Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2012 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)

  
 
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


A few things to think about:

1. A critical question: How do these supposed optical shortcomings actually affect your photographs? (Or, stated a different way: Are you chasing the "better" just because it is said to be "better?")

2. Not unrelated to the first question, is the value of the possible improvement (or, in the end, not) from the 24-70 greater than the sum of things you will give up, including the ability to make photographs with focal lengths between 16mm and 24mm and between 70mm and 105mm and/or the functionality that IS provides?

I will agree that for many photographers owning the 16-35mm f/2.8 and the 35mm prime is redundant. For some, less so, and for others a different and less expensive 35mm prime may accomplish what they need.

A distinct "first world dilemma" (to use your excellent characterization) is that of being seduced by the newest and shiniest thing and then falling into thought patterns that grossly amplify the imagined wonderfulness and life-changing effect of said shiny thing, and amplifying the importance of the presumed shortcomings of the things we already have. This is a very real problem among certain classes of photographers.

Several things can serve as antidotes:

1. Focus more on the photographs - not the on-screen pixel peeping, but on the final product - and less on the acquisition of gear.

2. Once you make an absolute, certain, final decision that you "need" some new piece of equipment, resolve to sit on that decision for at least a full month before making a purchase. At any point if you start the internal debate once again, recognize that you did not really make an "absolute, certain, final decision," and re-set the one month clock. (The passions aroused during the decision-making phase often are hard to resist - and this technique can help you deal with that.)

Finally, I am absolutely certain that the new 24-70 lens is a very fine piece of equipment. I'm equally certain that the gear you have is also excellent and I know that it can and does produce wonderful photographs every day. (I have a photograph in an upcoming show in Yosemite Valley that was shot with the 24-105, and I consider it one of my best photographs and one of my best prints.) The search for the best gear, especially when all of this gear is really very, very good, is far less critical than continuous attention to improving the photographs we make with our gear. Even better, the more you move in that direction, the more that photography becomes a passion that is far more powerful and rewarding than gear collecting. :-)

Good luck with your decisions.

Dan

Bones74 wrote:
**in the face of my 1st world "dilemma" to follow I'd just like to say what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary earlier is a shocking tragedy and my thoughts are with the families affected. I also hope none of the FM forum members have been affected.**

I've been pondering over selling three of my "short" lenses (35L, 16-35 ii and 24-105) and replacing with the 24-70 ii, mainly for use on my 5Dmk3. I know each of those 3 lenses bring different attributes to the party, but here's my reasoning:

35L - Its a great lens, but I hardly ever use it.
...Show more


Edited on Dec 15, 2012 at 02:53 PM · View previous versions



Dec 15, 2012 at 01:35 PM
dr_teng
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


I've had 50mm as my widest lens for a while now. It all depends on your shooting style...you certainly seem to have thought it through and I can't see any problems with your thought process there. You'll have less range but a ton more convenience, I say, go for it.


Dec 15, 2012 at 02:41 PM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


dr_teng wrote:
I've had 50mm as my widest lens for a while now. It all depends on your shooting style...you certainly seem to have thought it through and I can't see any problems with your thought process there. You'll have less range but a ton more convenience, I say, go for it.


Thanks dr_teng I tend to enjoy all disciplines of photography which is why bought the lenses I did. Towards the end of last year I was going to try my hand at weddings (hence the light sucking 35L) but after shooting one wedding I realized it wasn't for me. Since I bought the 35L I've probably only put about 600 shots through it.



Dec 15, 2012 at 05:09 PM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


gdanmitchell wrote:
A few things to think about:

1. A critical question: How do these supposed optical shortcomings actually affect your photographs? (Or, stated a different way: Are you chasing the "better" just because it is said to be "better?")

2. Not unrelated to the first question, is the value of the possible improvement (or, in the end, not) from the 24-70 greater than the sum of things you will give up, including the ability to make photographs with focal lengths between 16mm and 24mm and between 70mm and 105mm and/or the functionality that IS provides?

I will agree that for many photographers owning...Show more



Dec 15, 2012 at 05:20 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Bones74 wrote:
Wow Dan, thanks for for putting so much thought into your post I must put my hand up and admit to being a gearheaded pixel peeper! If I wasn't severely budget limited the amount of gear I'd collect would put Peter's (Petkal) to shame I do find my 24-105 a wonderful good light walk around lens and with some (hopefully) decent PP produces excellent results. You make some excellent points and I know I have a lot to learn and I put a lot of effort into that process. All this discussion has given me a little perspective
...Show more

Thanks for saying that. Sometimes writing anything for photography and countering gear fetishism gets me into a lot of trouble in this forum.

And, truly, good luck with your decisions... and with your photography!

Dan



Dec 15, 2012 at 11:01 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Bones74 wrote:
**in the face of my 1st world "dilemma" to follow I'd just like to say what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary earlier is a shocking tragedy and my thoughts are with the families affected. I also hope none of the FM forum members have been affected.**

I've been pondering over selling three of my "short" lenses (35L, 16-35 ii and 24-105) and replacing with the 24-70 ii, mainly for use on my 5Dmk3. I know each of those 3 lenses bring different attributes to the party, but here's my reasoning:

35L - Its a great lens, but I hardly ever use it.
...Show more

Samyang 14mm at $299 might be a relatively inexpensive way to make up for loss of the 16-35 ultra wide side of things. That plus 24-70 II sounds pretty good to me since you seem to not like fast 35mm focal length (for me I think I might like that more than a fast 50). If I was to keep one I'd keep the 35 1.4 and dump the 16-35 for sure. Samyang is mad sharp edge to edge. You could also change the 35 1.4 for a less expensive (and apparently even better performing sigma). But then you dont seem to care for the 35 length much so dump both. I'd say 24-70 II + samyang 14mm (+sigma 35 1.4 if you ever did want that again).





Dec 16, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Better than the highly distorted Samyang as a replacement for the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 Mark II is the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. It has less distortion than the Canon zoom and is almost as sharp at less than half the cost. I got it a few months ago and I'm very pleased with its performance. Though build is much less important than optical performance, I like how solid the lens feels.


Dec 16, 2012 at 06:41 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Monito wrote:
Better than the highly distorted Samyang as a replacement for the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 Mark II is the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. It has less distortion than the Canon zoom and is almost as sharp at less than half the cost. I got it a few months ago and I'm very pleased with its performance. Though build is much less important than optical performance, I like how solid the lens feels.


Doesn't that have tons of CA and if it is only almost as sharp as the 16-35L then it is not nearly as sharp as the samyang.



Dec 16, 2012 at 07:52 PM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Monito wrote:
Better than the highly distorted Samyang as a replacement for the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 Mark II is the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. It has less distortion than the Canon zoom and is almost as sharp at less than half the cost. I got it a few months ago and I'm very pleased with its performance. Though build is much less important than optical performance, I like how solid the lens feels.


skibum5 wrote:
Doesn't that have tons of CA and if it is only almost as sharp as the 16-35L then it is not nearly as sharp as the samyang.


Some CA, but not "tons". Photozone calls it "moderate". The Samyang is only sharp at one focal length, and has over 5 percent barrel distortion. Almost a fisheye. A sharp CA-free fisheye perhaps. See for yourself:



The Canon 16-35 mm Mark II has the best balance of characteristics (moderate distortion, low CA, sharpest of the two zooms), but has the heaviest price.

To some extent, you get what you pay for. If you put your horizon lines of your landscapes dead static center, the Samyang is a stellar performer. If you photograph interiors or architecture, the Samyang will kill you. Not sure what else you'd use it for, certainly not portraits. All the same, it is an interesting lens for the price, but not for me. The Tokina came in as the best balance for me when I include price in the equation.



Dec 16, 2012 at 08:37 PM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Honestly while the 24-70 f2.8 II tests and performs better than the previous version it is still, well, a 24-70 f2.8 zoom. An overpriced one at that IMHO. It is what it is.

If you are, as an example, a wedding photog and that lens lives on your camera then its a good buy.

If not, selling a few good lenses for that and losing some focal length capability in the process will end up in buyers remorse most likely.

The 35L is a beautiful lens, perfect for low light, and the 16-35 II is a really good lens also. The 24-105 IS L is one of the best travel and general lenses made.

I think you have a good combination of lenses for a wide variety of photography.



Dec 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Sneakyracer wrote:
Honestly while the 24-70 f2.8 II tests and performs better than the previous version it is still, well, a 24-70 f2.8 zoom. An overpriced one at that IMHO. It is what it is.

If you are, as an example, a wedding photog and that lens lives on your camera then its a good buy.

If not, selling a few good lenses for that and losing some focal length capability in the process will end up in buyers remorse most likely.

The 35L is a beautiful lens, perfect for low light, and the 16-35 II is a really good lens also.
...Show more

I'd add landscapes to the 24-70 II list, since you often care about fine details at far edges.



Dec 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Eyvind Ness
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Dan, do you ever buy any new equipment, at all?


Dec 17, 2012 at 01:27 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Sell the 35L and 24-105 and keep the 16-35.

Buy a 24-70 f2.8L II now, and wait for the 7D MKII.

Later, use the 16-35 on the 5D3 for 16-35 and use the 24-70 on the 7D2 for 35-110, and 10fps?

Constant f2.8, weather sealed(ish), and focal lengths from 16-110mm (approx.).



Dec 17, 2012 at 01:44 AM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Paul Mo wrote:
Sell the 35L and 24-105 and keep the 16-35.

Buy a 24-70 f2.8L II now, and wait for the 7D MKII.

Later, use the 16-35 on the 5D3 for 16-35 and use the 24-70 on the 7D2 for 35-110, and 10fps?

Constant f2.8, weather sealed(ish), and focal lengths from 16-110mm (approx.).


So are you saying I should sell my 1Dmk4 and replace with a 7Dmk2?

The 35L is currently being advertised, hopefully it will sell soon Having used the 24-105 yesterday, the sharpness is really good on the 5D3, but the IS made a huge difference. This is why I'm not sure whether to go for outright 24-70 IQ in the L, or pay half the price for the very good Tamron with VC.



Dec 17, 2012 at 03:58 AM
Bones74
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Sneakyracer wrote:
Honestly while the 24-70 f2.8 II tests and performs better than the previous version it is still, well, a 24-70 f2.8 zoom. An overpriced one at that IMHO. It is what it is.

If you are, as an example, a wedding photog and that lens lives on your camera then its a good buy.

If not, selling a few good lenses for that and losing some focal length capability in the process will end up in buyers remorse most likely.

The 35L is a beautiful lens, perfect for low light, and the 16-35 II is a really good lens also.
...Show more

You're not wrong about the 24-70 ii being over priced. It launched here in the UK for £2300 (all prices incl VAT), but it's dropped to £1900 now, which is still £1000 more than the original. I do like the 35L, but as I mentioned I just dont use it enough to warrant keeping it. For me it's the focal length. I'm not one of those people who likes to get right in someone's face when shooting. I took it with me yesterday to use on my 1Dmk4 (I let the wife use the 5D3 and 24-105), but it stayed in my bag and I used the 70-200 ii, which as it turned out was perfect for what I ended up shooting which was candid's of people serving on street stalls, performers, rollercoasters and other fairground rides.

You actually nailed it with "I think you have a good combination of lenses for a wide variety of photography." I enjoy shooting all sorts which was why I selected the lenses I bought. I wanted to cover as many bases as possible within my budget. After being given so much to think about I think I might settle on this:

16-35 ii
24-105 (unless the stabilized Tamron proves itself to be very good wide open or at least from f/3.2)
70-200 ii
buy a S120-300 OS when the new version is available or maybe a 300 2.8 IS v1. Both will be far better than using the 70-200 with 2 x ext. Thanks for your input




Dec 17, 2012 at 04:43 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Monito wrote:
Some CA, but not "tons". Photozone calls it "moderate". The Samyang is only sharp at one focal length, and has over 5 percent barrel distortion. Almost a fisheye. A sharp CA-free fisheye perhaps. See for yourself:

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/samyang_14_28_5d/14mm_distortion.png

The Canon 16-35 mm Mark II has the best balance of characteristics (moderate distortion, low CA, sharpest of the two zooms), but has the heaviest price.

To some extent, you get what you pay for. If you put your horizon lines of your landscapes dead static center, the Samyang is a stellar performer. If you photograph interiors or architecture, the Samyang will kill you. Not sure
...Show more

All lenses distort if not leveled. That's why I returned the Zeiss 15 f2.8, this wide almost always needs up pointing for landscapes or severe crops on the bottom. This is shift lens work. But I kept my Samyang 14 and got a 16-35. The Samyang is cheap enough to keep for occasional use, the Zeiss was not. The 16-35 provides the focal length versitility not provided by primes.



Dec 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Eyvind Ness wrote:
Dan, do you ever buy any new equipment, at all?


Occasionally, when I need it. But never for the thrill of buying new gear. (Got a 100mm macro earlier this year.)

But, in general, I probably spend more on paper and ink than on camera stuff.

Dan



Dec 17, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


ben egbert wrote:
All lenses distort if not leveled. That's why I returned the Zeiss 15 f2.8, this wide almost always needs up pointing for landscapes or severe crops on the bottom. This is shift lens work.


Wrong.

You do not understand perspective and do not understand optical design defect barrel distortion.

Leveling has nothing to do with lens distortion.

Pointing up or down has nothing to do with it. When you point up or down and get tilt, that is perspective. Perspective is the same for all lenses, including the lens in your eye.

This is really basic stuff and it is not the first time you've posted this mistake. You returned a perfectly good Zeiss 15 mm lens for "needs up pointing".



Dec 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


Monito wrote:
Wrong.

You do not understand perspective and do not understand optical design defect barrel distortion.

Leveling has nothing to do with lens distortion.

Pointing up or down has nothing to do with it. When you point up or down and get tilt, that is perspective. Perspective is the same for all lenses, including the lens in your eye.

This is really basic stuff and it is not the first time you've posted this mistake. You returned a perfectly good Zeiss 15 mm lens for "needs up pointing".


Distortion is distortion regardless of how it is created. I don't do well with pedantic's and pedantics don't do well with me.



Dec 17, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :)


ben egbert wrote:
Distortion is distortion regardless of how it is created.


That's as ridiculous a statement as it would be to say "blur is blur regardless of how it is created".

Just like there are many causes of blur, each with its own set of countermeasures, there are many causes of distortion, each with a set of countermeasures.

ben egbert wrote:
I don't do well with pedantic's and pedantics don't do well with me.


If you knew the basic fundamentals you wouldn't call it pedantry. Your loss, but ours too because needless equipment returns raise prices for everybody.



Dec 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.