Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 05 Apr 2012 (Thursday) 08:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

lens collection is complete

 
rwhardy
Senior Member
404 posts
Joined Jan 2012
     
Apr 05, 2012 08:47 |  #1

ok,
i'm shooting with a t2i and will most likely be adding a full frame soon.
her is my lens line up
kit
efs 18-55 is usm
ef 70-300

everything else

efs 10-22
ef 24 f/2.8
ef 50 f/1.4
ef 70-200 f/4 non is
ef 70-200 f/2.8 is
ef 300 f/4 is
ex 1.4 ii
ex 2 ii

i started out thinking i would do mostly wildlife but am really into architecture and landscapes these days.
so, obviously a couple of these won't work on full frames and that's fine, the 24 will do on a full frame what the 10-22 does on the crop basically.
if you had these lenses what what changes would you make? what would you delete, add or upgrade.
the kit lenses don't even go with me usually. the long lenses aren't getting much use right now but they probably will this summer and a lot more in the winter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
robertwsimpson
Goldmember
Avatar
2,461 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2010
Location: San Mateo, CA
     
Apr 05, 2012 08:50 |  #2

sell 18-55, 70-300, 10-22, 24, 70-200 f/4
buy 16-35

also consider selling 300 to get 100-400 for more reach if you need it.

That is what I would do.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rwhardy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
404 posts
Joined Jan 2012
     
Apr 05, 2012 09:05 |  #3

robertwsimpson wrote in post #14213869 (external link)
sell 18-55, 70-300, 10-22, 24, 70-200 f/4
buy 16-35

also consider selling 300 to get 100-400 for more reach if you need it.

That is what I would do.

dude, i'd cut an arm off before i'd sell my 10-22 right now. i've been considering getting rid of both 70-200s and getting the 70-200 f/4 is or the f/2.8 is ii or 3 primes.

i should have mentioned that i seem to prefer prime lenses (except for the uwa).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Apr 05, 2012 09:17 |  #4

I suspect you mean you have 1.4X II and 2X II (not "1.6ii").

Personally I would not go to 100-400. It doesn't work well with teleconverters and you have effective 420mm f5.6 already, when you put 1.4X on your 300mm.

I'm not sure what purpose the 2X serves. I wouldn't use it on any of your lenses. (I do have and use it on 300/2.8... but never on a zoom or on an f4 lens.)

No, for me 24/2.8 isn't really wide enough a lot of the time for landscape. I use the EF 20/2.8 as my widest lens on FF (I also find it a useful lens on crop). 10mm on crop gives the same angle of view as 16mm on full frame. The difference between 24mm and 16mm on FF is huge. Even a few mm is noticeable.

However, depending upon how serious you are about architectural photography, one or the other of the Tilt Shift lenses might be useful: the 24/3.5L or 45/2.8. The latter is also a good close-up lens. The former can be found in the 1st version, if the Mark II is too pricey. The 1st version has more chromatic aberration, but still can be useful. It might replace your 24/2.8 completely (or not... since the TS-E lens is manual focus, plus a lot larger and heavier). The 17mm TS-E would be an amazing lens to work with, but it terribly expensive. I probably would tend to use it more for architectural interiors, anyway. So, if shooting mostly exteriors, 24mm might be wide enough.

The EF-S 18-55 and EF 70-300 serve little purpose, unless you are keeping them as backups. They wouldn't bring a lot if you sell them, anyway.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rwhardy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
404 posts
Joined Jan 2012
     
Apr 05, 2012 09:38 |  #5

amfoto1 wrote in post #14214007 (external link)
I suspect you mean you have 1.4X II and 2X II (not "1.6ii").

Personally I would not go to 100-400. It doesn't work well with teleconverters and you have effective 420mm f5.6 already, when you put 1.4X on your 300mm.

I'm not sure what purpose the 2X serves. I wouldn't use it on any of your lenses. (I do have and use it on 300/2.8... but never on a zoom or on an f4 lens.)

No, for me 24/2.8 isn't really wide enough a lot of the time for landscape. I use the EF 20/2.8 as my widest lens on FF (I also find it a useful lens on crop). 10mm on crop gives the same angle of view as 16mm on full frame. The difference between 24mm and 16mm on FF is huge. Even a few mm is noticeable.

However, depending upon how serious you are about architectural photography, one or the other of the Tilt Shift lenses might be useful: the 24/3.5L or 45/2.8. The latter is also a good close-up lens. The former can be found in the 1st version, if the Mark II is too pricey. The 1st version has more chromatic aberration, but still can be useful. It might replace your 24/2.8 completely (or not... since the TS-E lens is manual focus, plus a lot larger and heavier). The 17mm TS-E would be an amazing lens to work with, but it terribly expensive. I probably would tend to use it more for architectural interiors, anyway. So, if shooting mostly exteriors, 24mm might be wide enough.

The EF-S 18-55 and EF 70-300 serve little purpose, unless you are keeping them as backups. They wouldn't bring a lot if you sell them, anyway.

that was my thought on the 300 as well. i'm plenty happy with it and the 1.4 t/c. if anything i was considering buying a 300 f/2.8 for in the blind and maybe still keeping the f/4 for more air show/walk around wild life. or if the right deal came along a 400 f/2.8.
the 2x works ok on the 300 and the 70-200 f/2.8 under the right conditions but other than that is junk.
the 10-22 would be comparable to 16-35 on a full frame so i was suggesting that the 24 falls in the middle. (i do shoot at 10-12 an awful lot, though)
the tilt shift is a good idea. i've already been looking at them and reading about them.
i figured i'd give the kit lenses to one of my sisters kids if they took an interest in photography and the 70-200 f/4 if they showed any promise.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
namasste
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,876 posts
Likes: 60
Joined Jul 2007
Location: NE Ohio
     
Apr 05, 2012 09:40 |  #6

If I were you, this is what I'd do.... (you'll have some cash in your pocket and a better lineup imo. With the extra loot, buy something fun like a fisheye or better yet, macro or tilt shift).

rwhardy wrote in post #14213851 (external link)
ok,
i'm shooting with a t2i and will most likely be adding a full frame soon.
her is my lens line up

kit
efs 18-55 is usm sell
ef 70-300 sell

everything else

efs 10-22 trade for Sigma 12-24 so you can use it on both bodies when you go full frame
ef 24 f/2.8 sell
ef 50 f/1.4
ef 70-200 f/4 non is sell
ef 70-200 f/2.8 is sell
ef 70-200 f/2.8 is II buy
ef 300 f/4 is sell (trust me, the 1.4 tc will be as good with the 70-200 II than the native 300 f4)
ex 1.6 ii
ex 2 ii

i started out thinking i would do mostly wildlife but am really into architecture and landscapes these days.
so, obviously a couple of these won't work on full frames and that's fine, the 24 will do on a full frame what the 10-22 does on the crop basically.
if you had these lenses what what changes would you make? what would you delete, add or upgrade.
the kit lenses don't even go with me usually. the long lenses aren't getting much use right now but they probably will this summer and a lot more in the winter.


Scott Evans Photography (external link)
SportsShooterProfile (external link) l MaxPreps Profile (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rwhardy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
404 posts
Joined Jan 2012
     
Apr 05, 2012 10:01 |  #7

namasste wrote in post #14214114 (external link)
If I were you, this is what I'd do.... (you'll have some cash in your pocket and a better lineup imo. With the extra loot, buy something fun like a fisheye or better yet, macro or tilt shift).

yes, tilt shift and macro will be the next things to drain my pocket.
i'd consider adding the sigma uwa and keeping the 10-22.
i'm not quite prepared to throw rocks at the 24 just yet. i just bought it and fell into the 10-22 3 days later, so it hasn't gotten the time it deserves yet.
i keep reading that the 70-200 f/2.8 ii is the beat all, get all but i've talked to a couple of people that have used it that say that the difference doesn't justify the cost. i'm considering the upgrade or buying an 85, 135, and 200 in place of the zooms.

so far everyone has given me at least one thing to think about.
thanks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
namasste
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,876 posts
Likes: 60
Joined Jul 2007
Location: NE Ohio
     
Apr 05, 2012 10:09 |  #8

rwhardy wrote in post #14214228 (external link)
yes, tilt shift and macro will be the next things to drain my pocket.
i'd consider adding the sigma uwa and keeping the 10-22.
i'm not quite prepared to throw rocks at the 24 just yet. i just bought it and fell into the 10-22 3 days later, so it hasn't gotten the time it deserves yet.
i keep reading that the 70-200 f/2.8 ii is the beat all, get all but i've talked to a couple of people that have used it that say that the difference doesn't justify the cost. i'm considering the upgrade or buying an 85, 135, and 200 in place of the zooms.

so far everyone has given me at least one thing to think about.
thanks.

whatever floats your boat. I will absolutely say that the MkII is worth every penny. Its as sharp (or sharper) than the 135s I've owned and definitely sharper than my 300 f2.8. Those two lenses are known to be some of the sharpest Canon has ever produced so that's saying something. Considering that, you are getting prime (or better) IQ from a versatile zoom. I can't see why anyone would say its not worth it if they are considering primes to cover that FL or they happen to own two 70-200's already ;). I definitely cannot understand why you'd keep both UWA's but that's your call obviously. Going with the Sigma 12-24 is the reason I think you can eliminate the 24 as well unless you need fast glass on a wider angle for some reason (indoor architecture could be one but I can't imagine the edge sharpness wide open would work).


Scott Evans Photography (external link)
SportsShooterProfile (external link) l MaxPreps Profile (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rwhardy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
404 posts
Joined Jan 2012
     
Apr 05, 2012 10:20 |  #9

yes, the speed of the 24mm may let me catch something the others won't.
and the 2 people that say the is ii isn't that much better do own the first version. honestly, last week i was ready to drop the cash for a new one but i keep thinking about what ranges i actually use and how much more time it buys me at dusk than the f/4 and asking myself if it's what i really need or would i be better off with a 200 f/2?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
namasste
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,876 posts
Likes: 60
Joined Jul 2007
Location: NE Ohio
     
Apr 05, 2012 11:02 |  #10

rwhardy wrote in post #14214327 (external link)
yes, the speed of the 24mm may let me catch something the others won't.
and the 2 people that say the is ii isn't that much better do own the first version. honestly, last week i was ready to drop the cash for a new one but i keep thinking about what ranges i actually use and how much more time it buys me at dusk than the f/4 and asking myself if it's what i really need or would i be better off with a 200 f/2?

unless I am shooting sports, I'll take the 3-4 stops of IS on the new MkII over the 1 stop at f2 any day of the week. Its simply a case of more being, well, more. For sports, the f2 is nice but in order to get f2 you need to either get the 135 and give up reach or get ready to take out a second mortgage on your house to finance the longer, faster glass.


Scott Evans Photography (external link)
SportsShooterProfile (external link) l MaxPreps Profile (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rwhardy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
404 posts
Joined Jan 2012
     
Apr 05, 2012 11:08 |  #11

namasste wrote in post #14214545 (external link)
unless I am shooting sports, I'll take the 3-4 stops of IS on the new MkII over the 1 stop at f2 any day of the week. Its simply a case of more being, well, more. For sports, the f2 is nice but in order to get f2 you need to either get the 135 and give up reach or get ready to take out a second mortgage on your house to finance the longer, faster glass.

did they stop making the 200mm f/2?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
namasste
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,876 posts
Likes: 60
Joined Jul 2007
Location: NE Ohio
     
Apr 05, 2012 11:26 |  #12

rwhardy wrote in post #14214570 (external link)
did they stop making the 200mm f/2?

not at all, B+H has plenty of them for $6k. That's about 33% more than your entire lens kit combined right now, but you do get your f2. you should go for it!!!!


Scott Evans Photography (external link)
SportsShooterProfile (external link) l MaxPreps Profile (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Warbird55
Member
221 posts
Likes: 102
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Apr 05, 2012 12:17 |  #13

If it were me, I would sell the T2i, 10-22 (to Warbird55), the 18-55, the 2X converter, and the 70-300 and get yourself a 5Dc or 5D MkII (lots of deals right now). I would then sell the 70-200 f/4 and get yourself a 17-40L.


Canon 7D2 Gripped | Canon 7D Gripped | Canon SL1 | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM | Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM | Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM | Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX | Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS | Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM | Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II | Canon Extender 1.4x III | Canon Speedlite 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jantzer
Senior Member
318 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Apr 05, 2012 12:56 |  #14

Personally I think the 100-400L is the best lens for walkaround wildlife type shooting. Plus very useful in many other ways from portraits to sports to family gatherings and definately landscapes. The very little you give up in image quality you make up for 10 fold in flexibility and usefulness. But I will be brutally honest. The few pics I have with the 100-400L on a 5d2 compared to my 7d, even after cropping, were just amazing. People talk about pixels on target, but I can't help but see the extra detail in the 5d2 shots. I've shot the 7d and 70-200 II when I had it, and I think I would be happier with my 5d2 and a 100-400L again.


Gear: 5D2, S95, Tamron 28-75, 35L, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jantzer
Senior Member
318 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Apr 05, 2012 12:59 |  #15

But a good lens lineup for you would look like this.
17-40L
50 1.4
70-200 F4
100-400L
1.4x II


Gear: 5D2, S95, Tamron 28-75, 35L, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,570 views & 0 likes for this thread
lens collection is complete
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sam729
2242 guests, 311 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.