Choosing the right lenses.

I'd get a good tripod first

<<< 1Ds Mark II

Unless you really need the f/2.8 for the wide angle lens i'd get the 17-40 over the 16-35.

Initially I didn't know which to get but after a weekend testing them both the 17-40 won hands down. At 2.8 the 16-35 is just too soft. At f/4 both lenses were of similar quality and at f/5.6 the 17-40 was better - even though it was only stopped down once.

I'm still not completely sold on my 17-40, but I really didn't like the 16-35.

Now I'm thinking of getting these

16-35L
24-105LIS
70-200 2.8L

RgB wrote in post #2312462
Now I'm thinking of getting these

16-35L
24-105LIS
70-200 2.8L

Good choice. That's my basic battery of lense that I carry in my Mini Trekker along with my 1Ds. It gives great coverage with exceptional quality throughout the range.

Can't beat it.

belmondo wrote in post #2312473
Good choice. That's my basic battery of lense that I carry in my Mini Trekker along with my 1Ds. It gives great coverage with exceptional quality throughout the range.

Can't beat it.

What about the 14L instead of the 16-35L

belmondo wrote in post #2312473
Good choice. That's my basic battery of lense that I carry in my Mini Trekker along with my 1Ds. It gives great coverage with exceptional quality throughout the range.

Can't beat it.

Is yours the 70-200 2.8L IS?

RgB wrote in post #2312992
Is yours the 70-200 2.8L IS?

Yes. Actually, I mis-spoke (I'm an old Republican, and we occasionallydo that sort of thing.) I do carry the 70-200L on occasion, but more frequently, I carry the 70-300DO. The 70-200L fits as long as it's mounted on the body. But then, I have to leave out one of the other lenses.

Wow i just been blown away by the photos taken with a 10D and a Sigma 120-300mm 2.8. Here's the photos http://www.pbase.com/n​hl/sigma&page=1

The resolution charts of the Sigma beat the 70-200 2.8IS below;

120-300mm 2.8 Sigma
http://www.photozone.d​e …sigma_120300_28​/index.htm

70-200 2.8 IS
http://www.photozone.d​e …anon_70200_28is​/index.htm

But the 70-200 non IS Probably beats the sigma.
The 70-200 2.8 is the zoom that holds it own against primes.

I am thinking about the Sigma as 2.8 at 300mm sounds very tempting tempting.


Check this out http://www.pbase.com/r​ytterfalk/image/349828​60

This with 2X @ 600mm http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/41363176

Here @ 300mm f/8 http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/40113359

Can you tell i am a fan of this lens. It's black too

Guys I've decided to spend a bit more and am now 99.9% sure I'll pick up this.

1D MKIIN
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L
10-22 (for my 30D) Ultra wide

What do you all think?

RgB wrote in post #2327600
Guys I've decided to spend a bit more and am now 99.9% sure I'll pick up this.

1D MKIIN
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L
10-22 (for my 30D) Ultra wide

What do you all think?

Great setup.
I think many people here will ask you why all that as they asked me before, but if you feel that you can use them very well and there is reason to upgrade then do it, you will love that set, very good choice.

RgB wrote in post #2245623
Hi everyone.

In 3 weeks i am making a major purchase of glass. I own a 30D and the 75-300III and the 18-55 USM.

I am going to sell the kit and maybe the 75-300 after i purchase my new set up.

The lenses i was thinking of getting were the;

(1) 70-200 f/2.8LIS
(2) 24-70 f/2.8L
(3)17-40 f/4L
(4) 85 f/1.8 USM.

But now i am most likely going to get this line up;

(1) 70-200 f/2.8L IS
(2) 24-70 f/2.8L
(3)16-35 f2.8L

If i get the second choice which i really prefer i will still get the 85 prime in the future.

Am i crazy to get the 16-35L and loose the 85 prime or will the f/4 be too slow and i am making the right choice.

I am purchasing them locally at Quality Camera Sales.

My photography is not limited to any field I will be shooting Landscape, portraits to birds "everything".

Thanks i need all your wisdom here guys. I plan to buy a 1D body next year and plan to keep these lenses and do not want to have to sell them ever

You have gone with f2.8 on the other zooms (lots of weight there) so I assume the f2.8 on the wide to normal is important for you although you don't mention low light or sports. However for landscape and most stuff the 17-40 would probabably be fine or even better.

I would also ask yourself do you really need the f2.8 zooms or are you just going for 'the best', the 70-200 is quite a hefty lens. Another stratagy is to mix f4 zooms with fast primes.

For portrait I would use by preference the 85/1.8 space allowing although either of the other two zooms will be fine assuming you are OK with only f2.8.

For birds the 200 is not really long enough. You might be able to get away with the 2X on the long end of the 70-200 but the AF will be slow. Ideally I would say either the 400/5.6 if mostly tripod based else 300/4 IS +1.4X or 100-400 IS if handheld/monopod based.

Something missing for your crop camera is an ultra wide, the EF-S 10-22 would be an excellent choice.

I would not worry about getting as much as you can in one go but plan out what you want end up with in a holistic way and get it in stages.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2328380
You have gone with f2.8 on the other zooms (lots of weight there) so I assume the f2.8 on the wide to normal is important for you although you don't mention low light or sports. However for landscape and most stuff the 17-40 would probabably be fine or even better.

I would also ask yourself do you really need the f2.8 zooms or are you just going for 'the best', the 70-200 is quite a hefty lens. Another stratagy is to mix f4 zooms with fast primes.

For portrait I would use by preference the 85/1.8 space allowing although either of the other two zooms will be fine assuming you are OK with only f2.8.

For birds the 200 is not really long enough. You might be able to get away with the 2X on the long end of the 70-200 but the AF will be slow. Ideally I would say either the 400/5.6 if mostly tripod based else 300/4 IS +1.4X or 100-400 IS if handheld/monopod based.

Something missing for your crop camera is an ultra wide, the EF-S 10-22 would be an excellent choice.

I would not worry about getting as much as you can in one go but plan out what you want end up with in a holistic way and get it in stages.

look to this post

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=2327600&po​stcount=55

I think if he can get f2.8 then nothing wrong with that, i think he had a good budget to offer them, otherwise he will not ask for them.
about birds i agree he need long enough lens as 400 f5.6L or 100-400L but let him get what he want first then later he can buy more lenses such as 100-400L or primes like 85 1.8 and so.
his lineup is good enough for most subjects to photograph, he know what to choose as he want the best, most don't look for best because of tight budget, but i can't advice him to get always less expensive perfect lens if he can get the best, always there are expensive alternatives and cheaper alternatives and all or most are good enough as long it is Canon or L.

Thanks Tareq.

I am going to ask a dealer in Australia what's the best price he can give me on Brand new;

1Ds MKII
16-35L
70-200 2.8L

I have the money it's just a matter of can he help me out and from my previous quote there's no reason he can't


I was thinking of getting a Refurb from Adorama but after TAX and customs i might as well buy a new with 5 years warranty