5D setup... opinions please.

Picked out these choices...

5D w/g 1569 (Digital Rev)
16-35L 716 (Kea-photo)
24-70L 680 (Kea-photo)
Sig.70-200 480 (Kea-photo)
Total 3445 including delivery + Duty/VAT refunded if any.
Warehouse Express total.... £4169
Jessops Total....... even more!

OR...

5D with 24-70L + 70-200L 2.8 IS 2999 (Digital Rev)
16-35L 716 (Kea-Photo)
Total 3715 including del etc.
Warehouse Express total.... £4675
Jessops total..... even more!

I'm an experienced Ebay user and always buy with my credit card then pay it off for extra protection, so I'm not worried about this if this is what you're thinking. Just looking for opinions or alternatives I haven't thought of. Thanks everyone!

Peace.

The second choice

Tareq wrote in post #2630149
The second choice

I agree

I'll have the same set up when I upgrade to the 5D (or equivalent) and pick up the 16-35 this summer.

Those are great prices if you're comfortable with eBay, but I've had a couple of bad experiences (not with the users you've mentioned) so I tend to shy away. I'm in London as well, and after pricing it out it's actually cheaper for me to fly back to Canada (where I'm from) to buy my upgrades than it would be to buy from a shop here. And that includes the price of the plane ticket

With the 5D do you reallly need to 16-35?

What is the primary type of shooting you will be doing? If it's wedding, then the 16-35 is extremely wide... actually too wide IMHO.

Too bad they're not offering the 24-105L. That is a BEAUTIFULLY matched lens if you are doing wedding and other social event photography. I do almost 90% of my wedding work with that lens, as well as most of my landscape and street photography. It has a wonderful working range. - Stu

Ephemeral wrote in post #2630380
With the 5D do you reallly need to 16-35?

It's no different than folks using the 10-22, and I've seen some stunning photos with that lens at the wide end. It all depends on what he's taking photos of I guess

souporman wrote in post #2630409
It's no different than folks using the 10-22, and I've seen some stunning photos with that lens at the wide end. It all depends on what he's taking photos of I guess

Indeed. After buying my 5D, I sold my 10-22. I still miss it. I have replaced it with the 17-40L, but would like to upgrade to the 16-35L someday.

Another vote against the expense of the 16-35. If you really need to go that wide, get the 17-40L
...and what have you got against the wonderful 24-105

Ephemeral wrote in post #2630380
With the 5D do you reallly need to 16-35?

It's not a case of needing, but wanting I want the UWA because it's "different" to most of the photography that I've done before, mostly 35mm+

chris clements wrote in post #2630428
Another vote against the expense of the 16-35. If you really need to go that wide, get the 17-40L
...and what have you got against the wonderful 24-105

I have absolutely nothing against the 24-105 it's a great lens, I would rather have lenses which didn't overlap FL's. The "expense" of the 16-35 isn't an issue, but as above, I want the UWA for Lanscapes/portraits with a less than normal perspective.

Wow, some of you guys really don't like the 16-35!

sapearl wrote in post #2630399
What is the primary type of shooting you will be doing? If it's wedding, then the 16-35 is extremely wide... actually too wide IMHO.

Too bad they're not offering the 24-105L. That is a BEAUTIFULLY matched lens if you are doing wedding and other social event photography. I do almost 90% of my wedding work with that lens, as well as most of my landscape and street photography. It has a wonderful working range. - Stu

No, no no.... no weddings for me I shot my sisters wedding, the results were great and my sister and family were very happy. But the stress! maybe because it was family, idk.

The above isn't really set packages, I'm just trying to utilise the FL's. I'm looking for 3 lenses to start with and this was my choices, I don't want to get too much as my old kit was Minolta film.

Adam.

adamlc wrote in post #2630490
......The above isn't really set packages, I'm just trying to utilise the FL's. I'm looking for 3 lenses to start with and this was my choices, I don't want to get too much as my old kit was Minolta film.

Adam.

Hi Adam.... i see, no weddings. Those are good lens choices and the 16-35 would do some really WIDE stuff which would be fine. Just too wide for my usage.

I find that with FF at 24mm, you have to be extremely careful with people and group shots, keeping lines in vertical, not distorting heads, that sort of thing. And below 24mm the effect would be even greater. But for landscapes, you could do some really creative stuff.

Maybe he needs/Wants f/2.8?
I'd definitely chose the 24-70mm @ f/2.8 .. but depending on how and where you use your wide, the 17-40mm might fit the bill. I only say this as my own use of the 17-40mm is almost 100% stopped down for landscape or other high DOF work, and not in dark situations.

Bit still, if you can afford the extra for the 16-35mm, it would never hurt to have the extra f/2.8 if needed.

I'm not sure the votes against the 16-35mmL are because they don't like it.. I think they are just trying to save you money
Since your initial post lists all the prices involved, I think it' was assumed that budget was highly important.

I have the 17-40L and have not used it since i got my 5D. I use the 24-70 most of the time. Very rarely do I need to go wider than that.
It's place in my bag is now occupied by a 15 Fisheye that is really awesome for views that are a little different...

Stu

adamlc wrote in post #2630469
It's not a case of needing, but wanting I want the UWA because it's "different" to most of the photography that I've done before, mostly 35mm+

I have absolutely nothing against the 24-105 it's a great lens, I would rather have lenses which didn't overlap FL's. The "expense" of the 16-35 isn't an issue, but as above, I want the UWA for Lanscapes/portraits with a less than normal perspective.

Wow, some of you guys really don't like the 16-35!

Ah... I understand - want vs. need . Go for it then . It's nothing against UWA, just that all of my gear has to earn it's supper or it doesn't get purchased.

With one still in college everything is on a tight budget. If it's not something that will get regular use, then it doesn't get considered for purchase. But your circumstances are different & money isn't an issue; if it will make you happy than go for it!

why get the 5d w/grip from digitalrev for when £1569 when it is only £1501.95 [Body 1365 inc p+p grip 136.95 inc p+p]from kea-photo? your planning on getting the lenses at kea so i'm just curious why you picked digital rev for the body n' grip..........

very nice setup by the way....... and i'd probably go for option 2 if it were me.......