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

Charlie wrote in post #16892634
don't mind me, it's just a lens that I've been using for a few months now, and really lusting.

I do hear that once you get it, you learn to love very quickly.
I hope you find a bucket of money this weekend!

I am going to start a thread about my transition from a kit lens to 45 lenses. Maybe I can start a doomsday cult.

lens pirate wrote in post #16893038
I am going top start a thread about my transition from a kit lens to 42 lenses. Maybe I can start a doomsday cult.

no way!
you need to stop. you have so much gear. bad influence on my budget!!!

lens pirate wrote in post #16893038
I am going top start a thread about my transition from a kit lens to 42 lenses. Maybe I can start a doomsday cult.

This cult of which you speak, is it open to anyone? (I was recently told to "get religion" and your doomsday cult sounds nice...)

Tommy and InfDivide, et al.

My last few shoots were not paying all that much, which means, I leave the 85L at home. It's weird - I know. But that's my rule. So I used my 50L. It's a great lens for portrait. For me, it's much more versatile, I don't have to concentrate as much, it's much easier to frame. With the mark III, I can crop if I want it tighter.... and I can be closer to my subjects, and when there are children involved, that is nice. And I've been quite happy with it's performance, which got me thinking again.

If I were to downsize my kit further, I think I'd be happy.

I am considering this:
200Lii 2.8
85Lii 1.2
replace them both with just a 135L.

It would be easy. I'd look for someone with a 85 and 135, who may not be using the 135, and trade them my 200 and cash for their 135.
Then sell the 85, once I have the 135 in my possession.

I can see myself doing a lot more sports this year, indoor and outdoor. I think the 135 would be perfect. 85 is too heavy and not the best for AF lock, although I can do it.

The new lineup would be:
16-35L 2.8ii for wide and walk around.
50L for portrait, event, walk around.
135L for detail, sport.
Thoughts, gang?

If the 50 and 135 were my only primes, I would be happy. Of course I'm also building a complete zoom kit for wildlife and scenery, but 50 + 135 is plenty good for people candids/portraiture.

Charlie wrote in post #16904144
If the 50 and 135 were my only primes, I would be happy. Of course I'm also building a complete zoom kit for wildlife and scenery, but 50 + 135 is plenty good for people candids/portraiture.

I checked out your gear, and you have a lot of experience, so I value your thoughts.
Gracias!

Charlie wrote in post #16904144
If the 50 and 135 were my only primes, I would be happy. Of course I'm also building a complete zoom kit for wildlife and scenery, but 50 + 135 is plenty good for people candids/portraiture.

also I think with my bodies ( 1 FF, 1 crop) , it's a better match for me to have
50 + 135
over
50 + 85

b/c with

50 + 135 - I would have 50 and 216, or 80 and 135.
over
50 + 85 - I have 50 + 135 although it's a $2k 135, or 85 and 80.

having my two most expensive lenses, so close to each other, just doesn't make sense.

50L and 135L I consider untouchable in my kit so I would agree with you.

This new 16-35 F4 IS has me really interested. The 24L is a strange lens for me. I really love it but its such a specific lens it can be hard to use at times. Strangely enough its probably my most used lens but it does get a lot of action on crop which makes it more versatile.

I've been thinking 16-35 ( 2.8 or F4IS ), 50, 135 and 400 as my future kit.

I plan to add a fuji x100s or X-t1 with a few primes for casual etc to replace my 60D.

Tommydigi wrote in post #16904158
50L and 135L I consider untouchable in my kit so I would agree with you.

This new 16-35 F4 IS has me really interested. The 24L is a strange lens for me. I really love it but its such a specific lens it can be hard to use at times. Strangely enough its probably my most used lens but it does get a lot of action on crop which makes it more versatile.

thx. the 16-35 f4 is, is cool. and I'm happy with the price point, shocked.
but I don't need is, on a tripod.
so I'm happy with the 16-35Lii, no is, but I'm using it on a tripod
and in the event I'm hand holding at an event, the 2.8 comes in handy.

what combination do you end up with, with your bodies and lenses, if you are dual-wielding?

I'm still on the fence with the fuji so I don't plan to change anything right away. With Canon I like the FF/APS-C combo a lot and I really like my set up quite a bit so no hurry to really do anything right now

With the 16-35 F4 IS I will wait and see. I would imagine it will be sharper across the frame compared to either 17-40 and 16-35 2.8. and I use UW as a travel lens most often so IS is certainly welcome.

I may even move to a 5d3 if the price is good come holiday time. Lots of choices right now.

Loving my 70-200 MKII but if I had to pick two primes and this is what I plan on adding to my kit it would be 35Art and 135L.

Current kit is 24-70 MK II and 70-200 MK II IS. Going to either add 16-35 MK II or 16-35 f/4 IS

I stopped reading as soon as I realized that you don't have and don't even crave for 70-200 IS MkII

Anyways, good read, but seriously... have you tried 70-200?! It's not quite 85L at 85, but it can do many other wonderful things!

I still think my 4 lens kit is perfect.

Canon 16-35/4.0 IS (have the 17-40L but I love the idea of having this lens)
Sigma 35/1.4
Canon 85/1.2
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS

I seriously think this is a killer allround kit, great for weddings, events, travel, architecture, portrait, video etc.

It is just not so interesting for people who like wildlife or macro.