Advice for the BIG upgrade

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Groupcaptainbonzo, Jan 11, 2010.

  1. Groupcaptainbonzo

    Groupcaptainbonzo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Turners Hill, West Sussex, UK.
    I have decided that the time is right for an upgrade of my (By now very old) lenses. I am after a good all round package that will cope with most needs. To this end (Bearing in mind that I want the ultimate in sharpness, but already have 2 very good prime lenses, EF 50mm f1.4 and EF 85mm f1.8 USM ) I have decided to go for a 3 lens fit which will be ... ... ...

    EF 16 - 35 f2.8 L II USM.
    EF 24 - 70 f2.8 L USM.
    EF 100 - 400 f4/5.6 L IS USM.

    Any comments or suggestions as to a better alternative

    Part 2 ... Loking at the prices and specs, I am going for the EOS 5D MkII. Is there any point in paying out double for the EOS 1 DS Mk III?. It appears to me that there is little to choose between them , and surely the EOS 1 DS Mk IV can't be too far away now.
     
  2. Montana

    Montana TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Eastern Montana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If you are looking at zooms, then that is a decent line-up. No 70-200 ? Canon just announced a new 70-200 2.8 IS that should be available around April/May. I have a feeling that the 24-70 will get upgraded to a mark II version very soon as well. The 16-35mkII is a pretty good ultra-wide. I just got mine for Christmas this year. Corners are just a tad soft, not bad. There is some distortion on the wide end when shooting on a full frame body, but its the best wide zoom Canon currently makes. I am seriously considering the 24LII instead. If you have to ask if the 1DsIII is worth the price difference, then it most likely isn't worth it too you. The 5DII outperforms the 1Ds in high ISO, but lags behind it in autofocus. (in a nutshell) I take it you are not a fan of prime lenses? You shoot with any of Canon's very impressive prime lenses? They are very much worth looking into....
     
  3. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,818
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    That's a good line up, no doubt about it.

    I might consider the 17-40mm F4 L, in place of the 16-35mm. By all accounts, they are both very good and I don't think that the 16-35mm is worth the extra cost over the 17-40. You typically don't need F2.8 on such a wide lens anyway. But if you do, then the decision is made for you.

    I'd also question the 100-400mm. It is a good lens, but it's a beast and doesn't have a wide aperture. It's great for some things, but not as versatile as a 70-200mm would be. I'd suggest the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, and then add the 1.4X TC for when you need the extra reach.

    As mentioned, the 5D hold it's own in terms of image quality. But the AF isn't on that level. The biggest difference though, is probably the body itself. A 1 series body is truly a professional tool. It's made like a tank and is sealed up very well. It will be bigger & heavier, which may or may not be good for you.

    Also as mentioned, if sharpness is your ultimate goal here. Then you might consider a few more prime lenses instead. The 24mm F1.4 L, the 35mm F1.4 L are both outstanding. I'll skip the 50mm & 85mm L lenses, then you can look at the 135mm L, the 200mm L etc.
    It would be really expensive to have a full line up of L primes...but that quality would be hard to beat.
     
  4. icassell

    icassell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Arizona
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    What are you planning to shoot with the long lens? A lot of wildlife folks pick the 400 f/5.6 prime over the 100-400 and feel that the considerable weight savings makes up for the lack of IS.
     
  5. 17-40mm is good enough, I have the 16-35mm at f/2.8, and never shoot that shallow. Turned out to be a waste of money for me. LOVE the 24-70mm L, but I just got the 24-105mm IS L and actually use that quite often... again, f/4 is usually good enough. They're different lenses though, and NOTHING will take my 24-70! I have the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS L, and wish I had gotten the 100-400 instead... but again, a question of what you shoot.

    It is impossible to take a bad picture with the 85mm f/1.2... :sexywink: ...AND you get a nice biceps work-out. The thing is a beast.

    I have the 5D Mk II, it's small enough to lug around, and gets good high ISO performance... but no weather sealing, and only 1/200th sync speed. I use the 1Ds Mk III in the studio and out in the rainy environs of northern Europe.

    So: 5D for candids and family, 1Ds for studio and serious landscapes.
     
  6. Groupcaptainbonzo

    Groupcaptainbonzo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Turners Hill, West Sussex, UK.
    Thanks all. MUCH food for thought. will look into your suggestions. Thanks again.
     

Share This Page