Which lens set-up?

poker_jake · Feb 16, 2012

I'm making the jump to full frame (hopefully he 5d mk III soon) and stuck between a couple lens setups. Mainly for landscapes and portraits with some action of flying airplanes which is why I want some good reach without being too expensive. Limit is 4k or less. Preferably less so I can upgrade my speedlight and need a new camera bag.

Option A:
24-105 f4 L IS
100-400 f4-5.6 L IS

Option B:
24-70 f2.8 L
70-200 f2.8 L IS
Canon 2x TC

Option C:
24-70 f2.8 L
70-300 f4-5.6 L IS

poker_jake · Feb 16, 2012

Any help please?

Overread · Feb 17, 2012

Under option B are you considering the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII or the original version of this lens?

Big Mike · Feb 17, 2012

For landscapes, the 17-40mm F4 L is a great choice. I don't know I'd be content with only 24mm.

poker_jake · Feb 17, 2012

Overread said:
Under option B are you considering the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII or the original version of this lens?

It would be IS II

Joey_Ricard · Feb 17, 2012

Big Mike said:
For landscapes, the 17-40mm F4 L is a great choice. I don't know I'd be content with only 24mm.

100% agree, 17-40 is a great lens, for Landscape and walking around. 24-105 is a nice lens, but not for landscape and I don't know what you are upgrading from, but I assume a crop body, and that would make it even worse if you are keeping it and buying lens.

I have the equipment in your option B, I can vouch, but if you intend to shoot landscape the 17-40 would be better than the 24-70 or if you have the cash, a 16-35 which is my dedicated landscape lens.

Overread · Feb 17, 2012

Personally I would go for option B.

24-70mm f2.8 is a mainstay for many portrait photographers offering that f2.8 aperture and a solid construction as well as good image quality. The 24-105mm f4 IS is a good lens, but the slightly wider aperture makes it a little less popular than the other within the realms of portrait shooters (esp when they are shooting indoors).

The 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII is a fantastic lens, certainly good for portrait work outside (or inside in a larger studio/room) as well as landscape work (yes telephoto makes a good landscape lens for selective features in the landscape not just wide vistas). With a 2*TC added you get performance pretty much on par with the 100-400mm and thus a lens easily suitable for aviation work. If you stop down one stop from wide open sharpness improves a lot (on both lenses). The only downside is it is a bit heavier than the 100-400mm, but its weight is still very usable for a hole day shooting once you get used to it.

The 17-40mm is a very popular landscape shooters lens, but landscape isn't all wide angle work; if landscapes are you mainstay you might want to push this in instead of the flash upgrade - maybe hold back on the 2*TC purchase till you really need it as well. Otherwise I'd put this into consideration as a future addition to your lens setup.

Joey_Ricard · Feb 17, 2012

I wish there was an official set of landscape photography words that people wouldn't misunderstand.

You can use any lens you want for anything you want, I can, I do!
I also know that if someone mentions "landscape", they usually - more times than not are refering to "VISTAS" or "wider view".

So I feel forced sometimes to use phrases like

"landscape vista view" - usually with a wider lens
or
"landscape subject" - more of a zoomed or like Overread said selective features.

If someone had no lenses and had a "lens for landscapes" in mind, I surely wouldn't mention a 70-200 before I would a 17-40 but I would mention that they can compliment each other while shooting landscapes and nature. If someone asks for a wildlife/bird lens, I wouldn't mention a 17-40 first,but that doesn't mean you cant use one for that purpose.

DiskoJoe · Feb 17, 2012

Option B. You could look into getting a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Very good qaulity and out performs the canon version in some respects. I know lots of people that use that 17-40 for landscape. Very nice lens. The wider angle would come in handy.

DiskoJoe · Feb 17, 2012

Big Mike said:
For landscapes, the 17-40mm F4 L is a great choice. I don't know I'd be content with only 24mm.

24 would just not be wide enough if you were really into landscape. The canon 17mm Tiltshift is also an option but would break the bank and is really only good for specialty landscape photography.

BZSPhotography · Feb 17, 2012

Definitely option B. i would go for the 16-35 L if you're into landscapes

Hardrock · Feb 17, 2012

Personally I would pick the 24-105 f4 over the 24-70 f2.8. And the reasoning...1. You can still get a shallow DOF with the 24-105, using the long end of the lens. 2. It has IS which really helps with low shutter speeds. 3. You get more focal length. 5. The lens is just as sharp as the 24-70 and some may say its sharper. 6. For me its a more universal lens all around.

As for the 17-40 its a fantastic lens and very sharp even wide open. The 70-200 f2.8 mkii is also another fantastic lens that you cant go wrong with. Unfortunately with your 4k limit you wil not be able to get the 5D mkii and the 70-200 mkii unless you find a absolutely unbelievable deal. So that being said at best if you buy a used 5d mkii for $1800 that leaves you $2200 for the lens choice. You have some tough decisions... Good luck!

I also wouldn't discredit the 24mm for not being wide enough for landscapes. It is not super wide but landscapes can be shot in all focal lengths and on this site you can see some really fantastic shots of landscapes using the 24-105 f4.

Overread · Feb 17, 2012

DiskoJoe said:
Option B. You could look into getting a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Very good qaulity and out performs the canon version in some respects. I know lots of people that use that 17-40 for landscape. Very nice lens. The wider angle would come in handy.

When you say it out performs the canon which specific canon are you referring to? I've read good things of the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 but never that it could beat the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII that the OP is looking at.

poker_jake · Feb 17, 2012

Hardrock said:
Personally I would pick the 24-105 f4 over the 24-70 f2.8. And the reasoning...1. You can still get a shallow DOF with the 24-105, using the long end of the lens. 2. It has IS which really helps with low shutter speeds. 3. You get more focal length. 5. The lens is just as sharp as the 24-70 and some may say its sharper. 6. For me its a more universal lens all around.

As for the 17-40 its a fantastic lens and very sharp even wide open. The 70-200 f2.8 mkii is also another fantastic lens that you cant go wrong with. Unfortunately with your 4k limit you wil not be able to get the 5D mkii and the 70-200 mkii unless you find a absolutely unbelievable deal. So that being said at best if you buy a used 5d mkii for $1800 that leaves you $2200 for the lens choice. You have some tough decisions... Good luck!

I also wouldn't discredit the 24mm for not being wide enough for landscapes. It is not super wide but landscapes can be shot in all focal lengths and on this site you can see some really fantastic shots of landscapes using the 24-105 f4.

The 4k limit is for lenses only and possibly flash. I'm hoping they announce the 5d mk iii this month. I have enough saved for a new body and might hold out for the mk iii or go the NIKON d800 route.

poker_jake · Feb 28, 2012

I've chosen the 17-40mm L, 24-105mm L and 100-400mm L mainly due to the price and added range without the need for a 2.0 TC. It allows me to upgrade the flash to a 580 ex II and buy some ND and GND filters.