L buying spree

My photos are mostly portraits, landscapes, and wildlife (whales, seals, and other Bay Area critters). I also take some rental property pictures ONLY if the company we use can't send a pro over and need my incompetent ass to do it.

I am not going to go into the wisdom of Canon killing their EF line, people who write about cameras more than take photos and CEOs know better and have made that decision for me.

I have a 5d mkiii and a 6dmkii and no intention on going mirrorless. Maybe get a mkiv one of these days.

I currently have the
35mm 1.4
50mm 1.2
85mm 1.4
24-70 2.8
200mm 2.8

They're mostly primes.

I was thinking about what to round it out with, maybe a wide angle like the 16-35 or the 11-24 or get the latest, greatest 70-200 since my 200 is a prime and I have nothing in the 70-200 range (not that I really ever have use for less than 200 when I'm using it).

Any thoughts?

Get both is not an option as I have burned my budget on cameras and lenses for the time being.

ToyotaGlock wrote in post #19251531
.
I was thinking about what to round it out with, maybe ... get the latest, greatest 70-200 since my 200 is a prime and I have nothing in the 70-200 range (not that I really ever have use for less than 200 when I'm using it).

Any thoughts?
.

.
If I were in your shoes, I would get the Canon 100-400 v2. . It is about the same price as the latest greatest 70-200mm that you are considering. . Or you can get one used for several hundred dollars less. . It is an extremely versatile lens, not only because of the focal length range, but because of the great close-up capabilities that the close minimum focus distance provides.

Another thing I would consider if I wanted to spend less money would be the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm zoom.

I think a telephoto in the 100-400 or 150-600 range would be something you would use a lot, given that you like to shoot your bay area wildlife, and currently don't have anything even close to this focal length range.


.

I'd be curious. Which of those lenses do you use the most? Are you using that 24-70 as a 24mm lens exclusively, or do you use the full range even though you've got 35-85 covered with very nice primes?

The reason I ask is that a good 24mm prime is missing from your list. You can go wider, but you got to get at least to 24mm. But if you're using that zoom a lot, zooms can get you a full range quickly. I've got 3 lenses in my current kit that take me from 17-300mm with a little overlap but no gaps. Primes are sharper, faster and smaller, but zooms are pretty good too and sure are handy.

drsilver wrote in post #19251539
I'd be curious. Which of those lenses do you use the most? Are you using that 24-70 as a 24mm lens exclusively, or do you use the full range even though you've got 35-85 covered with very nice primes?

The reason I ask is that a good 24mm prime is missing from your list. You can go wider, but you got to get at least to 24mm. But if you're using that zoom a lot, zooms can get you a full range quickly. I've got 3 lenses in my current kit that take me from 17-300mm with a little overlap but no gaps. Primes are sharper, faster and smaller, but zooms are pretty good too and sure are handy.

I keep the 24-70 mostly on my 6d2 and use it as a walk around if I don’t want to carry the primes.

I use the 50 and 85 the most.

16-35 f4: A great lens and huge bang for your buck.
11-24: Specialized lens and I think if it was a good fit for you, you'd know it. Sigma 12-24 ART would be a better choice to try a similar zoom range.
70-200: Agree with Tom, 100-400II seems a better match. Another case of if you really want the 2.8 of the 70-200, I think you'd know it.

What about 135 f2. Generally a bit better overall than the 200 2.8.

100-400 II would be my pick for your stated use and possibly add the 135 f2 later on.
Both of these lenses have good reliability track records so buying used would be fairly safe.

ToyotaGlock wrote in post #19251531
My photos are mostly portraits, landscapes, and wildlife (whales, seals, and other Bay Area critters). I also take some rental property pictures ONLY if the company we use can't send a pro over and need my incompetent ass to do it.

I am not going to go into the wisdom of Canon killing their EF line, people who write about cameras more than take photos and CEOs know better and have made that decision for me.

I have a 5d mkiii and a 6dmkii and no intention on going mirrorless. Maybe get a mkiv one of these days.

I currently have the
35mm 1.4
50mm 1.2
85mm 1.4
24-70 2.8
200mm 2.8

They're mostly primes.

I was thinking about what to round it out with, maybe a wide angle like the 16-35 or the 11-24 or get the latest, greatest 70-200 since my 200 is a prime and I have nothing in the 70-200 range (not that I really ever have use for less than 200 when I'm using it).

Any thoughts?

Get both is not an option as I have burned my budget on cameras and lenses for the time being.

Considering you do portraits, I'd seriously consider the 70-200 F/2.8L IS. It gives more flexibility than the 85, although it does not have the same wide aperture. OTOH, you'd need, IMO, at least F/2.8 to F/4 for a portrait anyway.

Something else you could consider, is indeed the 100-400L, whether the old or newer model doesn't matter much, IMO, as it is more a preference of the shift vs turn zoom. This would be for your wildlife, of course. You could consider adding an extender for more reach as well.

As to rounding out at the lower end, for landscapes and/or property shoots, you could indeed consider the 16-35, and I'd suggest the 16-35 F/4L IS in that case. The 11-24 is an interesting lens, but it is huge, and not necessarily all that great at corners and edges at the lower end. Not in my opinion anyway. It will still make great images, obviously, but personally I think it is missing something. I'd suggest the Samyang Premium XT 10 F/3.5 if you need really wide. It is the best in the category of 10-12 mm FF lenses out there currently, as far as I am aware. At F/8 it beats anything else with ease, and F/8 generally is what you need to stop down these types of lenses anyway, because of unavoidable vignetting etc.

Since you appear to like primes, I'd also like to suggest the TS-E 17 F/4L if you'd want to round out the low end. It is a truly fantastic lens, and provides all kinds of extra creative options as well. Not AF, obviously, but easy to focus anyway. I just love it. If you think hat is a little too extreme, you could consider the TS-E 24 F/3.5 instead.
BTW, I shoot the TS-E 17 handheld mostly, both with shift and tilt . I use mine mostly for landscapes, architecture (inside and outside), and panoramic shots.

Some of my thoughts ...

Kind regards, Wim

ToyotaGlock wrote in post #19251549
I keep the 24-70 mostly on my 6d2 and use it as a walk around if I don’t want to carry the primes.

I use the 50 and 85 the most.

If you use the 50 and 85 the most then it sounds like you don't need another lens. You are already covered from 35 to 200.

Want to go a tad wider? Add a 16-35.
Want a maybe different/better portrait length? Add the 70-200 and use it at 135, or go 135 prime.
Want something longer? 100-400.

I'll let you decide on getting a ver 1, ver 2, or ver 3 of any of these lenses, f/2.8 vs f/4, image stabilized or not.

I like 16-35 2.8 II for quick and dirty (but on the tripod) photos of real estate. And to me wildlife starts with 400mm .

Also, in connection to EF bashing trend. Flash with Garry Fong sphere is one of the oldest bashings .
Yet, our daughter used it and same 16-35 2.8 II L for night club portraits. And those are great.
https://www.flickr.com …183@N06/with/40​107552671/

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19251534
.
If I were in your shoes, I would get the Canon 100-400 v2. ... It is an extremely versatile lens, not only because of the focal length range, but because of the great close-up capabilities that the close minimum focus distance provides.

Agreed.

Photo from Charlie Victor's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1080147)

Photo from Charlie Victor's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1080146)

Photo from Charlie Victor's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1080145)

Add me to the list of the 100-400 L IS Mark II. Yes the Mark II. I had the original Version 1 and currently have the Mark II. A Big improvement overall.

Nick5 wrote in post #19252447
Add me to the list of the 100-400 L IS Mark II. Yes the Mark II. I had the original Version 1 and currently have the Mark II. A Big improvement overall.

Please explain.

Is it the optics, construction, or just the usability?

I agree with Tom and others about the 100-400, as well as about buying used IF you can trust the seller. Unlike others, I have the 100-400 MkI rather than the MkII, and I love it! I bought it used from Lens Rentals / Lens Authority. The description they gave of the lens matched how the lens was when I received it, and I trust those people. At the time, the MkII new was $2200, the MkI new was $1700, and the MkI used was $1000. I "needed" that lens, and the used price was perfect. It's a great lens.

On the MkI vs MkII, I recall the reviews were very good with the MkI but the optics were better in the MkII. Also, IS is apparently better in the MkII. Note the MkI is push/pull zoom while the MkII is twist zoom. I love the push/pull! It's very fast and easy to zoom.

I love the 100-400 for nature photography. The photos I've included were taken about a week ago, both at 400mm and cropped only a little. The lens focusses very quickly. On the 5DMkIII and MkIV, it's not a light kit, but I find I can walk around with it for a long time without fatigue. If I know I'm going to be shooting one subject for a long time, I use a ball head monopod with IS on. (From Canon's manual for the lens: "The stabilizer is equally effective for hand-held photography and photography with a monopod.")

On 200mm vs 400mm, there's a big difference in what you can see. When I "needed" the 100-400, I was shooting girls varsity soccer with the 70-200 f/4. I could cover half of the field with it. Once I got the 100-400, the jump in focal length was dramatic as I could easily cover the field. Going back to Tom's comment, the Tamron 150-600 gets you out even further.

Good luck, TG! Hope this helps.

ToyotaGlock wrote in post #19252523
.
Please explain.

Is it the optics, construction, or just the usability?
.

.
I also find the version 1 of the 100-400mm zoom to be much better than the version 1.

For three main reasons:

1: . . The optics are just so much better. . The glass in the version 2 resolves fine detail much better than the version 1. Even wide open, zoomed all the way in to 400mm, it is tack sharp. . In fact, at f5.6 and 400mm, it resolves find detail better than the v1 did at 300mm and stopped down to f8. . It is just completely sharp at every aperture and at every point from 100mm to 400mm and everywhere in between. . These sharper optics not only mean better image quality overall, but also mean that you don't have to stop down to get sharper results, and also it means that the v2 is much more usable with the tele-extenders (more usable meaning higher image quality).

2: . . The autofocus is simply faster to find and lock on to moving subjects. . I realize that we're only talking about a fraction of a second faster, but when you are shooting fast action like sports and birds in flight, a split second faster autofocus can make all the difference in the world.

3: . . MUCH closer minimum focus distance, resulting in much higher magnification rates for close-up work. It isn't like a true macro, but it is starting to get rather close ... at least compared to the v1. . I can use my v2 for butterflies and lizards and abstract detail / texture shots that I just couldn't use my v1 for.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19252567
.
I also find the version 1 of the 100-400mm zoom to be much better than the version 1.

For three main reasons:

1: . . The optics are just so much better. . The glass in the version 2 resolves fine detail much better than the version 1. Even wide open, zoomed all the way in to 400mm, it is tack sharp. . In fact, at f5.6 and 400mm, it resolves find detail better than the v1 did at 300mm and stopped down to f8. . It is just completely sharp at every aperture and at every point from 100mm to 400mm and everywhere in between. . These sharper optics not only mean better image quality overall, but also mean that you don't have to stop down to get sharper results, and also it means that the v2 is much more usable with the tele-extenders (more usable meaning higher image quality).

2: . . The autofocus is simply faster to find and lock on to moving subjects. . I realize that we're only talking about a fraction of a second faster, but when you are shooting fast action like sports and birds in flight, a split second faster autofocus can make all the difference in the world.

3: . . MUCH closer minimum focus distance, resulting in much higher magnification rates for close-up work. It isn't like a true macro, but it is starting to get rather close ... at least compared to the v1. . I can use my v2 for butterflies and lizards and abstract detail / texture shots that I just couldn't use my v1 for.

.

And corner to corner sharpness much improved as well as color and contrast.
The version 1 was developed in the late 90’s….. although I enjoyed using the push pull, it certainly lived up to its name, the Dust Pump.