spent all my budget now, do i need anything else?

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok so I've made my transition to full frame now and i feel like it's complete in terms of lenses:

5dMkII
17-40 L
24-70 L
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
70-200 f/4 L

at some point in the future if I could afford to I'd change the 17-40 for a 16-35 but not now. I don't think I'll ever own a 70-200 2.8 they just seem WAY too big and heavy for me.

I shoot mainly portraits and I love landscapes when I can find time, which is rare. I feel like I can stop looking at lenses now and concentrate any budget on accessories like speedlites and filters

anyone spot a hole in my lineup?
 
Great lens lineup...

Got a very similar kit to you with a 5DII, 17-40, 24-70, 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8. The thing I'm wanting now is fast primes - 85 1.2, 135 2 and 300 2.8.

Only thing glass wise I may consider you're missing is possibly a 1.4x TC for when you need that bit extra reach?
 
joescrivens said:
Ok so I've made my transition to full frame now and i feel like it's complete in terms of lenses:

5dMkII
17-40 L
24-70 L
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
70-200 f/4 L

at some point in the future if I could afford to I'd change the 17-40 for a 16-35 but not now. I don't think I'll ever own a 70-200 2.8 they just seem WAY too big and heavy for me.

I shoot mainly portraits and I love landscapes when I can find time, which is rare. I feel like I can stop looking at lenses now and concentrate any budget on accessories like speedlites and filters

anyone spot a hole in my lineup?
Click to expand...

100 Macro :) ?

Seriously, the 85 will do everything the 100 would do in portrait mode, how about some extension tubes (just in case).

Matt
 
Last edited:
It's good you have reached that point Joe, I am almost there too. Just need a fast short tele-prime and that'll be me, job's a good 'un.

Question: What is it that makes you want to upgrade your 17-40 to a 16-35 eventually? Surely for landscapes you'll be stopping down anyway, and I don't know about you but I really appreciate the extra 5mm, the 17-40 actually cuts it as a walkabout lens for me because of that :shrug: :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:
Impspeed said:
Great lens lineup...

Got a very similar kit to you with a 5DII, 17-40, 24-70, 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8. The thing I'm wanting now is fast primes - 85 1.2, 135 2 and 300 2.8.

Only thing glass wise I may consider you're missing is possibly a 1.4x TC for when you need that bit extra reach?
Click to expand...

that 85 1.2 I think i'd buy if I won the lottery, that is extravegance at it's best! for now will stick with the 1.8. the 135 I'll have to try one of these I find 50-100 is my most used portrait length. Don't have a need for the 300.

an extension tube could be a good suggestion though

MatBin said:
100 Macro :) ?

Seriously, the 85 will do everything the 100 would do in portrait mode, how about some extension tubes (just in case).

Matt
Click to expand...

ha, yeah I do wish I could keep that macro, just to keep it on my shelf and hold it every once in a while but alas need the funds so potentially sold already.
 
trencheel303 said:
It's good you have reached that point Joe, I am almost there too. Just need a fast short tele-prime and that'll be me, job's a good 'un.

Question: What is it that makes you want to upgrade your 17-40 to a 16-35 eventually? Surely for landscapes you'll be stopping down anyway, and I don't know about you but I really appreciate the extra 5mm, the 17-40 actually cuts it as a walkabout lens for me because of that :shrug: :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

well I have read that the 16-35 has even less barrel distortion than the 17-40 and also I think i'll be using the 17-40 for filming a lot as well as landscapes so to have the 2.8 there would be very useful. I wouldn't miss the extra 5mm as i don't think i'll be using it as a walkabout much since i have the 24-70.
 
70-200 2.8 (MKi or II) - it's big, ugly , heavy, inconvenient, attention grabbing, expensive etc etc etc

but good god it's a great do everything portrait lens - especially if kid portraits are in the equation when sitting them still isn't an option

200mm at 2.8 get some amazing flattering headshots with beautiful bokeh

look how many of the top pro lifestyle portrait photographers and some studio photographers have it as their go to lens for banker shots

I rarely use anything else now
 
Don't go near a 135L 2 :eek:
 
btw - 16-35 - not sure it's worthwhile - 2.8 aperture at that length makes so little difference anyway - and the 17-40 is a lovely quality wide angle lens
 
joescrivens said:
well I have read that the 16-35 has even less barrel distortion than the 17-40 and also I think i'll be using the 17-40 for filming a lot as well as landscapes so to have the 2.8 there would be very useful. I wouldn't miss the extra 5mm as i don't think i'll be using it as a walkabout much since i have the 24-70.
Click to expand...

got ya.
 
I had much the same as you:
17-35 f/2.8; 24-70 f/2.8; 35 f/2; 50 f/1.4; 70-200 f/2.8...

I've managed with this or a similar line-up for over 15 years, so I think you'll be OK...maybe upgrade to a 70-200 f/2.8 if you ever decide to go to the gym and strengthen those biceps...lol

The only ones I felt I was missing were a decent macro lens and a decent dedicated portrait lens, which I sorted 2nd-hand from members on here: a very nice, super-sharp Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 and a gorgeous (now that I can focus it properly wide-open...lol) 85mm f/1.4...
 
sheridant said:
btw - 16-35 - not sure it's worthwhile - 2.8 aperture at that length makes so little difference anyway - and the 17-40 is a lovely quality wide angle lens
Click to expand...

And the 16-35 is more flarey - see comparisons on Ken Rockwell.

It's easy to get a bit over obsessive with lenses. You can never have too many of them, but somehow I always manage to get by with the 24-105 if I haven't got anything else to hand (which is often). You just have to think a bit more, work a bit harder. Maybe even walk a few yards!

As a comment, my walkabout kit is one small bag with 5D2, 24-105L and a big flash gun with diffusers. I seem to use the flash a lot, much more than I would an extra lens, and it makes a big difference.

Get those Speedlites working - it'll take your photography in a completely new direction. I was using all four of mine yesterday for some interiors and the estate agent just called me to say how amazing the light was - it looked like bright sun when she knew it was raining! :thumbs:
 
i think the 85 1.8 is a great dedicated portrait lens - rocket fast focusing too compared to the 1.2 :(
 
I am not surprised, I think I'd focus slowly too if I had half a ton of glass in me :lol:
 
to richards point - next is flashes

for goodness sake don't start looking at pocket wizards - that's a whole new area of horrible expense - but they are really good :nuts:
 
sheridant said:
70-200 2.8 (MKi or II) - it's big, ugly , heavy, inconvenient, attention grabbing, expensive etc etc etc

but good god it's a great do everything portrait lens - especially if kid portraits are in the equation when sitting them still isn't an option

200mm at 2.8 get some amazing flattering headshots with beautiful bokeh

look how many of the top pro lifestyle portrait photographers and some studio photographers have it as their go to lens for banker shots

I rarely use anything else now
Click to expand...

as said in OP though I can't see myself ever owning the 2.8's in the 70-200 - I just can't get over how big they are, really not for me. I'll stick with the f/4 it's so light and small.
 
Arkady said:
The only ones I felt I was missing were a decent macro lens and a decent dedicated portrait lens, which I sorted 2nd-hand from members on here: a very nice, super-sharp Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 and a gorgeous (now that I can focus it properly wide-open...lol) 85mm f/1.4...
Click to expand...

unfortunately i have had to sell my 100mm 2.8L macro much to my sadness to fund the 24-70, i found i didn't really do a lot of macro though, maybe later in life i will and then i'll look at buying it again.

I have the 85 so am pleased about that
 
joescrivens said:
unfortunately i have had to sell my 100mm 2.8L macro much to my sadness to fund the 24-70, i found i didn't really do a lot of macro though, maybe later in life i will and then i'll look at buying it again.

I have the 85 so am pleased about that
Click to expand...

I use tubes on my 70-200L 4 IS for macro. Not that I'm big into it, and 1:4 or 1:2 is more common than 1:1, but I find the quality very good and the versatility of the zoom in terms of shooting distance is really very handy. Sold two macro primes, never missed them.

You bought that 135L 2 yet? Check out the bokeh! :love: Call yourself a portrait man... ;)
 
I have nearly fullfilled my transition however, i am leaning more to primes than zooms.

I have:

17-40 L
24-70 L
50 1.4
100 2.8 Macro
135 L (as of next week)

my other items on my wish list are

28mm 1.8
85mm 1.8 (I have easy access to this through a friend so it will be the last to buy)

any upgrades on the above maybe the 16-35 f/2.8 II and maybe replace the sigma 70-200 i sold with the MKII canon version, only if i have money to burn as quite happy to live with a 135mm + 1.4TC
 
I think the only hole you have is the massive one in your wallet, yes that comment is born purely out of jealousy.
 
HoppyUK said:
I use tubes on my 70-200L 4 IS for macro. Not that I'm big into it, and 1:4 or 1:2 is more common than 1:1, but I find the quality very good and the versatility of the zoom in terms of shooting distance is really very handy. Sold two macro primes, never missed them.

You bought that 135L 2 yet? Check out the bokeh! :love: Call yourself a portrait man... ;)
Click to expand...

maybe a year from now I'll get that bad boy
 
a1ex2001 said:
I think the only hole you have is the massive one in your wallet, yes that comment is born purely out of jealousy.
Click to expand...

yeah I price that up at around 4 grand! although much of it has come more gradually (last 2 years) and then selling other stuff to fund this collection. I think I'm about a grand down from owning my 7d and the 7 lenses I had with that.
 
when i went full frame recently with a 5d. i also went for the 17-40
i do a lot of landscapes and i always used the canon 10-22 on a cropped body.
so the 16-35 is equivalent to the 10-22, but the 17-40 was cheaper and almost similar focal lengths.
and beleive it or not , the 17-40 hardly ever gets used. i always seem to use the 24-70 for landscapes.. its strange considering the 10-22 was always used before
oh and i seem to use my 50mm 1.8 a lot now, that hardly got used on the crop body.
how about a 100-400L to complete the line up
 
neil_g said:
ask my missus and she'll tell you the sigma (35g heavier than the canon) isnt heavy.. ;)

seriously, she hand holds it at day long events..
Click to expand...

my family tell me my daughter is heavy too, but to us she's not cos we pick her up every day. I guess when you get used to holding something big and heavy, it just feels normal.

Thats how I feel when I go to the toilet anyway. :D
 
marky.b said:
when i went full frame recently with a 5d. i also went for the 17-40
i do a lot of landscapes and i always used the canon 10-22 on a cropped body.
so the 16-35 is equivalent to the 10-22, but the 17-40 was cheaper and almost similar focal lengths.
and beleive it or not , the 17-40 hardly ever gets used. i always seem to use the 24-70 for landscapes.. its strange considering the 10-22 was always used before
oh and i seem to use my 50mm 1.8 a lot now, that hardly got used on the crop body.
how about a 100-400L to complete the line up
Click to expand...

I tried that 100-400L in a shop once and immediately couldn't deal with the pull push focus, also 200-400 doesn't hold a lot of interest for me, nothing I shoot is ever that far away.
 
joescrivens said:
my family tell me my daughter is heavy too, but to us she's not cos we pick her up every day. I guess when you get used to holding something big and heavy, it just feels normal.

Thats how I feel when I go to the toilet anyway. :D
Click to expand...


you also forget how deep and cold the water is as well :D
 
joescrivens said:
I tried that 100-400L in a shop once and immediately couldn't deal with the pull push focus, also 200-400 doesn't hold a lot of interest for me, nothing I shoot is ever that far away.
Click to expand...

yes the pull push is a bit strange
ive had mine 4 yrs and still cant get used to it
but i love the lens
 
I would love a 100-400 but the stories of the friction ring wearing away and the dust ingress kind of puts me of?
 
33L said:
I would love a 100-400 but the stories of the friction ring wearing away and the dust ingress kind of puts me of?
Click to expand...

see my post 100-400 fault
my friction ring gone and its going in for repair
im not the only one, but its still a good lens
canon elstree have fixed repair prices for things like that. mines off there next week
 
If anything I'd probably just add a Kenko 1.4x extender to that list and then you've got yourself a touch more reach on the 70-200 for not a lot of pennies Joe.


joescrivens said:
well I have read that the 16-35 has even less barrel distortion than the 17-40 and also I think i'll be using the 17-40 for filming a lot as well as landscapes so to have the 2.8 there would be very useful. I wouldn't miss the extra 5mm as i don't think i'll be using it as a walkabout much since i have the 24-70.
Click to expand...

I've, literally, just acquired a 5D, and I popped the 16-35 on expecting it to be a optical mess at the edges, it's amazing. Very sharp, very wide, and the light fall off is well controlled. However, you could just get by with LR3 if you have it Joe? It does a stunning job with the lens calibration alterations - even.
 
marky.b said:
see my post 100-400 fault
my friction ring gone and its going in for repair
im not the only one, but its still a good lens
canon elstree have fixed repair prices for things like that. mines off there next week
Click to expand...

I followed the thread and before that not heard of the problem. Iam amazed at the time before going varies wildly. (I guess dependant on use). Its one of those thing s that would worry me and treasure the lens a bit too much rather than use it fully. However for the cost of repair is nothing compared t othe cost of the lens i guess.
 
33L said:
I would love a 100-400 but the stories of the friction ring wearing away and the dust ingress kind of puts me of?
Click to expand...

I've just had my friction ring fixed on my 3.25 year old lens for a fixed price of £127.50 including AF calibration, return carriage, VAT and six month warranty on the whole lens, not just the repair.

I do think that the wear rate on that friction ring is pretty poor, but "abuse" can accelerate the wear. Abuse includes getting the friction material wet (it's not a sealed lens so do not get it wet!) and forcing the zoom action when the tension is really tighter than it ought to be if you want to zoom.

There's a little dust in the lens but seriously not a problem. I haven't cleaned a sensor in almost two years. Following the repair I would say my lens is as good as new, and possibly better. :)
 
There is a massive hole... No Nikon. Ditch the lot and get a proper camera :D

Looks like accessories to me is all u need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top