[Vudoo4u2]

Hey all,

Was planning on going out and getting a new camera/lenses...decided to make a bit more of an attempt to "go pro" persay...

here's what im thinking about picking up:

-Canon 5D Mark II
-Canon 16-35 F2.8 L II USM
-Canon 50mm F1.2 L (or the 1.4 non-L...hrmmmm)
-Canon 70-200mm F4L IS (or the F2.8 L IS...also hrmmmm)
-UV filters for all 3 (to start)

Any suggestions?? input on the two lenses I'm not sure about....

the price difference from the 1.4 non L to the 1.2 L is about 900 dollars...and the price difference from the 4 to the 2.8 (on the zoom) is about 500 dollars...

Knowing that the 2.8 will give me twice the light over the 4, Ive heard the 4 has a better IQ, and I dont tend to do indoor sporting events, but if I did, I figure I could just pump the iso a bit to make up for it?

As far as the 1.2 vs 1.4...I feel like the extra 900 really isnt worth it, the difference in quality doesnt seem that amazing...

But yet, I'm undecided

Input appreciated

[urbo73]

Depends on what you're shooting. Having played with too many lenses to list on various Canon DLSRs, I'd say go with the 50mmf/1.4 over the f/1.2 (slow focus, not that great IMO for the price hike), and get the 70-200 f/2.8IS. An extra stop is huge. For DOF as well. Don't forget DOF. Especially on a telephoto lens.

[Teshi]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Depends on what you're shooting. Having played with too many lenses to list on various Canon DLSRs, I'd say go with the 50mmf/1.4 over the f/1.2 (slow focus, not that great IMO for the price hike), and get the 70-200 f/2.8IS. An extra stop is huge. For DOF as well. Don't forget DOF. Especially on a telephoto lens.

Hmmm saying that, i didnt like the bokeh on the 50 1.4 vs the L. Im willing to give up USM for that. However, I would go for a 85 1.8 on a 5D ANYday.

I wouldnt bother with filters. Rather just make sure I got a hood.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by urbo73

...and get the 70-200 f/2.8IS. An extra stop is huge. For DOF as well. Don't forget DOF. Especially on a telephoto lens.

I agree. I just sold my 70-200 F/4 IS only to purchase the 2.8 version. I should have got that in the first place.

I've also heard the 50mm 1.2 isn't worth the price difference, but I don't have experience with it. I have the 50mm 1.4 and it's a nice lens.

I can't say much about the 5D Mark II other than mine should be here in a day or 2. I'm upgrading from a 40D and can't wait to get it.

[Vudoo4u2]

thanks for the price hikes guys! haha

Yeah, thas what I was worried about with the F4 vs F2.8...I figure, the f4 isl lense is 1100, for 1488 i can get the f2.8 l IS...and I figure, at some point id want that extra stop, but i dont think ill enjoy the size...(3.5 lbs for the lense alone)

the f1.2...ive read good reviews about, but its seriously 1000 dollars more than the f1.4 lens, I feel like if I dont like the f1.4, i can ditch it and get the 1.2 eventually for a 150 dollar loss anyways...vs shoveling out 1k for that .2 F and a bit better bokeh

[spectrumphoto]

Good choices all around... Do the 70mm-200mm 2.8IS It is considered a staple lens of most pro kits along with the 24-70mm 2.8L. I never found much use for the 16-35mm 2.8L But I have a 14mm rectilinear, 15mm fisheye, 20mm and 24-70mm 2.8L.

The 50mm 1.2L is a gorgeous Prime Lens as is the 85mm 1.2L II and the 135mm 2.0L. The 50mm 1.4 is an inexpensive alternative just not as stunning of an image.

The 5D MKII is supposed to be a great body. Im waiting till they are out for 6-8 mo before I pick them up just so any "issues" will have time to get worked out (like with the MKIII bodies last year)

Almost forgot... go with B+W Filters MRC Coated... Best choice you can get...

[RonJon]

Good list to pick from, I can only comment one though. I have the 70-200 f/4 and I love it, I haven't used indoors yet to shoot sports but I hope to soon. From what I've read the only thing the f/2.8 has going for it is the extra f stop. CC is supposedly better on the f/4.

I too shoot with the 40D, good luck with the 5DmkII. I cant image 1080p video, INSANE!!

[spectrumphoto]

Actually the most important thing that the 70-200 f2.8 has going for it over the f4.0 is the larger glass on the front element. the 2.8 lens is a 77mm and the f4.0 lens is 67mm. That make a big difference...

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by spectrumphoto

Actually the most important thing that the 70-200 f2.8 has going for it over the f4.0 is the larger glass on the front element. the 2.8 lens is a 77mm and the f4.0 lens is 67mm. That make a big difference...

It makes a big difference since in AF speed and it gives you a brighter viewfinder to look through as well. Believe me, you will regret not getting the 2.8IS. I doubt you'll regret the 50mmf/1.4 over the f/1.2.

[radiantm3]

The only bad part of the 2.8 over the F4 is the weight. I got mine yesterday and it's heavy. It's actually slightly heavier than my 100-400mm.

[remmib]

Any walkaround lens like the 24-70 or the 24-105, and have you thought about the 17-40 instead of the 16-35?

[Vudoo4u2]

I have considered the 17-40 vs the 16-35, and Ive been thinking about the 24-70 (dont like the 24-105 since ill have a better lens for the 70+ range anyway)

My thought was that the F2.8 on the 16-35 lens would be more useful than the F4 on the 17-40, since the extra 5mm on the upside doesnt really bother me on an FF 5dmkii

I was considering skipping a zoom walkaround lens in favor of just using the 50mm fixed lens f1.4?

Does that seem reasonable?? Or am I just losing my mind and should go with the 24-70 instead of the 16-35?

[urbo73]

Sounds like you have "GAS" Gear Acquisition Syndrome! First of all what do you photograph? That should determine what lenses to get. No point in getting every lens in the book just to have more gear. 16-35 is very different from 24-70, so why switch your mind? Makes no sense.Then you say you may consider skipping a zoom and just using a 50mm. Again, if you can let us know what you shoot, we can better help out. It's easy to get lost in GAS!

[Vudoo4u2]

I have a minor case of GAS...theres no doubt...the real issue is, I shoot anything from portraits, to landscapes, to macro shots, architecture...etc....

I like more artistic shots, and with a full frame sensor, I figure the 24-70 will be decently wide (as wide as the 16-35 would be on an APS-C size sensor)....and if I want the more fisheye ultrawide effect, I can get a fixed lens of that sort later..

Ive decided on the following:

-Canon 24-70 F2.8 L
-Canon 70-200 F4 IS L
-Canon F1.4 50mm

I figure with the ISO capabilities and the 4 stop assitance of the IS on the F4, I should be fine with most lower light shots, and especially with a tripod. Plus I'll save my arm some workout with the F2.8L IS lense being 3.5 lbs on its own, and the need for a heavier duty travel tripod since most easier to carry tripods (for a trip..) cant handle 7 lbs..This way I cover a very wide range of focal lengths, just dont have the very far extremes (UW and Tele)

I think this would be the best starting point, and I can fill in the UW end if I feel that 24 isnt getting me the types of shots I'm looking for on a FF body like the 5DMkII

Hows that sound for a minor case of GAS mixed with reason??

(thanks to everyone by the way...especially remmib in PM's!)

[dcstep]

I've got about 2200 shots on my 5D MkII. My lenses are the EF 24-105 f4L IS and the 70-200 f4L IS. This is an incredible setup. Unless you do a lot of fast action, indoor sports shooting, I don't think you'll need faster lenses. The noise level is so low at 3200 ISO that I'm able to get stunning shots as dusk, dawn and low light indoors, handheld. Add a tripod and you handle everything other than fast action.

In daylight you're stopped down all the time, so the extra lens speed and bulk is useless.

The 24-105 lens is very practical and useful for most photography. It's a true wide angle to portrait length. It's only weakness is that it's slightly soft in the 24-30 mm range when wide open. I do a lot of scenics, so that's a slight bummer. I'm considering sending it to Canon so that they can check the calibration, but I think that's the penalty of a zoom with such wide range. I may buy a prime 24 mm for landscapes.

The 70-200 lens is absolutely incredible. Its resolution is tac-sharp over its full range, even wide open. This may be the best lens I've ever had. I'm anxiously awaiting a 25mm extension tube to try it as a macro lens for flowers, close ups of M3 parts, etc. I suspect that it'll be a killer macro lens with the extension tube, resulting in one of the few macro lenses with IS built in.

The camera body is incredible, yielding resolution that gives me freedom to severely crop and keep stunning detail. When I first saw the images on my laptop I fell over backwards. Then I got home an uploaded them to the 46" Sony Bravia 1080 LCD and knocked my wife out of her chair. The detail, contrast and impact of those images is incredible, truly approaching my old medium format film cameras when projected onto a big screen.

At first the camera seems big and heavy, but it really handles nicely in field use. To get candids I use the 70-200 and stay away from the subjects. I was at a shipboard wine tasting and felt conspicuous when trying to take a few candids of our moderator while sitting at the table. My little G9 is better for that kind of stuff; otherwise, I have no fault with the 5D in any usage.

Only if you're heavily into live, indoor sports do you need to consider faster lenses and/or a camera that shoot a faster burst. I've had no trouble with the burst speed, catching some great series of gulls diving into the sea, including not only the dive, splash itself, but also the image of the bird under water. For motorsports I expect no problem. (Please realize that I'm old school and used to ration film and timed my pictures to take one at the peak of action. Now, give the "free" nature of digital, I do bursts, but still concentrate on the peak rather than blindly holding the button down).

I'd be glad to answer more specific questions about the 5D MkII either on the forum or in PM or email. I'm absolutely overjoyed with my purchase. It's right up there with owning a new M3.

Dave

[CoolToolGuy]

The 17-40, while it is not an EF-S lens, was designed mostly for the crop sensor market. There are lots of reports of softness on the edges, and even some comparisons where the 18-55 EF-S kit lens comes out ahead. If you want that range, IMHO the 16-35 L is a much better choice.

Save your money and stay away from the 50 1.2L - for the difference you could get a couplel good primes (85 1.8, 100 f2) along with the 1.4 and still have some change.

The 24-70 L, while a great lens, is known as "The Brick" for good reason. It becomes quite a load if you carry it all day. For most occasions, the 24-105 L is a much better walkaround choice - lighter, IS, more reach.

I resisted the 70-200 2.8L IS for a long time due to the weight - the older 80-200 2.8L (Magic Drainpipe) served me very well, and is slightly more stealthy being black. I bought the 70-200 4L before the IS version came out, and it is perhaps the best value in L lenses. But I couldn't hold out forever, and I got the 2.8L IS. A side benefit is the ability to use the Canon teleconverters. They won't go on the Magic Drainpipe, and you lose autofocus on the f4L. With the 1.4x there is no loss in image quality.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,
Rick

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by CoolToolGuy

I resisted the 70-200 2.8L IS for a long time due to the weight - the older 80-200 2.8L (Magic Drainpipe) served me very well, and is slightly more stealthy being black. I bought the 70-200 4L before the IS version came out, and it is perhaps the best value in L lenses. But I couldn't hold out forever, and I got the 2.8L IS. A side benefit is the ability to use the Canon teleconverters. They won't go on the Magic Drainpipe, and you lose autofocus on the f4L. With the 1.4x there is no loss in image quality.

Rick, now that you have the 2.8, do you find yourself grabbing the f4 at all, or is it too early to tell? I need to get the 2x for my f4, but realize I'll lose some speed. Still, in a pinch and at ISO 6400 I can get some nice shots, I think. Also, I love it as a 1 to 1 macro using a 25 mm extension tube. Those results are stunning.

Maybe with more time you could give us a comparison of the f4 vs. the f2.8 70-200 Ls, beyond the obvious. I keep grabbing my f4 for more and more because the results are so great.

Dave

[arok]

ditch canon's 50 1.4 and get sigma's... way better. 24-70 is a great walkaround, but it's HUGE... and the 70-200 2.8 IS will be wonderful... it's worth its weight in gold.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by arok

ditch canon's 50 1.4 and get sigma's... way better. .

Where are the reviews that rate the Sigma's above the Canon 50 1.4Ls? I think that I missed them.

Dave

[CoolToolGuy]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Rick, now that you have the 2.8, do you find yourself grabbing the f4 at all, or is it too early to tell? I need to get the 2x for my f4, but realize I'll lose some speed. Still, in a pinch and at ISO 6400 I can get some nice shots, I think. Also, I love it as a 1 to 1 macro using a 25 mm extension tube. Those results are stunning.

Maybe with more time you could give us a comparison of the f4 vs. the f2.8 70-200 Ls, beyond the obvious. I keep grabbing my f4 for more and more because the results are so great.

Dave

I love that lens because of its performance, price, and small size, but I "loaned" it to my daughter along with my original Digital Rebel and 17-85 EF-S IS. She is certainly happy with it. The only downside I see to it is the 67mm filter size since almost no other Canon lenses use that size, but since the 17-85 also has a 67mm filter, it minimized my daughter's filter inventory.

I have heard some comments that the f4L IS is better than the non-IS - if so, that must be a truly outstanding lens.

Have Fun,
Rick

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by CoolToolGuy

I have heard some comments that the f4L IS is better than the non-IS - if so, that must be a truly outstanding lens.

All I know is that I keep grabbing it. Then I see the images and say, "Holy crap, that's nice." I love the IS and having it available for 1 to 1 macros is a giant plus.

Dave

[Vudoo4u2]

Well Ive been using the 24-70 F 2.8 L and the 70-200 F 2.8 IS L for the past week and so far...LOVE THEM

Went for an indoor hockey shoot this weekend, got about 70 good shots. Makes me quite happy I went with the 2.8 vs the 4...I was shooting all of these pretty much @ F 2.8 due to the lighting and photo speed needed. Very happy