Hoppy,thanks for the reply and you have raised some good points and I appreciate the time you have taken to make them.
It's a pleasure. I quite like window shopping with other people's money
I offer these further comments without having used many of the lenses you're looking at. But I have tried most of them and the reason I don't own them is because I've chosen to take a different route to you, even though I have been down a similar road with film in the past.
My biggest decision was not to go full frame, thinking that the main shortcoming I feel crop has is high ISO and noise, which I believe will be sorted in the next generation of cameras. So anything I say comes with that caveat. I have also made the assumption that you want high quality, and reasonably fast apertures.
I would like quite to move to primes for the quality, lower weight size and faster apertures. As money is not a infinite resource (well not for me anyway) I cannot afford an outfit of all L lenses and have to be judicious in what I do, and if a particular lens can be made to cover more than one job (for occasional use) than all the better.
All I would say about the move to primes, is that they are not for me.
I had a lovely Contax outfit in the 1980s with several Zeiss T* primes, including a couple of f/1.4 lenses. Sublime kit. When you want, say, 135mm, then nothing beats a prime; when you want 135mm and f/2 then there's simply no other choice. But at all other times, with a primes based outfit, I found I always had the wrong lens on. Changing lenses all the time was a real faff. At the time, zooms were just not an option, but thankfully they are now.
I am happy enough to keep my wider end zooms (at the moment, although this too may change in time), the 12-24 Sigma and the 24-70L (which is my walkaround lens) but would like to have a set of primes covering the 50mm (already have the f1.4), 85mm (looking at the 85 f1.8)& 135mm focal lengths but realise that on occasions I may need something a little longer. I have not researched
I would swap the Sigma 12-24 for 16-35L. It's much faster, and based on the reviews the 12-24 gets, sharper and less prone to flare. But 12mm on full frame is unqiue isn't it, and I agree much wider than 16mm. Can't argue with that.
I agree that the 135L plus 1.4x is a compromise, but for occasional use (and I rarely use 200mm or above) would the quality be sufficient?
Yes, I'm sure it would be. That 135L has got so much sharness and aperture to spare. Check the Canon MTFs on p214 in the link. Soft edges at full bore on full frame, but that's only to be expected. MTFs do not tell you everything about a lens of course, but in terms of sharpness they are a very good starting point.
http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_10_EN.pdf
As for using the 135L and extension tubes, again as a compromise would the magnification be 1:1 or possibly better? The 180L is not an option, nor is it on my want list. The reason for asking is that the 135 being so close to the 100 could make the 100 pretty much redundant and would also offer a little more working distance than 100 has for a similar magnification. This would also allow the sale of the 100 to fund the purchase of an 85mm f1.8 (which could also be used with the extension tubes if required).
That's cool. I will just add the comment that the Kenko Pro 1.4x also works well on the 100mm macro.
The purchase of an 85L instead of the 135L is not an option as that would limit me to a maximum focal length range of 12-100 without purchasing additional lenses and make the 1.4x converter fully redundant.
Not that I suggested it, but the 85/1.2 is an even more extreme lens than the 135L.
Your comment about the cropping does not really stand up though, as although it would be for occasional use only (if I need more reach than the 135L + 1.4x), and as I understand it (although I may be wrong) the 5DMk2's image cropped to give a AOV similar to that of a 1.6x crop camera gives a final image quality similar to that of a 40D and better than that of my 30D, so whilst I agree that it is not ideal I do not understand your comment regarding the 30D, many people produce more than suitable images on cameras older than the 50D (in fact I see you yourself have a 40D)
My comment about the 50D was only related to pixel density, which has some merit if cropping is the name of the game. Thinking about it a bit more, it's kind of irrelevant here, especially as I'm not a big fan of squillions of pixels in any case. I actually think the image quality of the 40D is better in the noise department for this reason. I'm sure the 30D is fine. Ignore me.
Out of curiosity, why would you swap the Siggy for the 16-35L? I already have a 24-70L so all I would be gaining from getting the 16-35L for would be the 16-24mm range, whereas the Siggy covers from 12-24mm and I use the Sigma a lot at between 12-16mm there is much more difference between 12mm & 16mm than the 4mm suggests. I had a 17-40L and sold it as I rarely used it as I preferred the wider range of the Sigma.
As my comments above. Just personal preference for better quality and f/2.8. But the 16-35 isn't very good at 12mm.
Your comments about the resale price of the 135L are very valid and accurate and I agree with you, I am also disappointed that I do not love the 70-200L f2.8 IS, the image quality is great, I just don't feel comfortable using it.
I would be gutted if I felt as you do, having spent so much money on a lens most people would die for. But I think I probably share your view; I would really have to
need a big lens like that! In fact I've messed about a lot in this area myself, which I'll share simply to illustrate how subjective these things are: I bought a 70-200L f/4 - too big for occasional use, not long enough for wildlife. Got a 70-300 DO - just didn't get on with it, and still not long enough. Got a 100-400L which finally does the wildlife job I wanted
but often stays at home. I now need a longer lens to take with me, even though I rarely use that focal length (give me a wide angle and a polariser any day
) so I've had a go with the delightful EF-S 55-250. It's a fantastic little lens, and will fit in my bag almost without me knowing it. It will be taking up residence shortly and I think that will do me in the long lens department. But I do fancy a 300/2.8 with 2x someday.
Not sure about the 135 soft focus (hasn't had very good reviews and the build quality is suspect, the design is from 1987 and although that does not make it bad, things have moved on considerably in the last 22 years). As for the 75-300 IS, again, if i am not using the 70-200L much, how much will I use the 70-300. I am also keen to keep the maximum apertures at f2.8 or better (except for the Siggy which I can live with) so a lot of lenses would be ruled out by this fact.
The SF is just an option, if you like that sort of thing. I just love soft focus mainly for flowers, and also portraits. It's as cheap as getting a couple of Zeiss/B+W Softar filters.
As the title suggests, decision, decisions!
I guess it's worth considering the lenses Canon intended us to use in a typical high-end full-frame outfit. That is, 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200/2.8. Or, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200/4. It's maybe helpful just to break the choices down into those three sectors.
That's the meat and potatoes of it, and for a sprinkling of spices, add a fast prime, a macro, an ultra-wide, soft-focus, T&S, super-tele, whatever
And I'm not one of them...
