My transition from 5 lenses to 3. My zoom vs. prime decisions are over.

freitz wrote in post #16832666
Anyone in here switch from a 70-200 MK II to a 135L exclusively?

a lot of people have. there are a few threads on that.
it's 50/50%
I would think that a pair of used 50L and 135L = used 70-200Lii. and would be money well spent.

I traded my 24Lii for a 16-35Lii.
I am begging for forgiveness.


I had to go back to a zoom. Yes it's true. I wanted to explain my reasoning for the team here.
I did NOT want to put a fifth lens in my bag. I like having four.

For the past month, I've done around 2-3 real estate gigs per week. Each gig requires exterior and interior shots.
I was dead set on the 17-40, since a tripod would be used, f4 lens is fine, especially since these are shot at f8 or higher.

So I borrowed a friend's 17-40 while I shopped. It performed well.
I had my eye on the canon refurb list 5-10x per day, for two weeks.
I just missed getting one.
Finally, I had to return the loaner to my friend, so I started thinking about it....

1. I really enjoyed having my buddy's 17-40 on one of my two bodies, and a FAST prime on the other.
2. Having the 50L and 85L, I never ever ever used the 24 for portrait. I only used my 24L: at night, hand held events, where my 50 1.2 would prolly work. And daytime, for car shows.
3. Money, I rarely made any money off the lens, but when I did, it was a wedding. For groups, f1.4 isn't needed, usually you're shooting at f4 or higher. the 50 is fine for groups. The 24L is not wide enough for interior work, obviously, so it can't be used for the real estate stuff.

So I figured, trade the 24 for the zoom. I posted an ad on Tuesday or Wednesday, here on Potn. I guy replied Wednesday, in California. We shipped the lenses NDA Wednesday, and we had each other's lenses on Thursday by lunch time.

The 16-35Lii. This is my second time on this wagon.
I'll use the zoom for real estate and car shows, no flash required at these gigs.
I realize the corners are butter on the 24, and not so much on the 16-35... not really a big deal for my purposes.
For weddings, if I need wide at evening, I will just use my flash.

I now have a zoom again.

At this point, if I were to make any changes this year, it would be to sell the 85Lii and 200Lii and replace them both with just a 135L.
I believe the 50L and 85L are CRAZY special. And I could just crop the 50L images (if shot with my mark III), or use the 135, which at 2.0, that FL will make great bokeh.

At the wide end it just makes too much sense for the Canon system^^^

Welcome back.

twoshadows wrote in post #16891167
At the wide end it just makes too much sense for the Canon system^^^

Welcome back.

haha!
I hear ya.
it's true
and even with all the rumors about the new Canon UWA lenses?
NONE of them are appealing to me.
I don't want a heavier and slower. And I don't want to pay $2500 for it either.

Cheers

I've considered getting the 16-35 too just to simplify the wide end. Most of the time I end up taking both 17-40 and 24 but I've been really happy with these 2 and I cannot bring myself to sell the 24 but it is an expensive lens and really 1.4 is not that critical on the wide end. 2.8 should do the trick. I just hate the larger filters.

Right now I am really intrigued with the Fuji X-T1 and I may scale back my canon kit a bit for this.

The more I shoot with the 50L at f1.2, f2.8, f4.0, and f8.0 the more I like it.
The bulky 24-70L II has never really interested me. I have tested one in store.
And I have read many threads on users complaining there is little real world difference mkI to mkII
The only zoom I would consider would be the 16-35mmL II
Because my widest lens is currently my 24mm, but I just can't give up f1.4 for f2.8
Perhaps next tax season I will add it to my primes.

Enjoy your 'new' lens Dj R

Tommydigi wrote in post #16891179
I've considered getting the 16-35 too just to simplify the wide end. Most of the time I end up taking both 17-40 and 24 but I've been really happy with these 2 and I cannot bring myself to sell the 24 but it is an expensive lens and really 1.4 is not that critical on the wide end. 2.8 should do the trick. I just hate the larger filters.

I would suggest getting the 24-70mm II 2.8 instead, as it performs just as well as the 24mm II prime at 24mm. It's a zoom with prime like performance. See here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4


However, the 16-35mm II 2.8 is quite crap at 24mm compared to the 24-70mm II, see here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

Hence I would recommend owning the 14mm II 2.8 prime and the 24-70mm II, and avoid wide angle zooms until Canon can figure out how to make a prime quality wide angle zoom.

If you're doing real estate, not sure why you didnt go for the 17 TSE or 24 TSE?

Charlie wrote in post #16891285
If you're doing real estate, not sure why you didnt go for the 17 TSE or 24 TSE?

It's the proper way to go, TSE, I realize. Three things. 1. I'm not doing really high end work. $300-750k residential. It's steady work though. 2. the client is thrilled thus far, based on several projects where I only used the 17*40. So I'll be ok. 3. if the TSE lenses had AF, I would have considered it more. But I really don't trust my eyes much!

Canon Rumors has a CR2 out today announcing a 16-35 f4 IS. IS could be pretty handy... Maybe another trade in your future?

jnadz wrote in post #16891701
Canon Rumors has a CR2 out today announcing a 16-35 f4 IS. IS could be pretty handy... Maybe another trade in your future?

I don't care about IS much. The 16-35 will be on a tripod.

And I have fast primes. they keep raising the f stops, adding IS, and adding 25-30% to their prices. Not a big fan.

Dj R wrote in post #16891729
I don't care about IS much. The 16-35 will be on a tripod.

And I have fast primes. they keep raising the f stops, adding IS, and adding 25-30% to their prices. Not a big fan.

I agree I rather them raise it 40% and keep the fstop and add IS

I'd rather they focus on keeping down the weight and increasing the sharpness/contrast. IS is nice but isn't that big of a deal on a wide angle, and to add it you have to make other compromises.

I really don't care about IS on all these wider lenses and slower primes but 2 of my favorite lenses are 135 and 400 and neither has IS but both could certainly benefit.

With my 17-40 or 24 I can get sharp handheld shots at 1/15 or so ( assuming its static ) If I planned much longer I would probably be using a tripod anyway. I'm sure these newer wide angles will have better contrast etc but its not something I would be jumping on. I think you made a good choice with the 16-35. I have a friend and its pretty much all he uses ( for video too ) and its a great lens.

Dj R wrote in post #16891657
It's the proper way to go, TSE, I realize. Three things. 1. I'm not doing really high end work. $300-750k residential. It's steady work though. 2. the client is thrilled thus far, based on several projects where I only used the 17*40. So I'll be ok. 3. if the TSE lenses had AF, I would have considered it more. But I really don't trust my eyes much!

don't mind me, it's just a lens that I've been using for a few months now, and really lusting. If I only had 1 ultrawide lens, that would be the one for a few reasons:

1. it can do much wider than 17 in case I really want to draw out the foreground.
2. Master of distortion correction. After the fact correction wont cut it unless you have a significantly wider lens.
3. Sharp corner to corner.

it could be that I'm on a honeymoon phase with the lens, but it's ridiculously enjoyable using this lens. Biggest concern is that it's not weather sealed, and I've used it at the beach....

I'm starting to save up for my own copy...