New Glass Options - What would you get in my situation?

mark1616

mark1616

Messages
1,604
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just sold my Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 which was my backup lens to my 24-105mm f4 Canon as it really wasn't performing well enough (never had to use it in anger, but if I had to the results wouldn't have been nearly the same standard) so I'm looking at complementary/backup options.

First, this is what I have and my thinking.

My main 2 bodies are both 5DmkIIs I also have a 5D and 7D in case one of the main bodies went down.

Lenses, 90% of the time I use a combo of the 24-105mm f4 and 70-200mm f2.8 IS L. I also have a Sigma 50mm f1.4, Canon 85mm f1.8, Sigma 105mm f2.8 and Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 - For crop I have a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.

I want to avoid using the 7D and wide lenses if at all possible, so that is an in case of emergency thing.

OK, so as I use the 24-105 and 70-200 so much, I want to ensure that if something went wrong with either I could still shoot my the sort of way I like.

So, obviously the simple options is to get the same glass as backups, or possibly a 24-70mm f2.8 instead of the 24-105. This is a little boring though as doesn't allow me to bring anything else to the party so I'm considering the option of 17-40mm f4 and a 135mm f2. OK, this misses off the 200mm, but I could use the 120-300mm for times when I really must go long, I have no hand holding issues with that lens (I'm 6'6" and not small), however, might get a few looks from the people I'm shooting as it is a beast. I think for most things I should be fine with 135mm at the long end, can always pop that on the 7D if needed.

So does my way of thinking work or have I lost the plot? If it is the latter, what would you suggest in my situation - medical help is not an option?!

Thanks :)
 
17-40L is a great lens on FF, but (clearly) only useful if you want to go wider than the 24-105.

What do you want to shoot? What are you after in your new lenses? Something "different"? Something faster? something sharper?

Do you want to do any macro work? - the 100mm L is a fab lens and sets the 7D into special "macro IS hand held" mode if you use it on that body....
 
My main goal is cover the bases in case either 'main' lenses go down. Outside of that it would be nice to get a bit wider which the 17-40 adds and I have the 50 and 85mm primes for a bit more reach. I already have the Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro so not really looking for that to be replaced.
 
Tempted to say the 17-40 as well, I use zooms as a backup to my primes. Will be getting the 35L soon to give me a fast wide prime.
 
17-40L (wider and backup) and 70-200 F4 non IS (very cheap backup, small and light for bright conditions) if you've got ~£1000 to spend (new prices). If I were getting money-no-cost backup lenses to what you have, I'd probably get 24-70 and a new 70-200 2.8IS II (with perhaps a mk III TC). But that's pushing £3000+ at new prices.
 
Have you ever had or tried the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS. That would almost cover the 24 end and more than cover the 200 end. I've seen some of the results of this lens and they were outstanding and I've wanted one ever since. I've got a 24-105 f4 L and a 70-200 f4 L and have to agree that these are my 2 most used lenses, but if I could find a swap for my 2 lenses and the 28-300 I'd snap their hands off for it.
 
Personally I would go with either the 17-40 or the 24-70, if you aren't likely to use 17mm much then the 24-70 is a more versatile lens even if it is a bit of a boring replacement.

Assuming you pick the 24-70 then I'd probably go with the 200mm 2.8, I'm not sure I see the point of the 135 with the other lenses you have and it's a chunk cheaper since it's only a backup.

I might be talking nonsense though :cuckoo::D
 
The new 24-70 refresh should be out very soon - most likely January if ever. I am heavily betting on it now.

17-40 is not a bad idea, but it is not a stellar lens either. You will find even the current 24-70mm a bit better optically at wider apertures. 17-40 is best from f/9 onwards and on tripod. Canon should be thinking about replacing their wide line up as well...

what would you think about 24 or 17mm TSE if funds permit?
 
35/1.4L gets my vote, 135/2L is also stunning but 70-200/2.8L IS II gets a lot more use from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top