rethinking my lenses

gardengirl13 wrote in post #6621280
That's what I'm thinking. People bash cheap lenses but this one when the light is right and I nail it, it's awesome!

I had the older version of that lens and loved it. Then I went to the 28-135 for the IS and eventually the 24-105 for the f4 and IS. I love my also 24-105, btw.

I can relate to that. I am finally in a position that I can affort most lenses and my arthritis makes boonie tromping and standing for hours painful.

Regarding the 17-40L and 70-200mm f/4L IS combination; I used this and it didn't really work for me. The 17-40L was more of a mid-range zoom and it didn't quite have the range and the f/4 aperture was just too darn slow.

I settled on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens combined with the 70-200mm f/4L IS. These two lenses give me just about everything I need.

I have longer and shorter lenses but, these are the two that are on my pair of cameras all the time.

If you could handle the weight, a pair of cameras would allow you to use your primes but, be more versatile. In fact, a pair of small XTi cameras (18 oz. each) is only 10 oz. more than a 40D (26 oz.) and a LOT less than a full frame camera.

Using two XTi cameras with a 35mm f/2 and an 85mm f/1.8 would total out to less than 4 pounds (57.2 ounces).

gardengirl13 wrote in post #6615927
I'm a prime girl. No way around it.

I really feel for you.

I share your love of primes. I am on the path from a prime/zoom mix going towards an all-prime set.

You have a difficult decision to make. Pain, frustration, missed shots...

I don't have arthritis but I have other injuries that get in the way of my photography. Running, climbing and general dexterity all reduced following an accident earlier this year. I often can't get to a position or vantage point that I want, or can't get there as quickly as I need.

In your position, I would be trying to sacrifice something else rather than move away from my beloved primes.

As you come to terms with your infirmity, can you sacrifice something else to stay with the style and quality you love?

Can you sacrifice speed? Simply accept that there are shots that you will miss because you won't be ready in time?

Can you sacrifice independence? Are you willing to ask for more help from friends and family to help with lens changing?

Can you carry more? An additional body with a favorite lens already mounted?

Hmmm... here is a thought. Would it be easier to change lenses if you could put the lens face-down on a firm, grippy surface? I'm thinking of the grippy mats that you can buy to stop things from rolling about on a car dashboard. If you place the lens on the surface, it may hold it firm so that that you can concentrate on pressing the button and moving the body. If this helps, then try packing a mat and board in your bag to help in the field.

Good luck with a difficult decision.

Andrew

gardengirl13 wrote in post #6622486
OK so here's what I'm thinking keep the 28-105 for festivals and quick shooting. Go with the 17-40 and 70-200 for my day to day shooting. Keep the 35, 50 and 100 for my low light and macro stuff. I'm not really needing the 24 2.8 since it's too slow for low light and "too fast" for landscapes. Some day I may get the L, but not until I really feel a need for it. It's quite close to the 35 and 90% of my shots I can just step back a few paces.

While psychologically I feel like I'm "cheating" by going with zooms, I think they're becoming a need due to health reasons and not wanting to carry 5 lenses everywhere I go. Carrying just two somewhat lightweight lenses will be nice.

Sounds good to me. I use my 3 zooms (17-55/2.8, 24-105/4 and 70-200/4 IS) as needed as walk arounds and for travel. I use my primes as you do: Low light and macro stuff.

I almost got rid of the 24-105, but am glad I kept it. As a mainly outdoor walk around, it can't be beat! I use the 17-55/2.8 when I know I'm also going indoors (museums, stores, aquariums).

I usually carry the 17-55 and 70-200 as a pair, but the 24-105 is usually carried alone. My zooms are sharp enough to very sharp.

I'm agreeing with Andrew here. I just can't give up my primes. I'm going to have to sacrifice some other stuff. Everytime I've tried to go to a zoom instead of one of my beloved primes I regret it and sell it to keep the prime. I do worry about the 70-200 zoom since I love my 200 so much.

i figure I mostly go to places that I know will be a certain way. I know my 24 and 100 macro will mostly be enough for the gardens. The 200 and 24 for birds and the areas around the birds (yes I shoot birds with a 200 and a 1.4TC, I've only a few times wished I could go longer because I have felt the weight of the 400 and know there is no way I can do it, so I have trained myself into thinking the 200 is fine!) I know that for people type shots I need the 28-105. For my style of "street" shooting the 24, 35 or 50 and the 100 is fine, but a zoom is helpful. For the gigs I've been using the 50 a lot, nothing wonderful but the shots are decent enough for what the band needs them for. I just can't see spending money on a lens I use once a month if that.

So yeah, maybe someday I'll get the zooms, only when I can really afford to keep the primes as well. For now I can't do that. Even with getting the cheaper zooms I can't.

RPcrowe, yeah arthritis is a you-know-what. I have spondylitis and OA and others to boot. It's getting hard to do the stuff I know I should do. I have thought of going down to the rebel but I feel like my 30D is a part of my arm when I shoot with it. Like my primes it's just so much of me right now I don't want to give it up. Someday if things get a lot worse then yeah, it'll be a light rebel and a couple of zooms. Until then I'm willing to suffer for my love.

And yes my husband is very nice with helping me switch lenses and help carry things for me. He complains about it, but i know he's very happy to do it and to see me out enjoying my photography.

Hello again Garden - I strongly agree with Nick's view on the 24-105. A lot of folks do seem to slam it a bit.

This was my "kit lens" when I purchased my 5D. I've never had any problems with it. There was a flare problem with the early serial number production copies - this are completely documented:

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …egoryid=216&mod​elid=11924

I do a lot of hiking too and weight is also a concern, usually trying to go as light as possible. At 57 my health is pretty decent, but my back is not the greatest. But I have carried the 5D+24-105 into the Adirondacks, Smoky Mountains, etc. with no issues and the images are beautiful.

The 24-105 has also been my main wedding lens since 2006. Previously I used Zeiss glass on Hasselblads - they are superior - but that's not to say there is anything wrong with the Canon "L". Non of my clients have ever complained, and I've had my fine art prints (typically matted 13x19 prints) exhibited in museums and other competitions. I cannot say anything bad about the 24-105.

Although..... maybe just one small issue. Would be nice if it was f/2.8, but then both the cost and weight would likely have doubled .... no thanks, happy with the current design. - Stu

nicksan wrote in post #6616430
I think the 24-105L gets a bad rap.

My 24-105L is RAZOR sharp. Sharpness is never the problem with my 24-105L. From what I have read, there was at one point a problem with copy variation but I believe that's been sorted out. (?)

The distracting bokeh however can be an issue in specific situations where you have bust backgrounds close to the subject. Well that and the f4.

But I would never describe MY 24-105L as "does ok". Sure for task specific shoots I almost always use my primes, for vacations and such the 24-105L is a great lens to have.