3 lens setup thoughts

Jaetie wrote in post #13667987
i would hate to be in your position because i can't live with only 3 lenses.

as per what you wrote, it seems that you may be gunning for the 16-35L II more for a 'good to have' situation. in fact, getting a wider lens does not make sense re achieving the shallow depth of field.

perhaps an option is to get the 50L and borrow a wide angle lens when you need to.

You may be right. I want to have a wide angle to use when i need to (landscapes, travel). I think the 16-35 II may be better as a photojournalistic style wide angle lens than the 35L but i am spoiled by the sharpness of the 35L. I don't really need my wide angle to be very fast. I would just be happy if someone told me that the 16-35 II is not that bad compared to the 35L in apertures like f4, f5.6 and f8 at 35mm.

Once you begin stopping down the differences start becoming negligible. Play with these:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=9&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …ameraComp=453&F​LI=5&API=5

GCS

ypras wrote in post #13668118
You may be right. I want to have a wide angle to use when i need to (landscapes, travel). I think the 16-35 II may be better as a photojournalistic style wide angle lens than the 35L but i am spoiled by the sharpness of the 35L. I don't really need my wide angle to be very fast. I would just be happy if someone told me that the 16-35 II is not that bad compared to the 35L in apertures like f4, f5.6 and f8 at 35mm.

When you're stopped down that far, the difference in sharpness is negligible. Maybe you should consider a 24L.

Mine: 17-40, 24-105, 70-200/4is.
But I usuallly only put one at the beginning of the walk,
and change my composition instead of the lens if not absolutely necessary.

I wish I could get away with one lens and one body, but I'm never able to reach that mental security state.
Maybe if I finally get that Zeiss 1.4/35 lens?

If you are thinking that your current 35L isn't long enough for how you like to shoot, would the 50L really fix this problem? They aren't that far apart in focal length.

Perhaps you should consider the 85L or Sigma 85, and then a wide/normal zoom to fit (24-70 or 24-105) and a 70-200.

I currently have the 24L and the 135L (the 100L Macro I have is sort of a special purpose lens for me). I've been doing the "back and forth" with the 50L and the 85L and can't make up my mind. I read on one of these forums that the 35L, the 85L & the 135L is thought of as the "holy trinity" or "the triple crown" of "L" lenses. That's made me think of trading the 24 on the 35 but haven't been able to convince myself to do it yet. Decisions, decisions!

Dave

PS: This on a FF body, the old 5Dclassic.

if you already think 3 lenses is enough...it means u need 10

jrbdmb wrote in post #13669168
If you are thinking that your current 35L isn't long enough for how you like to shoot, would the 50L really fix this problem? The aren't that far apart in focal length.

Perhaps you should consider the 85L or Sigma 85, and then a wide/normal zoom to fit (24-70 or 24-105) and a 70-200.

I am thinking of that too (pairing the 35L with sigma 85) but i want to believe that a 50mm (50L) could replace both so i can have 1 lens instead of 2.

35L

100L IS macro

70-200 MkII w/1.4x

Add a 17-40 to that and it would cover just about anything I'd be likely to shoot.

Logan7 wrote in post #13669292
35L

100L IS macro

70-200 MkII w/1.4x

Add a 17-40 to that and it would cover just about anything I'd be likely to shoot.

Thank you for your idea but i don't like macro photography and really want a 3 lens setup. For the time i am thinking of a wide angle prime or zoom - normal prime - telephoto prime or zoom, i just can not decide if the normal prime would be a 50mm(50L) or my current 35mm(35L). I like a little more the 50mm FOV because i want my walkaround prime to have the ability to take photos with very good bokeh , i really like good bokeh! I just don't know if replacing 35L with 50L would be a great downgrade in sharpness and general optical quality.

17-40, 70-200 2.8 IS II, and 85 1.8.

ben805 wrote in post #13669852
17-40, 70-200 2.8 IS II, and 85 1.8.

I like your suggestion but with a 50mm instead of 85mm (more versatile focal length)

i am sorry - but I don't get the desire to go minimalistic. you don't hear carpenters saying they want to try to only use 3 screwdrivers and that's all....
your lenses (unless that have become financially prohibitive) are yet other tools. I don't have a lot, but I have them for different reasons. I have the 55-250 and the 70-200 f4is - and I don't plan to get rid of either. If I go on a trip and i worry about the safety of the lens, or where I know that the 250 end will be used more, or want to be less apparent - I will use the 55-250....
if I am feeling a need to challenge myself _ i will choose a prime (my only current one is a tad boring for me but that at least is the thought behind it)

I can see only wanting to take 3 lenses with you on an outing.... but in regards to ownership, I feel that each one I have gives me something.

I can see only wanting to take 3 lenses with you on an outing.... but in regards to ownership, I feel that each one I have gives me something.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you but i don't like owning equipment that is rarely used. For sure, every lens is special in certain photographic situations but i don't like all types of photography ( i don't shoot macro, sports, wildlife). For my needs (street, travel, landscapes) 3 lenses are OK.I used to have 5 lenses when i had a crop camera but i was always taking boring pictures. I have taken my best pictures in periods of time in which i was owning just one prime lens. So, as for me, being minimalistic gets me more creative

3 lenses?

I usually only have 2 in my bag.

17-40 and 70-200.
But I also have both my 5d Mark II & 7d so the two lenses cover all focal lengths from 17-320 except for like 4mm (65-69).