Lens Suggestions for 1D Series Cameras

[pixbylorne]

Looking for opinions from those using 1 Series cameras for event photography. 99% of the work I do is Bands on stage in halls that range from 150 to 1200 seats as well as some small house concerts in people's homes and various outside events. I have been using a 1D Mark-3 for a little over a year and have been happy with the camera, recently a great deal came up on a 1DS Mark-3 and I grabbed it. The full frame, IMO, gives me the FOV that I wanted from my existing lenses.

My current problem is choosing the best two lenses to use on the two bodies. I am keeping the 70-200 IS Mk-2 on the 1DS-3, this lens performs well on both bodies. The real disappointment lens for me is the 24-70 2.8, I bought this lens to replace the 28-70 2.8 that for me was too soft wide open which is still the case on this lens, I have used it on 5 different bodies and the result is the same. I have tried to micro-adjust it without much success. Once this lens is stopped down it gets better but wide open with high ISO, 1600, it is too soft.

I have been playing with some primes, 35-2.0, 85-1.8 and a 135-2.0-L. The 135 is wonderful but limited indoors, the 35 is a bit more of a toy for me but has been useful shooting from the wings and the 85 does not seem to get much use. The added speed of the primes is great and I am thinking of selling the two non-L primes and getting a 24mm 1.4-L. I have thought of the 16-35-2.8-L but the extra 2 stops of the 24-1.4 is very appealing.

The 70-200 gives me what I want on the 1DS, there is enough reach and th4e FOV works for the events that I cover, the question is what to do with the 1D as there is not enough time to keep changes lenses. I am thinking with the 70-200 mounted on the full frame the 24 will be good when I can get close to the stage.

Your thoughts?

[René Damkot]

If the 24-70 is really soft, have it checked out. (See "The 24-70 mystery" here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011...s-of-variation )
I have a 1D3, and use 17-35L, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.0 (I'd like a 85/1.8 instead) and an 80-200L (70-200 would be nice, but isn't justifiable).

If I were using a 1Ds, I'd prefer 35mm over 28mm and 100mm over 85mm. The wide end of the 80-200 would be no problem either.

The 24mm FL does nothing for me on either 1.3 crop or FF.
135mm is nice, but a bit long on FF. (which is why I want to replace my 100mm with a 85mm)

16-35L is very versatile. I'd take it (and maybe a 28/1.8) over the 24L any day of the week.

If using two camera's, I think I'd use the 70-200 on the 1D and a 24-70 on the 1Ds. Or 70-200 on the 1Ds and 16-35 on the 1D. Depends a bit on what you prefer and the venue.

[narlus]

the 16-35L is probably my favorite lens, and the last one i bought. should have bought it sooner.

[RichSoansPhotos]

Are Sigma lenses good for concert photography? I know if I wanted to use them on another body, but my 24-70mm is slightly bothering me now to a point where I think it has the problem suggested in that blog

[narlus]

the only Sigma lenses i've used are the 30 f/1.4 and 15 fisheye, and they were both excellent.

[pixbylorne]

Thanks for this response. I hve been told ever since I bought my 1st "L", the 70-200 2.8 that nothing else would come close in a zoom wide open and that has been my experience.

For the size of the halls I shoot in I am happy with the 70-200 2.8 on the Full Frame 1DS. I need something that is sharp wide open shorter focal lenght on the 1.3 crop 1D.

Is the 16-35 2.8 sharp wide open?

Originally Posted by René Damkot

If the 24-70 is really soft, have it checked out. (See "The 24-70 mystery" here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011...s-of-variation )
I have a 1D3, and use 17-35L, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.0 (I'd like a 85/1.8 instead) and an 80-200L (70-200 would be nice, but isn't justifiable).

If I were using a 1Ds, I'd prefer 35mm over 28mm and 100mm over 85mm. The wide end of the 80-200 would be no problem either.

The 24mm FL does nothing for me on either 1.3 crop or FF.
135mm is nice, but a bit long on FF. (which is why I want to replace my 100mm with a 85mm)

16-35L is very versatile. I'd take it (and maybe a 28/1.8) over the 24L any day of the week.

If using two camera's, I think I'd use the 70-200 on the 1D and a 24-70 on the 1Ds. Or 70-200 on the 1Ds and 16-35 on the 1D. Depends a bit on what you prefer and the venue.

[pixbylorne]

Originally Posted by narlus

the 16-35L is probably my favorite lens, and the last one i bought. should have bought it sooner.

Is the 16-35 sharp wide open?

[RichSoansPhotos]

But I'm thinking of getting Canon 17-40 f4.0L, the 16-35mm is out of my range at the moment, plus I would need a lens that would work w/o re-chipping, anyone had experience with that lens?

[narlus]

Originally Posted by pixbylorne

Is the 16-35 sharp wide open?

yes.

i'll post some examples if i get some time to trawl through my collection.

[ImCBParker]

Also look at the Tokina 16-28 if you can get your hands on one. Newer lens, does not have the range of the Canon, but I was glad to swap the Canon 16-35. It is also a few hundred cheaper. Been much happier with the results. The 17-40 is nice, but I personally prefer the extra stop.

[pixbylorne]

Originally Posted by 400dabuser

But I'm thinking of getting Canon 17-40 f4.0L, the 16-35mm is out of my range at the moment, plus I would need a lens that would work w/o re-chipping, anyone had experience with that lens?

I have had the 17-40 4.0-L twice, a used copy then a new one. I think it is the best value in the "L" Series, sharp wide open, good build etc but f4.0 is not fast enough for me. Both times I sold the lens when I got a full frame camera.

[pixbylorne]

Originally Posted by ImCBParker

Also look at the Tokina 16-28 if you can get your hands on one. Newer lens, does not have the range of the Canon, but I was glad to swap the Canon 16-35. It is also a few hundred cheaper. Been much happier with the results.

The Tokina is half the cost of the canon 16-35, is it sharp wide open? Do you have any high ISO low light shots you can post?

Thanks!

[ImCBParker]

In my hands on with each, as well as most review sites, it eats the 16-35's lunch wide open. The only thing you have to be careful wih, and it applies to almost all wide angle lenses, is flare. I found both in the 16-35 and the Tokina having to occasionally shield the hood with my hand to prevent it. Depends on lighting really. I only have my iPad since I am travelling atthe moment, but will try to post some when I get back from vaca. Google reviews of each for the time being.

[RichSoansPhotos]

Originally Posted by pixbylorne

I have had the 17-40 4.0-L twice, a used copy then a new one. I think it is the best value in the "L" Series, sharp wide open, good build etc but f4.0 is not fast enough for me. Both times I sold the lens when I got a full frame camera.

What is this terminology "copy"?

[pixbylorne]

Originally Posted by 400dabuser

What is this terminology "copy"?

Sorry for the sloppy language, it was not a "copy" of the 17-40, it was a 17-40. I still think that this is a great lens if 4.0 is fast enough for you.

I used to think that my 2.8 zooms were fast, now I want 2.0 or faster so I am looking at primes as well.