Another Bag Question, Plus Lenses!

[drisley]

Well, my only L lens, the 70-200F4L, is gone...sniff...sniff.
I had been contemplating getting the 70-200 F2.8 IS.
I do indoor theatre photography, and I love candid street photography.
I thought a zoom would be nice to use in addition to my 2 primes.
However, the more I thought about it, I realized that candid street photography would be somewhat hard with a big L lens (though not impossible as many here have shown). I really like to blend in, and thought about something smaller, something...blacker.
Well, lo and behold, I made my decision...
the 135mm F2.0 L!!!
It's cheaper than the big whites, amazingly sharper, larger aperture, can be coupled with a 1.4x to get a 190mm F2.8 lens that is probably atleast as sharp as the 70-200 F2.8, and best of all, it's relatively small, light and black! Hooray! :shock:
Well, with the money I save, I will probably get the 17-40L to cover the wide end of things. This will still save me money over just the 70-200 IS.

Whew! Long winded arent I? :wink:

Now, I need a bag that will fit the 300D/BG-E1 with a 135mm F2.0 attached, a 17-40L, and a 420EX. If there is room for my 50mm F1.8, and 85 F1.8, then that is good too, but not totally necessary.

I really like the look and price of the "Slinger", but would that be too small?
How about the mini-trekker?

Sorry if this has been covered b4, but hey, maybe we can get some fresh info. I will have a look at the other threads that cover this subject in the meantime.

TIA!

[Belmondo]

Based on the criterea you've outlined, this sounds like a good choice for you. I'm not sure about the TC part, but tht's largely based on my own experience which has been less than stellar. Others have had very good luck with them.

The 135 is a wonderful piece of equpiment. Enjoy.

[drisley]

Belmondo, have you used the Canon 1.4x with the 135F2.0L ?
If so, do you have comparisons with and without the TC.

I have been wondering about the TC's. Do they reduce the image quality by a percentage? Or is it more of the TC's being the weak leak in the chain, and cutting off quality at roughly the same point with each lens.

For example, the 135F2.0L gets a 4.5 MTF grade at Photodo.com.
The 70-200F2.8L gets a 4.1 MTF grade.
Assuming that you lose 10% i.q. with a 1.4x TC, the 135F2.0L would rate about the same as the 70-200 with a grade of 4.1 MTF.

Or is this wrong, and rather the TC has a maximum MTF of, say 3.5, and the best you can get with any lens is 3.5. Does this make sense?

[Belmondo]

I'm not sure. I'm really sorry and wish I knew. I bet someone will come up with the answer, though.

I've heard only good things about the lens, and the 1.4X TC is usually highly regarded. I can't imagine the combination of the two won't give you a good result.

I'm interested in the answer, too. I'll be watching this thread to see who comes up with it.

[drisley]

I think a wide angle lens to get instead of the 17-40L!

The Canon 20mm F2.8 USM.

I rarely shoot wide, but I do need something to replace my kit lens.
Also, I want something small. In addition, this lens is much cheaper than the 17-40L, and it uses the same 72mm filters as the 135F2.0L!!!! BONUS!

[FrenchAmateur]

I supposed you considered the excellent 2,8 200 mm also...

[psk4363]

Hi,

The Lowepro Mini-Trekker AW will be perfect for you. I've had mine for the past 6 months and it's amazing how much kit I can get in.

Cheers,
Barry

[CyberDyneSystems]

Let us know your thoughts on the 135mm Drisley... that lens is one of Canon's best primes.

You are developing quite a kit of excellent primes... a very wise choice that will leave you skipping a lot of buying and reseeleing ! :)

The 1.4X T-con will be well worht the investment..

I'd be hard pressed to say what "percentage" of degradation in image quality the 1.4X T-con impacts the lens.. some say 10%... but I think it varies a lot more than that.

In particular.. they definately work inherently better on a prime. Also with the 135mm you will be starting with so fine a peice of glass that with the occasional use of a t-con it will still look better than 99% of the lenses made!

[CoolToolGuy]

Well, lo and behold, I made my decision...
the 135mm F2.0 L!!!
It's cheaper than the big whites, amazingly sharper, larger aperture, can be coupled with a 1.4x to get a 190mm F2.8 lens that is probably atleast as sharp as the 70-200 F2.8, and best of all, it's relatively small, light and black! Hooray! :shock:


8) My sentiment exactly. Good luck with it.

[msvadi]

for the last several month, I did 99% of my shots with two primes - 50mm 1.8 and 135mm 2.8. To tell the truth, I'm getting tired of missing interesting shots because I have a wrong lens on the camera, and there is no zoom. Primes are excellent in terms of quality, but, I think, one needs to have at least two bodies. I realize that you made your decision, but, if I were you, I would get with 70-200 2.8 IS first.

[drisley]

Thanks PSK, CTG and CDS. Yes, I am excited! I really like primes, but it can be a pain sometimes switching lenses like Msvadi says.
When I was at my last bodybuilding show, the 85mm was SUPERB for shots during the competitors' routine, when they were alone, but when they came out for group shots, I had a hard time.

If the 70-200 F2.8IS was the same size and colour as the 135F2L, then I would definately get it without hesitation (the weight doesnt bother me).
But I had the 70-200 F4L at a street festival this summer, and while it was great and very versatile, I got too many strange looks from people, especially if I tried pointing it in their direction.
[I remember seeing a mascot in a pig costume standing about 20ft away, and as I lifted the lens to take a shot, he saw me, and even with the pig's head on, I could tell he was looking at me strangely *l*]

Some photographers dont care, but I feel a little weird. In fact some photogs really like how professional they look. Some of the best candid shots I ever got were with my G3 at a political rally about 1yr ago. I remember weaving in and out of the crowd getting really close to people in conversation and arguments. It was great. Nobody even noticed I was taking their picture, or if they did, they didnt seem to care [see my avatar on the left]

I might eventually get a 24-70L for the medium range to give some leverage at the medium/wide range [although that isnt a stealthy lens either]. But when I slap a longer lens on, even the zoom, I almost always keep it at it's full length.

One other thing about the "great whites". I HATE having to change the subject whenever friends/family/strangers ask "how much did that thing cost? What? Are you crazy!?" :lol:

[Tom W]

8) My sentiment exactly. Good luck with it.

I sit here wondering why me, Mr. Zoom, is now the owner of 3 prime lenses (just got the Sigma 20/1.8 yesterday, will evaluate later), and craving another one. The 135/2 is on my list for some time in the future.

What has happened to me? :shock:

For Drisley, looks like it should be a good purchase (as would the 70-200/2.8 IS). Can't wait to see the bokeh!

[drisley]

Tom, yes, please test the sigma f1.8 and let us know what you think.
I am really eyeballing the canon 20mm F2.8 USM, but I may hold off getting that for now, since the 300D kit lens will probably tide me over for a little while as far as wide angle is concerned.