Help me out on the wide end

Alright you can see my set up in my sig. A 5DII with the widest lens being the nifty fifty. This has to change. I don't feel I'm doing the 5DII justice (although the nifty has served me well).

So, I'm kinda a prime guy and these are some of the options I'm weighing up. Estimate budget should be about £1800.

Option 1

• Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Fish Eye
  
• Canon 35mm L f/1.4
  

• Canon 24mm L f/1.4 II
  
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4
  

• Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II
  
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4
  

Option 3. The 16-35 is a great and versatile lens and the sigma gets great results. I think the fact that the zoom doesnt have that many fans is that for those of us on a budget the 17-40 performs very well. The extra stop is nice, but honestly the only use I have for it indoors is wide for groups, but the flash comes into play because quality of light is more important than volume.

I'd get option 2 for sure. The 24L is a great lens, especially on full frame. I had the Mark I version for a while and would love to get the new Mark II.

However, I'd substitute the Sigma 50mm with the Canon 50mm f/1.4. Did you also consider Zeiss ZE lenses? The 35mm f/2 is an amazing lens for example and even the ZE 50mm f/1.4 might be a good option together with the 24LII.

Rsyx wrote in post #10950667
I'd get option 2 for sure. The 24L is a great lens, especially on full frame. I had the Mark I version for a while and would love to get the new Mark II.

However, I'd substitute the Sigma 50mm with the Canon 50mm f/1.4. Did you also consider Zeiss ZE lenses? The 35mm f/2 is an amazing lens for example and even the ZE 50mm f/1.4 might be a good option together with the 24LII.

Thanks for the replies/advice.

The canon over the sigma? I've heard many bad reviews of the canon and the only problem with the sigma is the focusing calibration which is a) fixable by sigma and b) I believe to be vastly over rated. I owned the 30mm f/1.4 for use on my 450D and it was a great little lens. Focusing was never an issue.

Re the MF lenses you've suggested I'm sticking to AF for now. Maybe in the future when I've got a nice AF collection I could indulge in an Zeiss and experiment but not yet.

.mark. wrote in post #10950816
Thanks for the replies/advice.

The canon over the sigma? I've heard many bad reviews of the canon and the only problem with the sigma is the focusing calibration which is a) fixable by sigma and b) I believe to be vastly over rated. I owned the 30mm f/1.4 for use on my 450D and it was a great little lens. Focusing was never an issue.

Re the MF lenses you've suggested I'm sticking to AF for now. Maybe in the future when I've got a nice AF collection I could indulge in an Zeiss and experiment but not yet.

I would personally get the Canon 50mm f/1.4 over the Sigma any day, but I'll start out by saying that I never owned either one. I have a ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar at the moment, which I like very much.

The reason I'd pick the Canon over the Sigma is because of the rendering, I personally prefer the Canon rendering to the Sigma one. From the samples I've seen the bokeh can be quite harsh, but it really seems to depend on the background how pronounced this "issue" is.

I voted option 3. Although I'd spend the 50mm cash on a great CPL for the 16-35. I love my 16-35. It gets criticised for edge sharpness, but I haven't really notice that. Where it scores is its colour rendition. Absolutely fantastic. Really rich colours. It's a great "creative" lens, and I get a kick out of firing it on when others are going much longer.

If there's space in my bag, the 16-35 comes with me, even if I know in my head that I'm unlikely to use it. It's in an unholy alliance with my heart!

Okay, you said you are a prime guy so that gets rid of option 3. I am the same way and am just never as happy with pictures taken from a zoom. They always seem to be lacking something. So its between options 1 and 2.

All of the reviews I have read seem to suggest that the 35L is better than the newer 24L. In fact, some would probably argue that it is the best lens of all of your options. You have the sigma 50 in option 2 but you already have the nifty 50 as you said. The choice seems obvious to me. I would go with option 1.

I have never read anything bad about the 35L and I have used the sigma fisheye. It is fun indeed. You could defish as you said too. This would give you the widest capability of all of your options. It would be all primes (except your 100-400). You would also have more focal lengths to chose from (assuming you kept the nifty 50). The only downside is that you are giving up some aperture when choosing option 1 over 2. Not a big deal since the lenses you have are all still pretty fast.

If you can do the 15FE and the 35L, I'd change that to this instead:

Option 4: 17-40 + 35L

Otherwise, I'd go for the 16-35, but if you don't need 2.8 (you didn't mention what you shoot) then get the 17-40.

Bottom line is, if you have a 5D2, then you NEED to have the 35L, no matter what(and once you have it, you'll never want the 50 anyways).

tjbrock42 wrote in post #10952258
...All of the reviews I have read seem to suggest that the 35L is better than the newer 24L...

Could you point me to a couple of these reviews please? I'd be interested to here some more opinions as I'm sure I remember reading the 24LII being better than the 35L.

Thanks for all the replies guys, appreciate it. I'm still no closer to a decision. I've come across a few people saying how much they love the 24/50/135 combo, but then the 35/85/135 is also popular. I don't think 35 is wide enough as my widest lens though, and the 24LII being very new compared to the 35L really makes me want it over the 35L. I think a few people will give me a slap for saying that though as the 35L is still amazing... Round and round we go!

I could really do with renting the 24L and the 35L but after renting them both I've lost a fair bit of cash that I could put towards other more permanent stuff!

Rsyx wrote in post #10951009
I would personally get the Canon 50mm f/1.4 over the Sigma any day, but I'll start out by saying that I never owned either one. I have a ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar at the moment, which I like very much.

The reason I'd pick the Canon over the Sigma is because of the rendering, I personally prefer the Canon rendering to the Sigma one. From the samples I've seen the bokeh can be quite harsh, but it really seems to depend on the background how pronounced this "issue" is.

Um, that's just plain wrong. Bokeh may be subjective but almost everyone agrees the Sigma 50 is much more pleasing than it's Canon counterpart.

Option 2: By a landslide.

24L II and the 50L. That'll be an awesome kit!

.mark. wrote in post #10971291
Could you point me to a couple of these reviews please? I'd be interested to here some more opinions as I'm sure I remember reading the 24LII being better than the 35L.

Thanks for all the replies guys, appreciate it. I'm still no closer to a decision. I've come across a few people saying how much they love the 24/50/135 combo, but then the 35/85/135 is also popular. I don't think 35 is wide enough as my widest lens though, and the 24LII being very new compared to the 35L really makes me want it over the 35L. I think a few people will give me a slap for saying that though as the 35L is still amazing... Round and round we go!

I could really do with renting the 24L and the 35L but after renting them both I've lost a fair bit of cash that I could put towards other more permanent stuff!

Well, it may not be entirely unanimous. But check out some of the sites listed below.

Here is one from lens rentals that compares the two directly (kind of):
http://www.lensrentals​.com …angle/canon-24mm-f1.4l-ii

The reviews at photozone also seem to point to the 35mm being the better lens and seem kind of disappointed with the 24mm:
http://www.photozone.d​e/all-tests

The reviews at the digital picture might help too. This is one of my favorites
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

The 26 users who reviewed he 24mm rated it slightly higher, 9.8, compared to the 180 users who reviewed the 35mm, 9.5:
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …&sort=4&perpage​=12&stype=

Unfortunately they have not done MTF tests of the 24mm at photodo but the 35mm scores extremely well:
http://www.photodo.com​/browse-lenses

Ken Rockwell didn't have much to offer on this one either:
http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/lenses/inde​x.htm

Hope this helps.

I should have mentioned that I have the Canon 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, and 135 f/2 as well. I really like the 50 f/1.4 on my 40D. It is a little soft wide open but still sharp enough for me (especially in the center). It does not produce color/contrast like the 135L. It is probably more like the 85 f/1.8, but doesn't autofocus as fast. The reason I am saying this is that the 50 f/1.4 is probably not that much better than the 50 f/1.8. I could be wrong though, I have never used the nifty.

If you go with option one and keep the nifty, your kit would have more versatility. You would have two new toys to play with and one (the FE) that is totally different from everything else in your kit.

If you go with option 2, it seems like you would have one new toy and a slight upgrade over your nifty. You would also have less versatility in your kit and the widest you could go is 24mm. I am selling my 17-55mm because 17mm on my 40D (equivalent to 27mm ff) was often not wide enough. And because its a zoom.

I have never used the 24 or the 35 either. So, keep that in mind.

Just to make things more difficult:

Have you considered a Zeiss lens? People seem to love the 35mm f/2. They just released a 35 f/1.4 too. They are manual focus though.

What about the Canon 28mm f/1.8? It doesn't get the greatest formal reviews, but users seem to like it pretty well. Pictures people produce with it are pretty nice too (see flickr and POTN). If Canon made a 35mm f/1.8 you would be set. you could get that, this 28 and the FE. But they don't. So you have to decide what is best for you. I am anxious to hear wht you decide on.

thanks for the posts tjbrock42. I'm also doing some reading/looking at shots from the Samyang 14mm and the Sigma 12-24. What to people think about these lenses? I'm now thinking maybe option 1 w/ samyang instead of FE giving me 14mm 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 135 2 ...

I just ordered the Zeis 21 for my 5D2.