Holy Trinities for Crop?

Ide go Sigma 30 1.4
85 1.8
135 2.0

Cheaper but still nice!

muusers wrote in post #10030852
10-22 17-55 70-200

Is it because we're both Dutch or is it something else that makes us think alike?

muusers wrote in post #10030852
10-22 17-55 70-200

My thoughts as well! The IS on normal lenses is one big advantage of crop bodies over FF.

mcon17 wrote in post #10030874
If the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is $800, it will most likely find a home in my bag.

And mine. I can't justify buying the 85L, so I've got the 85 /1.8 on my 'to buy' list but if the Sigma /1.4 comes out and is a good lens for a not-too-horrendous price, I'm adding it to my bag.

Invertalon wrote in post #10030825
I would go with:

Sigma 30mm 1.4 - $450
Sigma 50mm 1.4 - $500
Sigma 85mm 1.4 - Not announced, but probably $800?

All for only $1800 or so. MUCH better then the $4400 for the Canon L's, and in some cases, the Sigmas are just as good.

This is probably the direction that I'll be heading along with an UWA and tele zoom of some sort.

My crop trinity leans toward longer focal lengths...

60mm 2.8 macro
100mm 2.0
200mm 2.8 L

some high quality IQ with this trio.

muusers wrote in post #10030852
10-22 17-55 70-200

I think that my ideal crop set-up is:

Sigma 30 f/1.4, Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS (I or II).

Definitely would consider swapping out the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 for the 17-55, and the 10-22 for the Sigma 30mm.

tommyboyazn wrote in post #10030772
Hello, Thank you in advanced for any advices here.

I've read around and most who shoot FF and prime prefer the holy trinity as 35L 85L and 135L.

For crop, that would equate to 24L 50L and 85L if I'm not mistaken. If one were to shoot crop and able to afford these GEMS, would it make any sense to use these on a crop? Are there any disadvantages?

I also realized the price of 24L 50L and 85L is roughly $5,200

35L 85L and 135L is roughly $4400. A $800 difference that can go toward your FF body.

The "trinity" idea comes from trying to combine both great image quality and covering a wide range of focal lengths, from wide to telephoto. Both more or less come from doubling the successive focal lengths:

35mm, (no 70mm primes) 85mm, (70*2=140) 135mm.
24mm, 50mm, 100mm.

On APS-C, though, there aren't any trios of primes that have both exceptional optics and cover wide to telephoto. I don't consider 24mm to be a replacement for 35mm - 35mm is barely wide in the first place, and making it longer (38.4mm equiv) just makes it more normal. So either you go Sigma 20 - 50L - 85L and compromise quality at 20mm, or go 24L - 50L - 85L and compromise the wide end. Either way, you compromise AF speed at the telephoto end (85L vs 135L).

So, if you want to pursue a "trinity" with primes, you're better off getting a 5D or 1Ds.

Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II

JayStar86 wrote in post #10032921
aint that the truth. who ever makes it will charge an arm and leg for it if it ever gets made. But the thought of a 15mm F1.4 on crop it pretty awesome I agree. That would make for an awesome and balanced trinity of primes for crop.... 15, 50, 85 all @ F1.4

I think f1.4 is dreaming unless we want it to cost $1500+. I'd happily settle for F2 or 1.8 if it meant they could keep the cost reasonable.

tkbslc wrote in post #10035591
I think f1.4 is dreaming unless we want it to cost $1500+. I'd happily settle for F2 or 1.8 if it meant they could keep the cost reasonable.

LOL..... well one can dream right! I think F1.8 would likely make me happy though. So if Sigma or Tokina or the likes out there are listening please make this lens.... me and tkbslc will be glad to but it, lol.

Since getting a 7d, I've mostly started shooting primes. Sigma 30/1.4, Canon 60/2.8 and 85 1.8 - Two fast primes and 1 macro (also great for portraits). All focus qickly and are very sharp. I sold the 24-70 aka brick to buy the 30 and 60. Happy so far. I find I use the 30 and 60 more than the 85, except for indoor sports.

Still keep a 2.8 zoom (Sigma 18-50) and WA zoom (10-20).

For tele, 70-200/2.8IS and 300/2.8

Sigma 30 f/1.4
Canon 85 f/1.8 (I'm assuming the Sigma f/1.4 is going to cost more then we hope )
Canon 17-55 IS (just so damn versatile!)

I've heard good and bad things about the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Can someone attest if it's just as good(IQ) as the Canon 50mm 1.4, better, or worst?

I'm thinking about letting go my 50mm 1.4 for a 11-16 or 70-200, or 135L. I plan to eventually have both a tele and UWA, but it's one or the other for now.

What's concerned me about zooms and before I had the 17-55, was my compositions were better. I spent less time choosing the zoom length and more on composition.

30/1.4, 60/2.8 macro and 85/1.8 cover almost 80% of my shooting. the rest is @ about 135mm and 200mm with a bit of 17-20mm shots. It looks like a 135/2 with a 1.4 extender are called for and something wide after that (Tokina 11-16?)