5D3 Owners Unite! Discuss & Post Photos 4!

Great explanation. Since wide i got my primes I have found that I don't use my 24-70 as much because I prefer using the 50. I have debated selling the 24-70 and purchasing a 35L. My setup would be similar to yours.
16-35, 35, 50, 85, 135, 70-200 and 100-400.

bjbsav wrote in post #18313985
Great explanation. Since wide primes I have found that I don't use my 24-70 as much because I prefer using the 50. I have debated selling the 24-70 and purchasing a 35L. My setup would be similar to yours.
16-35, 35, 50, 85, 135, 70-200 and 100-400.

Exactly, and thanks. The 24-70 is a 50 with a step or 2 either way. (Not exactly, but you get my drift.) I kept my 16-35 around for the 16mm end, until I got the Zeiss 15. Now there isn't much reason, except for bad weather usage. I looked at metadata and my 16-35ƒ4 was usually used at 21, 24 or 28—with some at 35 because it wouldn't go to 50! I really think I used the 2.8II much more, and at more lengths.

I've toyed with the idea of the 100-400II, but I greatly prefer fixed aperture lenses and rarely need 400.

It's not what is in the lens, but what is in your mind! There are no boring lenses! There are boring minds.

The 24-70 is 3 1/2 primes, a 24, a 35, a 50 and ...at 70, almost an 85... and the Mark II has the IQ.

Now we all know that you can buy primes in the f1.4 range for all these focal lengths. What you buy is shallow depth of field. Yeah, I 've shot my share of shallow DOF, but it does get boring after a while. I am sick and tired of portraits consisting of a pair of sharp eyelashes shot at f1.2 and a fuzzy nose and hint of ears. If that's your thing, ok. It's not mine and yes, it is sooo boring.

Once we get to f5.6, I'd take the 24-70 MkII any day of the week and for any composition. That's my thing.

Buy the lenses that fit your thing, what you shoot and what you aspire to accomplish.

I shoot a lot of sports so the 100-400II is a great lens for me. If I were going to move to something different it would be a 300 2.8. My expensive issue is the fact that I shoot such a wide range of subjects. Models to sports.

marcial4 wrote in post #18313529

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ti5X​uW Open door to the past by Marcial Quintero, on Flickr

Very nice, Marcial. I have a thing for old doors!

MakisM1 wrote in post #18314031
It's not what is in the lens, but what is in your mind! There are no boring lenses! There are boring minds.

If there are special lenses, then there are boring lenses. It's yin/yang optics.

There are lenses that reproduce what I see and want, and others that make me question why I chose that particular tool; If someone else likes it, great.

The rest of your comments are pretty much the prime vs. zoom debate, with a side of 1.4 bashing—neither of which are solvable here.

bjbsav wrote in post #18314041
I shoot a lot of sports so the 100-400II is a great lens for me. If I were going to move to something different it would be a 300 2.8. My expensive issue is the fact that I shoot such a wide range of subjects. Models to sports.

Hey Ben -

Come out and shoot roller derby with me this season. Lots of fun! First bout is 4/22 at 5pm in the MLK Arena.

I would love to do shoot roller derby! I will PM you my information.

bjbsav wrote in post #18314041
I shoot a lot of sports so the 100-400II is a great lens for me. If I were going to move to something different it would be a 300 2.8. My expensive issue is the fact that I shoot such a wide range of subjects. Models to sports.

If you are going to be shooting low light/floodlights you may want to strongly consider the 300.

I have been using the 100-400 II for some time and it is a lovely lens for daylight but under cruddy floodlights and zoomed to the 400 end the 5.6 aperture just doesn't cut it. I shot a game starting at 6.00pm and even at max ISO I wasn't able to get above 1/800th. The mixture of noise an blur on fast moving balls/people was pretty bad.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18314596
If you are going to be shooting low light/floodlights you may want to strongly consider the 300.

I have been using the 100-400 II for some time and it is a lovely lens for daylight but under cruddy floodlights and zoomed to the 400 end the 5.6 aperture just doesn't cut it. I shot a game starting at 6.00pm and even at max ISO I wasn't able to get above 1/800th. The mixture of noise an blur on fast moving balls/people was pretty bad.

Dan, I have question for you. Do you always try to freeze the ball? There seems to be two schools of thought and wondered what your opinion is.

I agree. Depending on the stadium I can't use the 100-400II and I use the 70-200II because of the lighting. A 300 would be perfect.

AnnieMacD wrote in post #18314876
Dan, I have question for you. Do you always try to freeze the ball? There seems to be two schools of thought and wondered what your opinion is.

Normally yes. If I do want blur it is for artistic reasons and I wouldn't be doing it at max ISO is low light. The combination of blur and noise looks pretty bad.

bjbsav wrote in post #18314559
I would love to do shoot roller derby! I will PM you my information.

Got the PM...

Took the camera out for the first time, playing around with the in camera HDR... not sure how I feel about it yet.