Which group of lenses would you want?

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

This is sort of a random poll, but I am curious to see what people choose, and their reasons for it.

I forgot to add that the 70-200 f/2.8 in option one is the Mark I model NOT THE MARK II.

Edit: I also should have added, that this is on a 7D Not a full-frame body.

 

[o hey tyler]

I'd go for the prime option, because I like primes. HOWEVER if I had ultimate control...

35, 50, 85, 70-200mm f/2.8 I just for the versatility of the 70-200.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I'd go for the prime option, because I like primes. HOWEVER if I had ultimate control...

35, 50, 85, 70-200mm f/2.8 I just for the versatility of the 70-200.

Yeah, I had the 85mm and dumped it to get the 135 f/2L, (which I will be ordering this week). I want to get some L primes so that I can actually get great sharpness wide open. I want the 135mm for street shooting and portraits (since I have the 50mm to compliment it, and eventually want the 35mm). Because the 135mm sits well into the 70-200 range, I am considering dumping the 70-200 which would allow me to put some money together to get the 35mm 1.4 and the 200mm f/2.8.

I also considered a middle ground swap which would be, dumping the 70-200 f/2.8 and getting a 70-200 f/4L IS and then waiting for Sigmas rumored 35 f/1.8 that should be out this year.

I love the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, its been a great great lens, but its heavy. I don't mind shooting with it, but I hate carrying it when its in the bag. I would like to be able to travel light when street shooting. The downside would be changing lenses more often and also the lack of flexibility of a zoom. The reason I considered the 200mm prime is because typically with the 70-200, I end up being towards the long end anyway. So the 135mm and 200mm prime should cover most of my needs. Especially if I through a 1.4x TC into the mix.

The only other option is to keep the 70-200 f/2.8 for when I want to bring it along, and make a street shooting kit out of my 10-22, 50mm, and soon to have 135 f/2L. That way I can travel light when I need to. If the Sigma 35mm is cheap enough I may be able to grab that or the Canon 28mm f/1.8 sometime soon to add to that kit ( although I have heard very mixed things on the 28mm f/1.8 ) Plus, black lenses are a little less flashy.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Also, I will finally be picking up a pair of those TTL triggers in the coming weeks.

 

[usayit]

24 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2L, maybe if budget allows 300mm f/4L

Why? When I had a stockpile of high end Canon glass those were the ones that got the most use.

 

[KenC]

The primes for sure because I don't like having to bring a wheelbarrow to carry my zoom lens when I go out shooting. I might go for the 100 instead of the 135, or if I really needed reach, keep the 135 and use a 300 instead of the 200 (assuming the 300 doesn't weigh a ton; if it does I might go for a teleconverter on the 200).

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

The primes for sure because I don't like having to bring a wheelbarrow to carry my zoom lens when I go out shooting. I might go for the 100 instead of the 135, or if I really needed reach, keep the 135 and use a 300 instead of the 200 (assuming the 300 doesn't weigh a ton; if it does I might go for a teleconverter on the 200).

I also considered grabbing the 300mm f/4 and not getting a 200mm f/2.8. I also have the 400mm f/5.6. But I worry that 135mm-300mm would leave quite a gap. My main worry with losing the zoom capability is when shooting landscapes. Any other time I can typically move. For instance, when framing a mountain range in the distance, a gap between 135mm and 300mm might be a big problem.

 

[analog.universe]

I'm partial to a bunch of primes personally... I notice there's no macro in your setup however. I'd probably consider the Sigma 180 2.8 OS macro when it comes out instead of the Canon 200. I think both of those would respond well to a 1.4x TC as well.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I'm partial to a bunch of primes personally... I notice there's no macro in your setup however. I'd probably consider the Sigma 180 2.8 OS macro when it comes out instead of the Canon 200. I think both of those would respond well to a 1.4x TC as well.

Funny you should mention the macro. I actually have the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 Macro but its currently on the auction block on ebay. I bought it off of a friend on a whim, but don't really care for the 1:1 macro stuff. I have Kenko tubes and find that they work very well on the 70-200 (great, another CON to selling off the 70-200 haha ) Perhaps they will work great on the 135L or 200mm f/2.8 Macro if I got them. I mainly just use the tubes for bugs and flowers and such. I don't really like getting the extreme closeup bug eye shots or anything. I also occasionally will throw one on the 400 f/5.6 since the MFD is like 12' normally.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Personally speaking, if I had a 70-200 2.8 lens I would not even consider selling it. You just can't beat those telephoto 2.8 zoom lenses for flexibility and image quality. Yes, the penalty is weight and the fact they are heavy lenses, but a telephoto prime would not suffice for me. If I am taking telephoto shots, I am using a telephoto generally as I can't get too the place I am taking the photo of. For fast changing situations at long distance, a prime would be very very cumbersome to use.

Just my opinion anyway, primes are great in the mid range as you can use foot zoom and wide angle primes can be fantastic. Foot zooming with a telephoto is not so straight forward. I understand though once you head into the realm of 300MM or greater, the issue of prime or zoom becomes more complex, not many zooms that can match prime quality in the longer ranges.

 

[Overread]

How about 50mm f1.4 (sigma!) and 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII (instead of the MI and a 135mm L).

f2.8 to f2 difference isn't day and night so whilst the 135mm is a little bit wider on the aperture it won't make a huge difference in most common situations. Furthermore sharpness of the MII lens is very very good - certainly able to stand up well to the primes in most real world applications. Weight is a consideration, though I'd grade the 70-200mm f2.8 weight as hefty to start with, but adaptable for most people with semi-regular use.
At least that is the setup I would probably opt for - maybe throwing in an 85mm fsomethingwide at a later date for a longer reach with a wider max aperture for low light situations.

(ps throw in a 1.4TC and 2*TC to the above and you've got a 140-400mm lens which pretty much equals the 100-400mm in performance)/.

 

[Derrel]

Dumping a 70-200/2.8 in order to get a 35mm/1.4 and a 200mm/2.8...gosh...that's a bad idea! You LOSE the 70-199mm range. And pick up an over-priced 35mm lens that weighs a lot,and is very big and bulky.

KEEP the 70-200/2.8--it is the single most-versatile tele zoom ever offered. On 1.6x, a "straight" 200mm is going to leave you far,far too close in hundreds of street scenarios...and the 35mm is a bit too long also. You want a 35mm for the street? Pick up the smaller,lighter 35/2. Also, 135mm on 1.6x?? Once again,just as with the 200mm prime, a 135mm lens is really rather long for a 1.6x body when photographing at distances under 50 to 60 feet.

I think you REALLY need to think hard about an 85mm/1.8 EF. SMALL, light. EASY to carry. Fast focusing, and the right length for the camera you actually have. Its image quality is excellent. Don't think that the L designation on the 135 means that the 85/1.8 is a slouch in comparison--it is NOT, I can assure you. I own both the 85/1.8 and 135/2-L, and the 85mm lens is by far the smaller, lighter, and less-conspicuous lens when out in public. The 135 length really,really comes into its own on a FF body. On 1.6x, 135mm is VERY narrow in angle of view. As is the straight 200mm.

 

[Robin Usagani]

You are missing the KEY information, what are you going to use these lenses for?

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I think I am leaning more towards keeping the 70-200. I really would like a prime kit though, for street shooting that would be very discreet compared to the gigantic 70-200 f/2.8 that is bright white. Typically I shoot nature and wildlife, so it was never an issue. The weight hurts my back after a while if I have a fully loaded backpack, but when its on camera I actually like the weight of the 70-200. (although for this purpose, the very sharp 70-200 f/4 would work just as well for the most part ). For street though and low light type stuff, I would have the 10-22mm, 50mm, and then I feel need a "standard lens" in the 35mm area, and also something with just a little more reach.

Perhaps the 100mm f/2? For just a little more than the cost of the 135 f/2, I could get the the Canon 28mm f/1.8 and the Canon 100mm f/2 and have a nice little prime set. This is a very viable option.

So then I would have 10-22, 70-200 and 400mm for Nature, Wildlife, and Landscapes.

10-22m 28mm, 50mm, and 100mm for Street, Urban, and Portraits

And the whole boatload for Event Shooting. Although I am sure a shorter fast zoom would be good for events (which I could rent if I needed that badly )

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Dumping a 70-200/2.8 in order to get a 35mm/1.4 and a 200mm/2.8...gosh...that's a bad idea! You LOSE the 70-199mm range. And pick up an over-priced 35mm lens that weighs a lot,and is very big and bulky.

KEEP the 70-200/2.8--it is the single most-versatile tele zoom ever offered. On 1.6x, a "straight" 200mm is going to leave you far,far too close in hundreds of street scenarios...and the 35mm is a bit too long also. You want a 35mm for the street? Pick up the smaller,lighter 35/2. Also, 135mm on 1.6x?? Once again,just as with the 200mm prime, a 135mm lens is really rather long for a 1.6x body when photographing at distances under 50 to 60 feet.

I think you REALLY need to think hard about an 85mm/1.8 EF. SMALL, light. EASY to carry. Fast focusing, and the right length for the camera you actually have. Its image quality is excellent. Don't think that the L designation on the 135 means that the 85/1.8 is a slouch in comparison--it is NOT, I can assure you. I own both the 85/1.8 and 135/2-L, and the 85mm lens is by far the smaller, lighter, and less-conspicuous lens when out in public. The 135 length really,really comes into its own on a FF body. On 1.6x, 135mm is VERY narrow in angle of view. As is the straight 200mm.

Spot on!! the 35 L and the 135 L are fantastic lenses on FX, on APS-C I don't quite see how you will get the Full frame benefits of these lenses. Weird focal lengths for a start. As Overread says, you really want a Sigma 50 1.4, as it makes a great portrait lens at 80mm.