Considering line-up change, looking for a push in the right direction...

Just thinking out loud and always appreciate the insight from others...

I currently have a 5D + 30D and my lenses consist of the 17-40L, 70-200 F/4 IS L, and 100mm Macro (non-IS/non-IS). I am letting the macro go, and may or may not replace the 70-200 with a 135L, but that's another discussion altogether.

I am not a heavy telephoto user, and prefer the wide-normal range. I am looking to add some lenses in these preferred focal lengths, and really want to add some speed to my bag. I eventually want to add both the 24-70L + 35L to my bag, its just a question of which first! I would definitely say that I am more experienced with zooms than primes, so while I most attracted to the prime, I worry about missing the zoom versatility.

Shooting is mostly landscape, stock, travel, and abstract, some street + environmental portraiture, and if the wife has her way in the near future, my family.

Any thoughts on which to get first? I am in the position to add one now, but it may be some time before I can afford the other.

Cheers!

Hi Brad,

Dorman wrote in post #10977081
Just thinking out loud and always appreciate the insight from others...

I currently have a 5D + 30D and my lenses consist of the 17-40L, 70-200 F/4 IS L, and 100mm Macro (non-IS/non-IS). I have a local photographer who is interested in purchasing the macro and 70-200, and this has got me thinking about what I want from my setup, and therefore considering some changes.

I am considering letting those lenses go as I am not much into macro work, and I am not a heavy telephoto user - I also find F/4 to be a bit limiting. I am looking to add some lenses in the focal lengths I prefer to work in, and really want to add some speed to my bag.

I have owned the 24-70L in the past, and feel that it is a versatile performer with very good IQ. I do have lust for the 35L + 135L but I am not experienced with many primes and I'm not sure if I will miss the flexibility offered by the zooms.

Shooting is mostly landscape, stock, travel, and abstract, some street + environmental portraiture, and if the wife has her way in the near future, my family.

Here is what I am thinking:

17-40L, 24-70 F/2.8L, 135mm F/2L [add the 24-70L later]

or

17-40L, 35mm F/1.4L, 135mm F/2L [add the 35L later]

Any thoughts?

Yes .

Keep the 17-40L for sure, considering what you do with it. Fine lens for, amongst others, WA landscape, travel.

The 135L is an incredible lens, and personally I found that after I got the 135L, I stopped shooting the 70-200 F/4L IS completely. I do have an Extender 1/4X, however, so if I need a bit longer, I have it available. Obviously, as you have a 30D, in a way that could serve as an extender as well. BTW, it is an excellent lens for (semi)macro too, so no need to feel you miss the 100 macro either: just add a few extension tubes. You may actually be surprised. And yes, I sold my 100 macro too after getting the 135L. I am cheating a little bit however, as I do still have and plan to keep the MP-E 65.

Now, for the 24-70L. If you still plan to shoot any weddings, I would get it if I were you, and look at your flickr. You will probably like it for that, and possible for family shoots.

Regarding the 35L, the question really is whether you do like 35mm as a FL well enough to use it instead of a 24-70L. First of all, there seem to be those who love 35 mm, and those who just don't gel with it. However, this is also true for the alternatives, namely 24L and/or 50L. Considering you have/had a gap between 40 and 70 I reckon you won't go for a 50L very likely, so that leaves the 24L or 35L instead of a 24-70L. These lenses do allw well for street, and environmental portraits. For family I would personally prefer a shorter and a longer lens, where 135L may be a little long, even on the 5D, and either 24L or 35L will do fine (as does the 24-70L).

The 17-40L has a geometrical midpoint of 26 mm, IOW, close to 24 mm and hence a 24L, the 24-70 has a geometrical midpoint of 41 mm, hence relatively close to 35 mm, and therefore a 35L.

So, three questions remain: do you need F/1.4 or is F/2.8 more than enough for you, do you need the flexibility of a zoom or not, and do you think you gel with 35 mm as an FL?

I think it is obvious where the answers to these questions will lead .

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #10977198
Hi Brad,

Yes .

Keep the 17-40L for sure, considering what you do with it. Fine lens for, amongst others, WA landscape, travel.

The 135L is an incredible lens, and personally I found that after I got the 135L, I stopped shooting the 70-200 F/4L IS completely. I do have an Extender 1/4X, however, so if I need a bit longer, I have it available. Obviously, as you have a 30D, in a way that could serve as an extender as well. BTW, it is an excellent lens for (semi)macro too, so no need to feel you miss the 100 macro either: just add a few extension tubes. You may actually be surprised. And yes, I sold my 100 macro too after getting the 135L. I am cheating a little bit however, as I do still have and plan to keep the MP-E 65.

Now, for the 24-70L. If you still plan to shoot any weddings, I would get it if I were you, and look at your flickr. You will probably like it for that, and possible for family shoots.

Regarding the 35L, the question really is whether you do like 35mm as a FL well enough to use it instead of a 24-70L. First of all, there seem to be those who love 35 mm, and those who just don't gel with it. However, this is also true for the alternatives, namely 24L and/or 50L. Considering you have/had a gap between 40 and 70 I reckon you won't go for a 50L very likely, so that leaves the 24L or 35L instead of a 24-70L. These lenses do allw well for street, and environmental portraits. For family I would personally prefer a shorter and a longer lens, where 135L may be a little long, even on the 5D, and either 24L or 35L will do fine (as does the 24-70L).

The 17-40L has a geometrical midpoint of 26 mm, IOW, close to 24 mm and hence a 24L, the 24-70 has a geometrical midpoint of 41 mm, hence relatively close to 35 mm, and therefore a 35L.

So, three questions remain: do you need F/1.4 or is F/2.8 more than enough for you, do you need the flexibility of a zoom or not, and do you think you gel with 35 mm as an FL?

I think it is obvious where the answers to these questions will lead .

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks for the advice Wim, as you can see I ninja edited the thread to really focus in on the core question of which to go for first. I will more than likely swap the 70-200 for the 135, but that's a separate decision really.

In regards to the three questions. I do gel with the 35mm focal length, I've parked a number of zooms at that fov and shot a large number of frames. It is certainly a fov that I enjoy and I do not foresee me going wider with 24mm, or to the 50mm focal length. I've done enough diving to know that should I go for a wide-standard prime 35mm is the focal length I want. The answer to the other two questions are not as easy, I do like versatility of zooms, especially one that performs as well as the 24-70. I don't NEED F/1.4 but I do want it as an option.

I think the obvious answer is that I will end up with both lenses, I just want to jump on one now while the funds are available, and I go back-and-fourth when making up my mind.

I don't intend to shoot weddings going forward. My 9-5 job is enough work, I am focusing on personal work + stock only at this point.

Thanks.

Dorman wrote in post #10977220
Thanks for the advice Wim, as you can see I ninja edited the thread to really focus in on the core question of which to go for first. I will more than likely swap the 70-200 for the 135, but that's a separate decision really.

In regards to the three questions. I do gel with the 35mm focal length, I've parked a number of zooms at that fov and shot a large number of frames. It is certainly a fov that I enjoy and I do not foresee me going wider with 24mm, or to the 50mm focal length. I've done enough diving to know that should I go for a wide-standard prime 35mm is the focal length I want. The answer to the other two questions are not as easy, I do like versatility of zooms, especially one that performs as well as the 24-70. I don't NEED F/1.4 but I do want it as an option.

I think the obvious answer is that I will end up with both lenses, I just want to jump on one now while the funds are available, and I go back-and-fourth when making up my mind.

I don't intend to shoot weddings going forward. My 9-5 job is enough work, I am focusing on personal work + stock only at this point.

Thanks.

Well, in that case I'd suggest you go with the 35L instead of the 24-70L for now. The 35L is better, and the 24-70L only really offers the added flexibility of being able to zoom, which I personally think is most useful for, e.g., weddings. In short, the way I read it, 2-1 for the 35L here .

Especially since you plan on getting both anyway, why not get the 35L now, first, as this sounds as if it is the "pleasure" lens for you, and certainly less conspicuous for, e.g., street?

Kind regards, Wim

Wimg - solid advice. The 35L is certainly the more exciting and "pleasure" lens for me. I've owned the brick and it is a great performer, but less exciting for me in those regards. I could always do 35L + tamron 28-75 for the best of both worlds, as a stop gap until I have the funds for the brick again.

Dorman wrote in post #10978513
Wimg - solid advice. The 35L is certainly the more exciting and "pleasure" lens for me. I've owned the brick and it is a great performer, but less exciting for me in those regards. I could always do 35L + tamron 28-75 for the best of both worlds, as a stop gap until I have the funds for the brick again.

That sounds like a terrific idea to me, especially for your specific wants and needs .

Kind regards, Wim

Yes Wimg, it will get me the best of both worlds until funds are available for further upgrades. I had thought of 24-70L + lower end prime, but I think the Tamron gives up less to it's L sibling than say something like the 50mm f/1.4 does to the 35L. Guess we could have just PM'd this thread.

Dorman wrote in post #10982482
Yes Wimg, it will get me the best of both worlds until funds are available for further upgrades. I had thought of 24-70L + lower end prime, but I think the Tamron gives up less to it's L sibling than say something like the 50mm f/1.4 does to the 35L. Guess we could have just PM'd this thread.

Kind regards, Wim