).

 

Since you want to use the lenses for both sport (horses) and wildlife I think the 400 /2.8 is better than either the 500 or 600 /f4. With the 1.4x and 2.0x TC you have a high quality lens right up to 800 mm. Though it is heavy, it is shorter and more compact, which make it more convenient in a car and on planes.

[herman_hiel]

I have taken my 600f4 on intercontinental planerides to East Africa several times; I carry it in a Domke bag seperately from my backpack. I know it is a stretch but only once I have had to argue about carrying the lens on the plane. In a car - jeep - the 600f4 needs either a beanbag or a tripod; if you share the jeep with others, forget the tripod; use a beanbag and/or a sturdy monopod.

My 300f2.8 comes with a second body which I handhold or beanbag.

[mike_dziak]

I would try to stick to a system that used the same filter size, ie. 77mm in your case, if you choose the 17-35L, the 28-70L, the 100-400L lenses. The 100-400L makes a great macro lens in the field with the use of the Canon 500D filter.

If you were choosing a system using 72mm filters, the 20mm, 28-135mmIS, and 180 macro would compliment each other well with the inclusion of a long IS lens like the 500f4IS. For essential filters I would buy the multicoated Hoyas in 81A, 81C, and MC circular polarizing. Then you would need only 3 filters for your system.

 

Mike Dziak

[peter_hughes]

If I was an Ugly American who just wanted to exploit nature and Third World Peoples by throwing his money around on (1) big penis substitues and (2) expensive "safaris" to far away lands...oh, never mind, the Master Photographer who moderates this so-called forum is going to censor this post anyway. (Yawn)

[mike f]

Dump the 70-200 idea. I think it is a duplication of the others you are considering. What about extension tubes for macro rather than the macro lens. (Space - weight - money saving idea only) You haven't considered a really long lens and if you are doing any nature shooting at all, the 500 or 600 IS will get you photos you have never dreamed of.

Mike Forbes

[mark_lagrange]

Query: What's the worst lens in the world? Answer: The one you end up leaving at home or worse...lugging around in your bag. My point: I agree with the crew that is promoting to 500/4 over the 600/4. Do rent one. Once your experience the inconvenience of a hugh lens you will see how serious you really are.

 

I also agree that you need a wide angle(17-35/2.8). Ditch the duplication 70-200. Love the 28-135 and 100-400 IS!!

 

***********

But if you must have the best, and money is no object,.....get a 2 for 1 deal on that 600/4 IS arsenal and send the extra to your new best buddy Mark.....if cost is no object....and for the rest of you internet commentors, just remember, I asked first.

************