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

Bonbridge wrote in post #16904453
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 etc.

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

Eerily similar to what my planned move is...

Canon 16-35/4 IS (once I sell the 17-40)
Canon 35/2 IS
Canon 50/1.2 L
Canon 70-200/4 IS

I like this kit mainly because it is simple, but also very versatile. Only difference is I wouldn't want to lug around the 70-200/2.8 (i don't shoot events or anything like that)

Thats a great kit Bonbridge. You can always add a 2x for wildlife and extension tubes for macro and have it all.

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 have not had the opportunity to use a 135L but I hear great things about it.
I would swap my 100L for the dreamy 135L but I would miss macro.
I could not survive on only my 50L and 100L but I would miss wide.
I could not survive on my 24L and 50L but I would miss candid shots and macro.
Therefore my gear is complete. My trinity of primes is it.

If I can get a mint 16-35L 2.8 for <$1,000 after the f4 IS is released I will buy it.

As for the 35L and 85L II I think they complement each other nicely.
The traditional trinity of primes 35L, 85L II and 135L is a perfect combo, just no macro lens there.
If I had the 85L II I would leave it at home often as well.


This continues to be a great thread. I like reading each photographer's reasoning behind why they use the lenses they do and how they evolve their bag and gear as conditions change.

Mornnb wrote in post #16892461
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.

Well it seems instead Canon decided the priority was IS and sharpness/contrast, and dropped the F-Stop.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16904512
I have not had the opportunity to use a 135L but I hear great things about it.
I would swap my 100L for the dreamy 135L but I would miss macro.

I certainly would not find the 135mm f2 a good 70-200mm II 2.8 replacement. I use this focal range in events and sports primarily. I need the focal length flexibility or I'm going to miss some shots.

I could not survive on only my 50L and 100L but I would miss wide.
I could not survive on my 24L and 50L but I would miss candid shots and macro.
Therefore my gear is complete. My trinity of primes is it.

The prime I use most often is the 14mm II 2.8. It is fantastically wide which makes it great for architecture, interiors, and sometimes even landscape. I am considering selling the 17-40mm as it's just not in the same league of any of the other lenses I have in this range.

The lens I use most often would be the 24-70mm II 2.8. It's ultra sharp, high contrast. Performs as well as any prime, and offers a decently thin DOF too. At 24mm to 35mm it is the best landscape lens you can get thanks to the sharpness and colour rendering.
I also have the Sigma 85mm for portraits, and the Sigma 35mm for close work and street. But if I had to choose, I'd pick the 24-70mm II over these.

^ Have you tried the 24L II?
I would consider getting the 14L II but at times I find the perspective distortion on my 24L II undesirable.
While it is manageable, sometime I cannot change my location or angle.
I would assume the 14L is more pronounced.
I could replace my 24L II with the TS 24mm but I would not want to give up f1.4 Compromises..

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16904808
^ Have you tried the 24L II?
I would consider getting the 14L II but at times I find the perspective distortion on my 24L II undesirable.
While it is manageable, sometime I cannot change my location or angle.
I would assume the 14L is more pronounced.
I could replace my 24L II with the TS 24mm but I would not want to give up f1.4 Compromises..

you buy a 14mm not because you're afraid of perspective distortion, but because you want to embrace it

Charlie wrote in post #16904886
you buy a 14mm not because you're afraid of perspective distortion, but because you want to embrace it

Haha you should make tee shirts.

Guys I have a local buyer interested in my 85ii and 200ii 2.8. Cash deal. What should I ask for them? Minty clean. Both with hoods and pouches. 85ii with all papers and box.

Dj R wrote in post #16904990
Haha you should make tee shirts.

Guys I have a local buyer interested in my 85ii and 200ii 2.8. Cash deal. What should I ask for them? Minty clean. Both with hoods and pouches. 85ii with all papers and box.

$1700 on the 85L II seems like the going price. -> https://photography-on-the.net …p?t=1367587&hig​hlight=85L

But it may be too high assuming this is still available from 2 weeks ago.
https://photography-on-the.net …p?t=1374741&hig​hlight=85L

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16904808
^ Have you tried the 24L II?
I would consider getting the 14L II but at times I find the perspective distortion on my 24L II undesirable.

I don't particularly need f/1.4 at 24mm. All the reviews and tests show the 24mm II to be no sharper than the 24-70mm II, so I can find no reason to justify getting it. See http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

Additionally it is just as sharp as my Sigma 35mm. The 24-70mm II is a fantastic lens with best prime like performance.

I would assume the 14L is more pronounced.
I could replace my 24L II with the TS 24mm but I would not want to give up f1.4 Compromises..

I would love a TS-E. But my concern is the 24mm isn't wide enough, and the problem with the 17mm is that it lets you get so close that the amount of shift required produces some quite bizarre unnatural looking results that look inferior to the look you will get by embracing distortion with the 14mm.

My gear down phase might be coming soon. I've kept every lens I've ever bought starting in 1990 for my Canon SLR, but that does mean I have some lenses that have not been used since they have sort of been superseded with newer models. I've loaned them, but never got around to selling them. I've been favoring primes since about 95, but some new zooms are impressive. I've currently collected 21 lenses for the EF mount, only 4 of which are zooms, and 2 of those are retired.

I've not been doing much photography for 10 years now (except with compacts), but will pick it up again. I now leave the house with only a few lens 1-3 (4 maybe, 1-2 often). I use to try to take everything, now I'm relaxed about it; I just say oh this would be nice, or I need to try this. I've got a small fuji x system also and a large number of compacts with sort of dedicated functions. I always have a some compact or P&S camera on me in addition to my phone.

Number on the left is the order in which they were purchased.

Not used:
1. EF 35mm-135mm f/4-5.6 USM
2. EF 100mm-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
4. xx 90mm f/2.8 Macro Tamron (I still like it)
?. EF 35mm f/2 (never used, but I have IS version now)


I hope in the next few years I'll be happy to finally start reducing just to have less stuff.

At this minute, I believe I'm going to sit tight with my current lineup.
It's all paid for. I don't want to kick myself for letting go of the 85Lii.
However, I went over my LR gallery, and the 50+85 have generated an = amount of 5 star images (at least in my eyes

I NEED MOAR!!!!!!

lens pirate wrote in post #16906078
I NEED MOAR!!!!!!

More is better than less
because if there's more less stuff,
then you might want to have some more.
But then, your parents won't let you because there's only a little.
If you really like something, you'll want more of it.
We want more,
We want more,
Like, you really like it,
ya want more.

I follow ya.

So Dj R are you holding on to your current kit?