Downsize?
/forum/topic/1067972/0



mark petri
Registered: Oct 25, 2006
Total Posts: 1006
Country: United States

Over the years, I've gathered some # lenses pretty close together. I'm thinking of culling the herd so to speak, but the inner hoarder in me always resists. I'm interested to hear what lenses you folks with 5d mk2s have settled on (I've one coming in the mail).

Right now I have the following:
17-40L
24-105L
35L
50 f/1.4
100 f/2.8 macro
135L
300 f/4L

Looking forward to hearing what your thought processes were.



EB-1
Registered: Jan 09, 2003
Total Posts: 22259
Country: United States

All those lenses are sufficiently different to keep unless you never use them for some reason. In fact, I suggest adding a 70-200 to that collection. However, I tend to keep everything and am a strong believer in backups.

EBH



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 20234
Country: Canada

This is probably not the best place to ask that question...



rhyx
Registered: Nov 01, 2010
Total Posts: 173
Country: United States

Do you prefer zooms or primes?

What do you shoot?



Gunzorro
Registered: Aug 28, 2010
Total Posts: 6385
Country: United States

Mark -- I think you've been super-practical! I wish I could say the same.

You could also add the 28-300L IS and another body and use that 17-40L on one, and the 28-300L on the other.

And the 85/1.2L to go with your 35/1.4L, 50/1.4 and 135/2L.

Yeah, Jim was probably right -- you are asking the wrong crowd here. We'll only encourage you to excesses.



mark petri
Registered: Oct 25, 2006
Total Posts: 1006
Country: United States

Ya EB/JC - I'm of the same mindset Actually, one of the reasons I was chewing on this was I am tempted by the sale of the 70-200 mk2 and considering dumping the 17-40 and 300 f/4 and put it to one.

rhyx - I shoot them all of course... thus the collection. I go in spurts where I'll shoot one lens primarily for a few months then rotate. My most used lenses in order over the years are:

50f/1.4 (my oldest lenses), 24-105, 35L, 100 macro, 135, 17-40, 300 f/4

Most (3/4) of my shooting falls in 24-85mm, and 3/4 of that 24-50mm.



mark petri
Registered: Oct 25, 2006
Total Posts: 1006
Country: United States

Gunzorro - I sold off my 85L and 50L a couple years ago. Don't miss them really, the 35L gets a lot more use then they did combined and the 50 f/1.4 is better for my purposes. Ya know, I never considering the 28- 300, but I was mulling over the 100-400. I'll need to check that one out



EB-1
Registered: Jan 09, 2003
Total Posts: 22259
Country: United States

Is it the old 300/4 or the IS version?

EBH



mark petri
Registered: Oct 25, 2006
Total Posts: 1006
Country: United States

300 f/4 IS.



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 20234
Country: Canada

I think the 16-35/2.8L II on 1DsIII and 28-300/3.5-5.6L IS on 1DIV would be a nice general-purpose combination. The only part I'm lacking right now is the 16-35L II.



kewlcanon
Registered: Mar 28, 2009
Total Posts: 4404
Country: United States

If I were you I'll simplify like this:

17-40L
35L/50
70-200 IS II

Cover most FL needed .

mark petri wrote:
Over the years, I've gathered some # lenses pretty close together. I'm thinking of culling the herd so to speak, but the inner hoarder in me always resists. I'm interested to hear what lenses you folks with 5d mk2s have settled on (I've one coming in the mail).

Right now I have the following:
17-40L
24-105L
35L
50 f/1.4
100 f/2.8 macro
135L
300 f/4L

Looking forward to hearing what your thought processes were.



mark petri
Registered: Oct 25, 2006
Total Posts: 1006
Country: United States

JC - I had the 16-35II and wasn't impressive vs the 17-40 to account for the gap in price (thus sold the 16-35 and kept the 17-40). I don't use that range a lot, but when I do I'm usually stopped down and the 17-40 holds it own quite well IMHO.

Kewl - on paper it looks good. Shooting wise, tho my most expendable lens is the 17-40. The 300 f/4 edges it out because while use a bit less than the 17-40, when I do reach for it - I'm darn happy it's there.

The more I write, the more I realize I'm probably gonna hang on to them all and perhaps just add the 70-200.



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 20234
Country: Canada

Mark,

I know what you mean about the 17-40L. It's a fine lens. I sold mine a few months ago to help pay for a 300/2.8L IS. I'll probably get a 16-35/2.8L II next year for sports and indoor events. I have most of the fast L primes, but the flexibility offered by a fast ultra-wide zoom is an advantage. I recently sold my 24-70/2.8L because most of my needs are satisfied by the 24-105/4L IS, except for right now, as my wife has it on a trip to the US.

Jim

P.S. Go Pats!



Bullseye5d2
Registered: Sep 24, 2011
Total Posts: 255
Country: Canada

EB-1 wrote:
All those lenses are sufficiently different to keep unless you never use them for some reason. In fact, I suggest adding a 70-200 to that collection. However, I tend to keep everything and am a strong believer in backups.

EBH



+1, I was about to say the same thing.



mowensphotogra
Registered: Aug 31, 2011
Total Posts: 147
Country: United States

your 135 will be an amazing matchup