Lens Shuffling

Just an idea I'm toying with, but I wanted to see what you all think. I currently own three lenses: 16-35 L (I), 24-105 L IS and a 70-200 L f/4 IS. Mostly I shoot landscapes as my main passion, though I really will shoot anything depending on mood and location.
I'm thinking of selling the 24-105 and 70-200 and picking up a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and a 2X extender. The 24-105 is the least used lens in my bag, and the 70-200 is a close second. Both lenses are nice when I use them, but by trading up to the 70-200 2.8 and with the doubler I would be effectively doubling my range (albeit at f/5.6) and have taken care of any future long range needs. I figure I could use the doubler on my 16-35 on those occasions I need to cover the 35 - 70 focal length.
Long term, I plan to get a 17 or 24 TS-E, which would hopefully replace the 16-35 as my main landscape lens. This could put me in a bind from 35 - 70, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Any thoughts?

What camera are you using? FF or 1.3?

I lived with a 16-35 (I) and a 70-200 for a while with nothing in between but that abysmal 50 1.8 and it's definitely doable although I'm much happier with a 24-70 in between now.

For you though - why upgrade your 70-200 if you rarely use it? You might be better off upgrading your 16-35. The mark 1 was OK, but the v2 is a significant improvement in edge sharpness and flare control. Or keep the mk1 and get your TS lens, those are pretty much the bomb for landscapes.

I'm not sure you need f/2.8 for landscapes if you already have the f/4. When you use the 70-200 f/4 are you always at f/4? Are you constantly wanting longer than 200mm? If so, the teleconverter is good which might be why you want the f/2.8 because of the loss of light.

What if you get the 2x teleconverter now and try it on your 70-200 f/4 to see how it goes? Then if you find you need more light get the f/2.8.

svarley wrote in post #13554601
What camera are you using? FF or 1.3?

I lived with a 16-35 (I) and a 70-200 for a while with nothing in between but that abysmal 50 1.8 and it's definitely doable although I'm much happier with a 24-70 in between now.

For you though - why upgrade your 70-200 if you rarely use it? You might be better off upgrading your 16-35. The mark 1 was OK, but the v2 is a significant improvement in edge sharpness and flare control. Or keep the mk1 and get your TS lens, those are pretty much the bomb for landscapes.

My current body is a 1DsII, so FF. The idea for this is satisfy a long term need for more reach. A friend had a 70-200 f/4 and 100-400. Sold them both for the 70-200 II w/ doubler and has the best of both worlds. I think having a 70-200 II which can be doubled makes it far more practical, not to mention having the larger aperture makes it better for portraits on the occasions I shoot them. I agree with you about upgrading the 16-35, but if I'm going with a TS-E, then there's really no need.

goldboughtrue wrote in post #13554627
I'm not sure you need f/2.8 for landscapes if you already have the f/4. When you use the 70-200 f/4 are you always at f/4? Are you constantly wanting longer than 200mm? If so, the teleconverter is good which might be why you want the f/2.8 because of the loss of light.

What if you get the 2x teleconverter now and try it on your 70-200 f/4 to see how it goes? Then if you find you need more light get the f/2.8.

The 2.8 isn't for landscapes......sort of. I'm mostly out hiking and shooting landscapes, but there are times when having the reach is important such as if I came across an animal. Right now, I am not equipped to deal with that circumstance. The only time I use the 70-200 at f/4 is for portraits and in that case f/2.8 will be better. The light is the issue. Doubling the f/4 is really impractical. I do have a 1.4 extender now and it's really on the line as far as aperture goes. Especially with my older 1DsII body as the ISO is not near as good as the ones of today.

If you're hiking, you'll wish you had your f4IS back - the weight difference will be noticed after a couple miles. Plus, if you encounter an animal, are your really going to have time to detach the lens then fit the 2x then put it back on in time to frame the shot and fire? I doubt it.

I would put my efforts into upgrading your most used lens, the wide angle. Sell your 16-35 and 24-105, pick up either a TS-e or a ZE 21 and a 50mm prime instead.

Good points MNUplander, and you may be 100% right about foregoing these plans for now. Selling the 24-105 and 16-35 to pick up a TS-E may be a better option, considering my needs.

The reasons I was thinking about going this route is twofold. First, I came very close to buying a 17 TS-E about 6 - 8 months ago. The reason I never pulled the trigger is that they are crazy expensive and I'm having a very difficult time figuring out which to go with 17 vs. 24. Also, at the time I was not considering selling the 16-35 and 24-105 to offset the cost which I think is a good idea. The second is that a guy on Craigslist was selling his 70-200 this morning, and with my buddy's experience and my long term needs it seemed like it was worth considering.

As far as your other points though I would counter that the weight difference between the 2.8 II is a wash compared agains the two others. And I'd keep the double on the lens in the bag so it's ready to rock if I need it. You're right is still takes time to change lenses, but I believe in most cases that wouldn't be an isssue. There's more reasons to have reach than just wildlife stumbled across in the field though that was my example.

Sounds like you're smack dab in the same flipping boat as the rest of us then... grab an oar.

I'd love to upgrade my 70-200 f2.8 L (non IS) and I'd love to upgrade my 16-35 L and I'd love a TS lens or a ZE 21....

*sigh*

As for which TS - check out the exif for your landscape shots and see what focal ranges you seem to use most and let that guide you. Personally, I rarely shoot landscapes at 16mm but your environment maybe different.

50mm prime to cover the hole from 35-70?

svarley wrote in post #13560685
Sounds like you're smack dab in the same flipping boat as the rest of us then... grab an oar.

I'd love to upgrade my 70-200 f2.8 L (non IS) and I'd love to upgrade my 16-35 L and I'd love a TS lens or a ZE 21....

*sigh*

As for which TS - check out the exif for your landscape shots and see what focal ranges you seem to use most and let that guide you. Personally, I rarely shoot landscapes at 16mm but your environment maybe different.

At least misery loves company!

I don't need to check my EXIF data. Nearly all my landscapes are shot at 16mm, though many are cropped later in post. And yes, that would lead me to the 17mm TS-E. But there are tradeoffs wiith that lens which I'm just not sure are worth it. I'll figure that question out one of these days.

oklaiss wrote in post #13560761
50mm prime to cover the hole from 35-70?

Good idea. A 50 1.4 has been on my list for a long time.

Hi Jon,

J-Blake wrote in post #13555310
Good points MNUplander, and you may be 100% right about foregoing these plans for now. Selling the 24-105 and 16-35 to pick up a TS-E may be a better option, considering my needs.

The reasons I was thinking about going this route is twofold. First, I came very close to buying a 17 TS-E about 6 - 8 months ago. The reason I never pulled the trigger is that they are crazy expensive and I'm having a very difficult time figuring out which to go with 17 vs. 24.

Check this: https://photography-on-the.net …p=13559640&post​count=2008

IOW, get the 17 plus the new Extender 1.4X Mk III .

BTW, the 16-35 does not work with any Canon extender. They only work with telelenses from 135 mm and longer (IOW, 135L, 135 F/2.8 SF, and all longer than that), the TS-Es, and the MP-E 65. This because some of the glass of the extenders extends into the barrel of the lens mounted to it, and all shorter lenses and non-MF lenses do not have enough space to accomodate this.

This is one of the reasons why I have a few converters in addition, but I would be wary using any converters on an UWA zoom lens, considering these do magify any optical errors these lenses may have to a rather large degree.

If you think the TS-E 17 plus Extender 1.4X III could be a good idea, you may to throw one of the cheaper Canon 50s in the mix to cover the hole between 17 F/4, 24 F/5.6 (TS-E 17 plus extender) , and 70 F/2.8. There is ample choice:

1. 50 F/1.8, Mk I (used, but with proper focusing scale and ring, slightly noisy AF engine) or Mk II, if you don't want to spend too much (yet ),
2. 50 F/2.5 Compact Macro, which is great little lens, a little over twice the price of the F/1.8 Mk II, but with great bokeh and sharp wide open, be it with a noisy AF engine,
3. and of course the 50 F/1.4, at almost 4X the price of the F/1.8, but 2/3 of a stop faster than F/1.8, and 1 2/3 stop faster than the CM.

BTW, once you have seen the results that the TS-E 17 can produce, I don't think you will regret losing the 16-35.

Kind regards, Wim

Wim, thanks so much for the thorough response.

My current extender is a Tamarac 1.4. I bought it used and believe it to be an older model. Last month I went on what I knew to be a difficult hike and attempted to shed lbs before hand and didn't take my 24-105 on the trip. Of course I found a desired shot between the focal range gap and put the extender on the 16-35. Everything seemed to work fine with that setup, though I do need to find the shots I took like that and look at them thoroughly for optical issues.

One of the reasons for my dilemma with the TS-E is the protruding lens of the 17. While everything about the 17 makes it THE choice for me, the front optics are a large concern. I end up shooting in locations at times which make not having a filter on the front of the lens a risky proposition. Last month for example, I hiked up to a frozen lake in Rocky Mountain National Park. We were facing the wind which was blowing about 30 MPH and carrying with it snow/ice particles. They were hitting the lens of the 16-35 and sticking to it needing to be wiped off about every 10 minutes. Because I have a UV filter on the lens for protection I wasn't too concerned but if it were the 17 TS-E it would be a different story. The other concern I have going to a TS-E now is focusing. With the body I have and no live view I'm concerned about my ability to focus when tilted.

I do agree with you about upgrade in quality between either TS-E and my 16-35. Since entertaining this idea I've been subscribed to the 17 TS-E thread you linked and see the awesome shots that you and the other contributors are posting up there. The lens is a monster. I just need to figure out whether the wider angle is worth the vulnerability and whether the focus issue is a deal breaker until I upgrade my body.

Thanks again, Jon

Hi Jon,

FYI, the TS-E 17 is coated with the grease and water repellent fluorine coating, if that is of any help. I've shot with it in a drizzle, and that didn't affect it all, so I think one can say it is fairly safe. I didn't even dry the glass, just the lens body .

Kind regards, Wim