Almost made a decision...

Almost made a decision ... I think..

budget about 1500,00 euro ( that's about 1900 USD)
My gear: 40D, 28 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8 , 28-105 3.5-4.5 and 70 -210 3.5-4.5
Panasonic LX3 with lovely 24mm lens

At first I was looking for an replacement for the 70-210, but decided it was good enough for the moment.
And don't like big and or white lenses anyway

3 options:

1) sell 28.18 love the lens,but sometimes just a bit to tight
buy 24 1.4L I or II ( is it the II worth the price difference )
sell 28-105 and buy tokina 11-16 2.8 ( for both landscape and indoor when 24 is not wide enough
maybe sell the 85 for an 100 2.0 and 1.4 extender

2) sell 28.1.8 buy 24 1.4L I or II
sell 28-105 and buy sigma 17-70 ( wide enough for indoor and a bit macro)
sell the 85 for an 100 2.0

3) sell 28-105, buy 17-55 2.8 IS ( best indoor lens imho)
buy 60 2.8 macro (close ups and portrait)
sell the 85 for an 100 2.0 and 1.4 extender

My main interests are Candid pictures/ outdoor portraits of family/kids and my dogs
Occasional concerts and indoor sport.

What do you guys suggest ?

Frogdog wrote in post #10801638
Almost made a decision ... I think..

budget about 1500,00 euro ( that's about 1900 USD)
My gear: 40D, 28 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8 , 28-105 3.5-4.5 and 70 -210 3.5-4.5
Panasonic LX3 with lovely 24mm lens

At first I was looking for an replacement for the 70-210, but decided it was good enough for the moment.
And don't like big and or white lenses anyway

3 options:

1) sell 28.18 love the lens,but sometimes just a bit to tight
buy 24 1.4L I or II ( is it the II worth the price difference )

I did that, in two steps, and really didn't want to lose the 28. However, it didn't get any use again after acquiring the 24L. I happened to find a good home for my very sharp 28, so at least it gets used again.

I was offered almost the new price for the 24L around the time the 24L II became available, so I decided to sell it and ordered the 24L II, which I still use.

On APS-C I don't think you will see a lot of difference, on FF you will because the corners on the 24L II are a bit better, from wide open. The 24L II also has less field curvature than the 24L Mk I, but you'd have to photograph flat surfaces straight oen to notice; in normal photography you won't. Finally, the 24L II has less CA than the 24L.

Is this all worth the difference in price? I guess you need to decide that for yourself. Considering I shoot FF most of the time these days, I am happy I have the new one.

That should do well under those circumstances.

The canon extenders only work with telelenses from the 135 mm and up, plus the TS-Es and the MP-E. For anything else you'd need a teleconverter, like Kenko's Teleplus Pro or whatever it is called these days .

Personally I would rather buy a Canon 15-85 instead of the Sigma 17-70. For a bit of macro I would rather use a set of extension tubes and the 50 F/1.8 you already own.

If you consider the 17-55 the best indoor lens, I'd suggest you get that. If you don't, you will always be second guessing yourself, until such time you will own one anyway.

Hmmm. Candids generally require shorter to longer telelenses, unless you want to do environmental portrait type pictures or street candids, where you may need slight shorter lenses. Dogs require fast AF, outdoor portraits on APS-C anything from short standard/slight WA to tele. Occasional concerts and indoor sport require fast lenses or very good high iso, and the sport bit also requires fast AF, while IS is handy with concerts.

Since you do like the 17-55 IS, I suggest you get that. I'd also suggest you'd get the 70-200 F/4L IS, or 70-200 F/2.8L (non-IS) if you don't mind the weight. Sell the 28-105, 70-210, 85 F/1.8 and 28 F/1.8 in this case, which should give you enough to buy these two lenses if you add the money you made with selling the above to the budget you already have. I hear you don't like white lenses, but they happen to be very, very good. And you can always hide them in a welly sock as someone on the board here already did (cut off toe, and an opening for the zoomring).

These two lenses cover about everything you'd want to shoot. If you opt for the 70-200 F/4L IS, I'd probably still buy a 100 F/2. Alternatively, you could also go for a 70-200 F/4L if you don't care for the IS and get an 135L in addition. Add some tubes, and you get a very good (semi)macro lens.
You coudl also consider a used 70-200 F/2.8L IS, I guess.

So that's now:
4. sell 28 F/1.8, 85 F/1.8, 28-105, 70-210, buy 17-55 IS and 70-200 F/2.8L
5. sell 28 F/1.8, 85 F/1.8, 28-105, 70-210, buy 17-55 IS and 70-200 F/4L IS and 100 F/2
6. sell 28 F/1.8, 85 F/1.8, 28-105, 70-210, buy 17-55 IS and 70-200 F/4L and 135L
7. sell 28 F/1.8, 85 F/1.8, 28-105, 70-210, buy 17-55 IS and used 70-200 F/2.8L IS

Add tubes for macro, mostly for use on 50 F/1.8 and/or 135L.

If you are still not keen on the white lenses. I guess you could keep the 70-210, and get a 135L, which is better than a 100 F/2, but also quite a bit longer on the 40D. Again, use extension tubes, and you'd have a great (semi)macro lens too.

8. sell 28 F/1.8, 85 F/1.8, 28-105, keep 70-210, buy 17-55 IS and 135L plus extension tubes (plus maybe extender for an 189 F/2.8L )

I think there are plenty of other options too, but maybe those don't fit as well with your current line of thinking and photography.

Kind regards, Wim

Bedankt Wim for your feedback and adding all these additional options to consider.
Actually a lot of them crossed my mind too. The thing is lately I've been using my 28 1.8 al lot both indoor and outdoor. I like the small size and the bokeh, but as I mentioned, sometimes just not wide enough. A 17-55 IS would be a solution, however I don't really like the size. With the hood it's really in your face. When up close, I don't like kids or pets to be scared off by it's size.
Same with the 70-200 4 or 2.8. I don't like be walking around like a journalist when I'm on holiday . Walking casually on the beach with a big white lens, is just not my thing.

To be honest , my dream set up would be something like this in FF:
35 1.4L + 135L , 1.4 extender and a zoomlens for (Ultra)WA on a Rebel size body with 40D handling and FF sensor.
Such a thing does not exist and besides that I cannot afford a FF body.

So with your comments in mind 2 additional options;
9) buy 24L+ 17-50 2.8 tamron or Sigma 17-70 (cheap convenient zoom for both indoors and outside ,but smaller than 17-55 IS) sell 28-105 & 28 1.8 .save a bit and buy 135 2.0 + extender,sell 85 1.8 ( or keep if budget allows)
10) stop whining about the size and buy 17-55 2.8 and 135 2.0 + extender.
keep 28 & 50 1.8 and sell all other lenses.

thanks again.

wimg wrote in post #10802036
buy 17-55 IS and 70-200 F/4L and 135L

This would be my move, well....Rather, it was my move...Amazing IQ on all these lenses...(I kept the 28/1.8 though )
The Sigma 10-20 is another nice wide zoom choice....

Well 1 decision has been made. Went to the store today for a 17-50 or 55IS. The 17-55IS was out of stock. Decided to give the Tamron 17-50 2.8 a chance. So far I'm very pleased. Next week I'll go on holiday to test it a bit further.
Gives me also so some time to think about the rest of my gear.
1) buy 24L sell 28 1.8
2) keep 28 1.8 , buy 70-200 4IS or 2.8 NON IS or 135 2.0L

But for now happy 17-50 owner.

Frogdog wrote in post #10802335
Bedankt Wim for your feedback and adding all these additional options to consider.
Actually a lot of them crossed my mind too. The thing is lately I've been using my 28 1.8 al lot both indoor and outdoor. I like the small size and the bokeh, but as I mentioned, sometimes just not wide enough. A 17-55 IS would be a solution, however I don't really like the size. With the hood it's really in your face. When up close, I don't like kids or pets to be scared off by it's size.

Well, do you actually think you scare them, or does it really? The 24L II is about the same size, actually, not much difference anyway .

I found that if you behave like it is a normal thing to do, it is allright. Somehow kids and dogs pick up on your feelings and behave accordingly, so I do think it is important for you to feel comfortable. They'll follow as a result.

Same with the 70-200 4 or 2.8. I don't like be walking around like a journalist when I'm on holiday . Walking casually on the beach with a big white lens, is just not my thing.
As stated above, you do need to feel comfortable with it .

To be honest , my dream set up would be something like this in F:
35 1.4L + 135L , 1.4 extender and a zoomlens for (Ultra)WA on a Rebel size body with 40D handling and FF sensor.
Such a thing does not exist and besides that I cannot afford a FF body.
Handling wise (operation) there is the 5D II. However, it doesn't have some of the features the 40D has, like 6 fps, short black-out moment, etc., but other than that, IQ is incredibly good .
[QUOTE]So with your comments in mind 2 additional options;
9) buy 24L+ 17-50 2.8 tamron or Sigma 17-70 (cheap convenient zoom for both indoors and outside ,but smaller than 17-55 IS) sell 28-105 & 28 1.8 .save a bit and buy 135 2.0 + extender,sell 85 1.8 ( or keep if budget allows)

Once you own a 24L the 28 won't get any use anymore, so that is a good option. Speaking from experience here as I mentioned in my previous post .
[QUOTE]
10) stop whining about the size and buy 17-55 2.8 and 135 2.0 + extender.
keep 28 & 50 1.8 and sell all other lenses.

thanks again.
That too is another good option .

Kind regards, Wim

Frogdog wrote in post #10805337
Well 1 decision has been made. Went to the store today for a 17-50 or 55IS. The 17-55IS was out of stock. Decided to give the Tamron 17-50 2.8 a chance. So far I'm very pleased. Next week I'll go on holiday to test it a bit further.
Gives me also so some time to think about the rest of my gear.
1) buy 24L sell 28 1.8
2) keep 28 1.8 , buy 70-200 4IS or 2.8 NON IS or 135 2.0L

But for now happy 17-50 owner.

Is that the VOC version or whatever it is called you got, i.e., the stabilized version?

Personally I would go for option 2, basically because it extends your possibilities, especially as you are quite happy with the 28. Once you get there, you can still consider what next steps to take anyway.

BTW, I found I stopped using the 70-200 F/4L IS completely after obtaining a 135L (already had the extender). F/2 and much better performance in the nearby ranges made me grab for the 135L all the time. I sold the 70-200 eventually, something I thought I would never do , and not regretting or missing it for that matter.

Kind regards, Wim

Frogdog wrote in post #10805337
2) keep 28 1.8 , buy 135 2.0L

But for now happy 17-50 owner.

Congrats, the 17-50 is a great lens, too bad you didn't get a chance to shoot the 55/IS, you'd own it.
Just start of with the 135L.....You'll never look back (like you might with the Tamron)

I really like your budget lens combo. I'd probably just buy a 135L for concerts and indoor sports and use the rest on lighting equipment.

@wimg : thanks again for your comments. I bought the non VC version.
The coming weeks I'll go to the beach with my dogs , see which focal length I use the most of the 70-200 range ( I expect between 70-150) and see whether I really need the convenience of the zoom or rather have a 135 prime or maybe the 85 1.8 would be enough too.

@thatkatmat yeah, but on the other hand I'm glad it was sold out. I could afford it , but I think I would be happier with this relatively cheap zoom + a fast prime .

@RobertMang thanks . Will make my final decision the coming weeks.
Besides a 420EX flash, I don't have any lighting equipment . Don't have a room for a studio at home also. More a available light guy anyway.
What I do want to add is a 580EX so I can make nicer pictures of my fishtank, put the 420EX as slave on top of the tank for best result.

Well the holiday is over. Used all my lenses and these are my conclusions;

- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 . Sharp enough, useful focal length ,both in and outdoor. Really a keeper
- 28 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 , used these one the least, situations were these fast primes would be useful did not occur much. Although the occasion when I used them , I loved the handling , no zoom to think about and nice size.
- 85 f 1.8 , used this one solely on a 2,5 hour hike. Great lens, regret I did not use it more in the past, but in some occasions wished it would be a bit longer.
- 28-105mm ; did not use it.
- 70-210 F3.5-4.5 USM , found out that while I use this lens pretty much , I do not zoom while tracking action. When I take a sequence of pics of my running dogs , I most use it at around 115mm , only using the full 210mm when the dogs are standing still.
Now when reviewing my pictures, I have to crop the 115mm pics a little bit, so should have zoomed at 135 - 150mm most of the times.
- Panasonic LX3 , used it for about 10 pics, while I love the dynamic B&W , I rather have a more pocketable back up camera. The B&W I can also do in post-process.

So my conclusion overall:

I need to sort out my lens assortment, sell what I don't use and keep my camera bag as light as possible.
At this moment my budget allows either an "outdoor" upgrade or an indoor upgrade:
outdoors 2 options:
1) buy Tokina 11-16 2.8 and 135 2.0L + 1.4 extender and extension tubes.
Sell Panasonic LX3, 28-105 and 85 1.8mm , the 70-210 I'll keep since the resell value is almost nothing.
2) buy Tokina 11-16 2.8 ,100-400 4-5-5.6L IS or 300 4.0L IS + 1.4 extender
When I do need tele , I rather have more reach than 200mm, although it's only for an occasional zoo visit. Renting when needed could be better.
Sell Panasonic LX3 and 28-105

indoors :
1) buy 7D body for cleaner high ISO and 24L 1.4.
Sell 28 1.8, 28-105 and 40D
Nothing wrong with the 40D, but a 100% viewfinder and more usable higher iso would really be nice.

So based on my conclusion, what would your upgrade be?

I have the 40D and there is nothing wrong with it so if I were you I would get better glass, glass is forever bodies come and go.

That's true. But at this moment the 40D still has some resell value.That's also a reason to upgrade to 7D.