Which way to go?
/forum/topic/1062639/0



eosuser2020
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 390
Country: United States

Hello FMers...I am looking for some fresh perspectives on a dilemma. I am ready to make a few changes to my kit. I like to shoot landscape (ultrawide) and portraits.
Current Kit


  1. 40D
  2. Tokina 12-24 F4
  3. Canon 24-105 F4
  4. Canon 70 - 200 F4
  5. Tamron 90 F2.8
  6. Sigma 50 F1.4

Making a move to FF. I am considering 2 options. The $$$ outgo for both is same. Which one do you suggest?
Option 1

  1. 5D
  2. Canon 16-35 F2.8
  3. Canon 35 F1.4
  4. Canon 85 1.2
  5. Tamron 90 F2.8 Macro
  6. Sigma 50 F1.4

Option 2

  1. 5D Mk 2
  2. Canon 17-40 F4
  3. Canon 35 F1.4
  4. Canon 85 1.2
  5. Tamron 90 F2.8 Macro
  6. Sigma 50 F1.4

I am open to consider other options within the same budget. Any suggestions?


BrianO
Registered: Aug 21, 2008
Total Posts: 8527
Country: United States

Option 3


  1. 5D Mk 2
  2. Canon 16-35 f/2.8
  3. Canon 35 f/1.4
  4. Canon 85 f/1.8
  5. Tamron 90 f/2.8 Macro
  6. Sigma 50 f/1.4


The savings from getting the 85mm f/1.8 versus the 85mm f/1.2 would possibly be enough to fund the 5D Mark II over the 5D, and the 16-35mm f/2.8 over the 17-40 f/4.


dmahar
Registered: Jan 12, 2011
Total Posts: 71
Country: Australia

Are you going to do macro work? If so then why not get either of the Canon 100 2.8 macros in place of both the 85 and 90 lenses in your list. The 100L is an amazing portrait lens. This would free up a lot of $$$ for other stuff like a longer lens for compresed landscapes and less intrusive portraiture - perhaps the 70-200 L IS ii would fit those needs. As far as the other stuff goes, I love my 5Dii and 16-35ii.

I am sure you will get lots of different views on what to buy ... So good luck!



TrojanHorse
Registered: Apr 04, 2008
Total Posts: 2747
Country: United States

If you're shooting landscapes at higher f stops, you don't need a 16-35 f2.8. The 17-40 will be fine.



benee
Registered: Nov 28, 2007
Total Posts: 1731
Country: United States

TrojanHorse wrote:
If you're shooting landscapes at higher f stops, you don't need a 16-35 f2.8. The 17-40 will be fine.


This is a good point. Also, you may want to re-think getting rid of your 70-200. It's a nice versatile lens!



oldrattler
Registered: Aug 04, 2009
Total Posts: 5127
Country: United States

IMHO You do not need the 16-35, or the 85 F1.2.. I have the following and have no problems photographing landscape, people, streets, sports, etc..
Canon 1DsII (amazing Camera cheaper than 5DII)
17-40
50 1.8
70-200 4IS
85 1.8
This is a great setup and cheaper than your Option # 1 or 2....



bbasiaga
Registered: Nov 14, 2008
Total Posts: 507
Country: United States

The 24-105 and 70-200s are great lenses on FF. Why not keep them? I agree with those above, Get the 17-40 insteadof the 16-35, and the 1.8 version of the 85.



subgenius
Registered: Jan 18, 2005
Total Posts: 170
Country: United States

If you need to go wide consider Tokina 16-28 f2.8



Massimo Foti
Registered: Dec 20, 2010
Total Posts: 434
Country: Switzerland

TrojanHorse wrote:
If you're shooting landscapes at higher f stops, you don't need a 16-35 f2.8. The 17-40 will be fine.

I was going to say the same thing.
If you are happy about your current 12-24, Tokina's new 17-35 f/4 could be another alternative that let you save a few bucks.



eosuser2020
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 390
Country: United States

85 1.8 vs 85 1.2

I see a lot of people recommending 85 1.8 against 85 1.2. Honestly, I have been looking at pics taken with 85 1.2 on FF and they are GORGEOUS! That was the primary reason for considering the lens. Has anyone used both lenses? Is the difference incremental or is it significant?

Tamron 90 vs Canon 100 IS
I do some amount of macro work but I am happy with tamron. I do not use macro a lot so can not justify spending $$$ for the upgrade.

16-35 vs 17-40
I enjoy landscape work the most and would not like to sacrifice anything on this front. I agree that I do not need 2.8 for landscapes. I was only looking at 16-35 for the improvement in sharpness over 17-40...or is it only theoretical? will anyone notice the difference looking at a picture on a 21 inch monitor?

I was also looking at Nikon 14-24 for landscapes.

70-200 F4 IS
In the last year or so, I have never picked up this lens. When I go for landscapes, I tend to go wide. When I want to shoot portraits, I usually pick up 50 1.4. So I guess I will not find much use of this lens even in the future.

Same with 24-105. pretty slow for portraits and not wide enough for landscapes.



eosuser2020
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 390
Country: United States

Did not look at 70 -200 2.8 series because it is too heavy to carry around. I had a Sigma 100 - 300 (equally heavy) and it did not see light of day for a long time.



safcraft
Registered: Nov 30, 2010
Total Posts: 528
Country: Portugal

What i find "pretty aggressive" is that you say that you are willing to make "some" changes to your system.
And then list an extensive and expensive bunch of gear you wish to buy in a snap.

My best advice is first decide on the 5D vs 5D2 and buy the 35L which you are pretty decided on.
Then...try your lenses on that camera and decide what you are missing.



Gunzorro
Registered: Aug 28, 2010
Total Posts: 6394
Country: United States

Okay, sell the 70-200. If you don't use it, liquidate it toward other lenses.

5D mark II

Keep the 24-105L -- it is a great all-around lens on FF. You could use the 5D2 and that alone -- that's why it is the kit lens packaged with the 5D2!

I prefer the 16-35L II to the 17-40 -- much wider than you'd think 1mm would be! and sharper on the sides with less vignetting -- and brighter focusing, with f/2.8 when you want it.

If you can live with manual focusing, I'm recommending Samyang every time I turn around -- get their 35/1.4.

If you have to get an 85, again, go with the Samyang 85/1.4, or the EF 85/1.8.

Keep your Tamron 90 macro. At least for the time being.

Finally, you might think about the 50/1.2L as your splurge lens.



Mike Tuomey
Registered: Jul 23, 2005
Total Posts: 2829
Country: United States

sell the tokina and the 40D

buy a 5D II and a 17-40L

keep everything else and, if something doesn't see any use in the next solid year of shooting, sell it

OR

sell everything

buy a 5D II, 17-40L, 50L, and 135L. and a set of tubes just in case

(i love suggesting to other folks how to spend lots of cash)



bbasiaga
Registered: Nov 14, 2008
Total Posts: 507
Country: United States

IMO, having shot both a 40D and 5D, you are going to find the 50 too wide for portraits and be looking for something longer. You're at about 80mm equivalent on your 40D wth the 50mm, so with your 5D you'll be reaching for an 85mm intead. It is for that reason you might considr keeping the 70-200. it will cover the 135 and 200mm portrait lenghts, and compress well enough to give decent bokeh at F4.



eosuser2020
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 390
Country: United States

I like the thought of first deciding on 5D vs 5D2. Will park 85 1.8 vs 85 1.2 for now. 35 1.4 is open & shut case.

Read a lot of views on 5D vs 5D2 on the forum. Came with a short list of + & - for both.

5DC + IQ - Crappy LCD, No dust reduction
5D2 + IQ, 21 MP, Video - Same AF as 5DC

Don't care about video. From lot of reviews, it seems that it is hard to notice difference in IQ b/w both. I might be killed for saying this ! 21 MP does not make too much sense for my use. I have been using an XT since past 6 years and it never required sensor cleaning. I guess I can live without dust reduction on 5D too.

In short, tilting towards 5DC. Anything that I will miss on 5DC vs 5D2 other than the ones listed?



Pixel Perfect
Registered: Aug 16, 2004
Total Posts: 19743
Country: Australia

eosuser2020 wrote:
Hello FMers...I am looking for some fresh perspectives on a dilemma. I am ready to make a few changes to my kit. I like to shoot landscape (ultrawide) and portraits.
Current Kit


  1. 40D
  2. Tokina 12-24 F4
  3. Canon 24-105 F4
  4. Canon 70 - 200 F4
  5. Tamron 90 F2.8
  6. Sigma 50 F1.4

Making a move to FF. I am considering 2 options. The $$$ outgo for both is same. Which one do you suggest?
Option 1

  1. 5D
  2. Canon 16-35 F2.8
  3. Canon 35 F1.4
  4. Canon 85 1.2
  5. Tamron 90 F2.8 Macro
  6. Sigma 50 F1.4

Option 2

  1. 5D Mk 2
  2. Canon 17-40 F4
  3. Canon 35 F1.4
  4. Canon 85 1.2
  5. Tamron 90 F2.8 Macro
  6. Sigma 50 F1.4

I am open to consider other options within the same budget. Any suggestions?


Option 3

  1. 5D Mk 2
  2. Canon 17-40 F4
  3. Canon 35 F1.4
  4. Sigma 85 1.4
  5. Canon 100L f/2.8 IS macro
  6. Sigma 50 F1.4


Sigma is seriously good lens and less than half the 85L price, this will fund the excellent 100L macro


jetmutant
Registered: Nov 09, 2005
Total Posts: 988
Country: United States

I am on pixel perfects wave length
5DII
17-40L I found mine to be sharper and have less distortion than the 16-35L
35 1.4 ... never used it, that close is not my bag...
100L is amazing
siggy 50 1.4 Mine is excellent! and focus speed is way faster than the 85L's I have owned & sold...



eosuser2020
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 390
Country: United States

One knocked off the list...UPS got my Christmas gift today...5D Classic. Will use it with my existing lenses for a while and then start filling the gaps!



Daan B
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Total Posts: 7591
Country: Netherlands

eosuser2020 wrote:
Option 2


  1. 5D Mk 2
  2. Canon 17-40 F4
  3. Canon 35 F1.4
  4. Canon 85 1.2
  5. Tamron 90 F2.8 Macro
  6. Sigma 50 F1.4



This one.

And, since you already got the 35L and 85L listed I would leave the 50 1.4 out of it. I would also reconsider the Tamron 90 macro, unless you are planning to do macro. I would add something longer for tight headshots. Maybe the 100/2 or 135L (depending on how much money you have left).