My final lens line up - What do you think?

swag72

swag72

Messages
7,969
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
I am retiring in March nest year and moving out to Spain. I hope to spend a lot of time with photography doing all sorts.

My puppy dog that I'll be getting.
Macro pics that I love.
Nature and wildlife - Butterflies and dragons.
Architecture in and around Valencia (Wider Spain as time progresses)
Lanscapes and general pics

So, with that in mind, I am working towards the best lens line up I can afford. I really would welcome your thoughts about it - Good, bad or indifferent.

All on a 7D, I already have a Canon EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55 F2.8, 100mm macro F2.8 and 100-400L.

I am thinking of adding a 50mm F1.4 and a 70-200 F2.8 IS.

Any thoughts on this - Anything I've not thought of or some gems I've missed? I'm not planning on a FF change either!

Would love some big primes, but just can not afford them!
 
Do you desperately need the reach of the 100-400?
Only reason I ask is that you could add 1.4tc on the 70-200 2.8, sell the dust-pump and fund the 50 1.4 with change.
 
jnO said:
Do you desperately need the reach of the 100-400?
Only reason I ask is that you could add 1.4tc on the 70-200 2.8, sell the dust-pump and fund the 50 1.4 with change.
Click to expand...

That's what I'd do :)

Unless you intend on getting into wildlife photography!
 
swag72 said:
I am retiring in March nest year and moving out to Spain. I hope to spend a lot of time with photography doing all sorts.

My puppy dog that I'll be getting.
Macro pics that I love.
Nature and wildlife - Butterflies and dragons.
Architecture in and around Valencia (Wider Spain as time progresses)
Lanscapes and general pics

So, with that in mind, I am working towards the best lens line up I can afford. I really would welcome your thoughts about it - Good, bad or indifferent.

All on a 7D, I have a Canon EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55 F2.8, 100mm macro F2.8 and 100-400L.

I am thinking of adding a 50mm F1.4 and a 70-200 F2.8 IS.

Any thoughts on this - Anything I've not thought of or some gems I've missed? I'm not planning on a FF change either!

Would love some big primes, but just can not afford them!
Click to expand...

i havent used the 100-400L but I have got the 70-200 2.8 IS, and it is an absolutely beautiful lens. If I had to keep one lens, it would be that.

Also im not a big fan of the cost of the 17-55 2.8 IS, i think A) the IS is unneccessary in that focal length and B) its damn expensive! I think the Tamron eqv 17-50 2.8 is a very very good alternative at a 1/3 of the price. The difference in price could fit the 50mm 1.4 in. It seems most of your shots will be outdoors in reasonable light, and in poor light you would require a tripod. I dont think IS is a must on any of the lens.
 
I've already got the EF-S 17-55 and love it!!

Hadn't thought of getting rid of the 100-400 - Definately need some reach though as I do take pics of birds and wildlife - 70-200 and a 2x TC :thinking:
 
swag72 said:
I've already got the EF-S 17-55 and love it!!

Hadn't thought of getting rid of the 100-400 - Definately need some reach though as I do take pics of birds and wildlife - 70-200 and a 2x TC :thinking:
Click to expand...


The 2x tc is meant to seriously degrade IQ, below that of the 100-400, you'd also be stuck with f/5.6 throughout the range :(

Have a look through your pics and check what the focal lengths were on your birding/wildlife shots :) See how many were past 300mm.

I think the 10-22 and 17-55 fit in well. I am however not sure where the 50 1.4 slots though. What do you plan on using it for ?
 
Almost all of my wildlife shots were done at 400mm - Very rarely use anything less.

50mm 1.4 I decided would just be a fun lens to play around with and for some puppy portrait stuff and the like.
 
swag72 said:
Almost all of my wildlife shots were done at 400mm - Very rarely use anything less.

50mm 1.4 I decided would just be a fun lens to play around with and for some puppy portrait stuff and the like.
Click to expand...

Fair enough on the 50 1.4. That's why I have the 50 1.8 to be honest :)

Get the 70-200 2.8 IS, sell the 100-400 and but a 400mm L ;)
 
Looks like a great lineup, have fun in the sun using it.
The only problem that /I/ personally would have with it, is the missing 55-70mm. I like to use zooms whilst on walkabout, and cover this gap with the 28-135, although I suspect you would want to get a better quality one if this is your final set of purchases, (24-105L?)
If I am going somewhere, I try and judge the best lenses for the job, the 17-55, 28-135 would be my two perfect ones for the inside parts (i.e. not a landscape day, not a wildlife day). Just a thought.
 
the 100-400 is sharper than the 70-200 with any of the t/c extenders, that would be a bad move methinks.
 
Recently moved back from Spain due to schooling problems with my son who has special needs but planning on going back in a few years. Make sure you have a good flash (for those late night parades and festivals), I would certainly have the 70-200mm (for the same reason) and most importantly .. a really good supply of mozzie repellent.

Oh, and a sturdy tripod for the fireworks every couple of days. :lol:
 
Yep, flash and tripod in the bag so to speak.

I won't be getting rid of my 100-400 at all as I really do want the reach.

Looking forward to the sunshine, fireworks and mozzies!!
 
Looked at the IQ difference between the 100-400 and 300mm +TC - Not a busting lot between them - Not sure whether I will do this swap or not to be honest - Although I won't be needing the 100-200mm anymore!!
 
As you are going full frame, I would suggest 16-35mm f2.8L, 24-70mm f2.8L, 70-200mm f2.8L and canon mkII 2x extender, add the canon 100mm macro,
 
rickj said:
I would get the 70-200, sell the 100-400, and get a 300 f4 IS with the money and a 1.4 convertor
Click to expand...

This is what I was going to suggest.

You get 420mm F5.6 and a marginal improvement in image quality (Bear in mind most 100-400's soften up in the last 20-30mm of the range)

And then you have 300mm F4 and significant improvement in image quality
 
That's a very similar line up to mine :thumbs:

If you are certain about the 50 1.4 there's obviously room for a fast prime, but I had a 50 1.8 which I never used and then a Sigma 30 1.4 which I thought would be more useful but I never used that either! I would maybe think about the 50 1.8 simply because it's so cheap just for the odd occasion. My lastest plan is an 85 1.8, purely for shallow DoF portraits but it's way down the list.

70-200 2.8 IS is a wonderful thing, but I got the f/4 version simply because of the weight (and the fact that I'd hardly ever use f/2.8). Just be aware of how heavy the f/2.8 is - try wandering around with your 100-400 for a bit, very similar.

I also got rid of my 100 2.8 macro as although I used it quite a lot I thought I could kill two birds with the 70-200 plus a set of Kenkos. This has proved to be a good decision as I'm not that picky about mega macro and the tubes/zoom are so versatile. And they still go down to 1:1. Quality is very good, and the IS helps even though it's supposed not to work well with macro.

Final suggestion is a ring flash. More important than a fancy lens for macro I'd say, and I just found out the other day that both Canon's macro flashes can act as masters for E-TTL remote. It would be great to use the ring flash plus 430EXII for some super macro lighting, plus other strobistry.

Edit: On the long lens front, when you boil it all down, the best option this side of £4k is still the 100-400L. Mine is sharp as you like all the way.
 
Totally off topic but when you get there and start looking for your puppy PLEASE go first to the many rescue centres throughout Spain as there are loads of animals waiting for a good home. THIS is Finlay (taken the first day we got him in Spain), he was found thrown in the bottom of a bin along with 7 other puppies (4 were already dead) .. THIS is him now back in the UK.
 
Thanks for all that Hoppy - I'll keep my 100mm macro at the mo as I love the macro with the extension tubes. I've got a Speedlite 430EXII which has been brilliant for macro, velcroed to the hood!

I think I will keep the 100-400, hubby is about ready to kill me at the moment - Another lens change with the 100-400 and I'll be in a box!!

Quite often walk about with the 100-400 and don't find it too heavy, so the 70-200 F2.8 IS is equal in weight? Could probably have the F4, but why compromise and regret it later? As I said, with retirement on the horizon this is the last of the big buys!
 
personally I'd keep the 100-400 rather than the 70-200 as well. Mine is tack sharp at 400, takes a TC well, really can't fault it.
 
the only thought I have are jealous ones!!! :)

you lucky thing, I'm sure you'll have a wonderful retirement :thumbs:
 
swag72 said:
I'm not built like a brick ****** house or anything, but don't struggle with the 100-400 when out and about for butterflies and dragons. Am I wierd?!!:D
Click to expand...

Well put it this way ... I didn't see many retired women walking round Spain walking a puppy and carrying a Canon 7D with 100-400mm lens round their neck while I was living there. :lol:

Most of them seemed to be in the pubs drinking and smoking themselves to death while playing Bingo. :cuckoo:
 
Looks like a great lineup tbh - the 70-200 fits in well and the 50mm is a fun prime to play with.

swag72 said:
Won't buy the 400mm prime as the minimum focusing distance isn't any good for what i want. A dragonfly from 3 metres or so :eek:
Click to expand...

A pro wildlife photographer friend of mine uses extension tubes on his 500mm to get the close focus abilities - seems to work well!
 
I accept the 400mm f5.6 doesn't have a secondary role as a macro lens because its minimum focus distance 3.5m, but as a wildlife lens is a very good lens and better than the 100-400mm.

What about the 300mm f4 as suggested before, with a minimum focus distance of 1.5m, very similar to the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, it works well with the 1.4x TC for your wildlife, similar IQ's to the 400mm f5.6 and can take the extension tubes for macro work.

As for a heavy lens, try carrying a 300mm f2.8 (2.5kg) or 400mm f2.8 (5.6kg) around, now they are definitely the heavy weight division.
 
swag72 said:
Would you recommend not getting the 70-200 then? I am going to keep my 100-400 for the long end.
Click to expand...

I can't make that recommendation as the 70-200 is a totally different lens and it beats the 100-400 hands down in low light situations. What I'm saying is that if I was forced to only have one of them I'd keep the 100-400 for the extra versatility and accept the limitations. With the light in Spain the smaller aperture possibly wouldn't be that much of a problem :)

Your original post says you intend to have both. That's definitely what I'd go for if you can afford it :)
 
swag72 said:
Would you recommend not getting the 70-200 then? I am going to keep my 100-400 for the long end.
Click to expand...

It's a thought. In terms of focal length the 100-400 almost does everything. You'll have it all covered one way or another, it's just sorting out the various options and f/numbers to suit your way of working. Endless permutations.

Here's another idea, and if I was sensible (which I am not) I would get rid of both my 70-200 4 and 100-400 and replace them both with a 70-300 IS and 400 5.6 - stick a short tube on it for closer focus and use a tripod so no IS worries. Or even forget the 400 and just hire a 500 4 for my relatively rare birding jaunts (prolly not an option for you).

The 70-300 IS is a really good lens, bargain priced and quite light/small. If I'm honest, it would probably do me just as well as my two fancy L zooms 90% of the time and save a packet. But I like nice lenses (gotta try and max out that 7D sensor now and again) and while I need things to be practical, at the end of the day it's all an indulgence :D
 
More thoughts Hoppy, but I don't like the sound of those as much!!

I guess the only difference I would probably make is a 70-200 F4 in stead of the F2.8. It's not that I use F2.8 lots, but it's there in case. I must indulge while I can - there will be none after March!!
 
There were times in Spain when I couldn't actually use f2.8 on my 70-200mm because it was just too bright but as it's probably your last big lens purchase I would go for it. You get reasonable light out there until 10/11pm sometimes and its always better to not use flash if possible imo.
 
swag72 said:
More thoughts Hoppy, but I don't like the sound of those as much!!

I guess the only difference I would probably make is a 70-200 F4 in stead of the F2.8. It's not that I use F2.8 lots, but it's there in case. I must indulge while I can - there will be none after March!!
Click to expand...

Just a thought here.

In your position I would buy the F2.8 IS regardless.

If you never use F2.8 then you can always downgrade to buy something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top