A&P Critique this Camera/Lens setup... Canon FTW

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by ittech, May 26, 2007.

  1. ittech

    ittech "If You're Not Part of the Solution, There's Good OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    18,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    I sold all my gear less tripod/head, 50mm 1.4, flashes months ago just before the 1d3 was announced. Got almost retail on everything. eBay idiots ftw :bowdown:


    So now it's time to repurchase a new setup.

    Canon 1D MKIII Body
    Canon 16-35 F2.8L II
    Canon 24-105 F4L IS
    Canon 50mm F1.4
    Canon 135mm F2L
    Canon 300mm F2.8L IS
    Canon 1.4X II TC
    Canon 2X II TC


    I've already got the 1D3 on it's way at dealer cost and can get close to dealer cost on everything here except maybe the 300 2.8L IS...

    Should I be even getting the 135? It's because the 105 end of the 24-105 is pretty soft and slow, and it's stellar quality. Nice and small and unobtrusive, compared to the honking 300 2.8.

    Should I just get the 300 F4 instead of the 2.8? It's a LOT cheaper but slower and not so good with TC's. I really want the speed more than the IS so maybe the 300 2.8 nonIS... or the sigma?

    IBhate :fawk:
     
  2. joy division

    joy division New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    hollywood, LAids
    uh...what are you shooting.


    I myself would never use the last 3 things on your list.
     
  3. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,773
    Likes Received:
    379
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
  4. ittech

    ittech "If You're Not Part of the Solution, There's Good OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    18,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    Travel and Nature, mainly. I want to have the most flexible quality setup possible in as few lenses as possible.

    I realize the 300 2.8 is a bit short for birding but I'm not dealing with the weight and size of a 400 or 500.
     
  5. joy division

    joy division New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    hollywood, LAids
    oh, 2 things I have no advice for.


    Buy a canon coolpix 3000.
     
  6. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
  7. NJGuy

    NJGuy "Fuckmefuckmefuckmefuckmef uckmefuckmefuckmefuckm OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    22,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    wtf, USA
    Id consider the 100-400L for birding/nature.
    Is a really good lens.

    Canon 24-105 F4L IS
    is F4 going to be enough for this range?
    f2.8 ftw
     
  8. 19Godfather86

    19Godfather86 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why no 70-200?
     
  9. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    135 is my favorite lens. 300 with 1.4 and or 2.0 is fine for birding.

    looks good, it'll be pretty close to my setup when its finished, except the 24-70 instead. I wasn't impressed with the 24-105
     
  10. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,754
    Likes Received:
    8
    you obviously dont know him. its the truth
     
  11. Mr_Penut

    Mr_Penut Elitist Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    30,697
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    kanadia
    don't get the 27-105

    get the 24-70 and the 135 instead
     
  12. High hopes, big dreams, money to burn?
     
  13. isaac86hatch

    isaac86hatch This thread sucks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    no 85 1.2 L no care
     
  14. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    :hsugh:
     
  15. ittech

    ittech "If You're Not Part of the Solution, There's Good OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    18,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sonoma, California

    That's the thing, the 100-400 is pretty slow, but it is a lot cheaper. I've used two of them, one was great and the other was just terrible. Canon QC ftl.

    I've also had a 24-70 in the past and I didn't think it was all that great though it was nice to have the F2.8... I'd rather have some primes in that range AND the 24-105... at least that's what I was thinking anyways. After using a 17-55 2.8 IS on a 400D it would be really useful to have IS in the wider range, for some photos. (obviously not of moving things)
     
  16. ittech

    ittech "If You're Not Part of the Solution, There's Good OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    18,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    If I was taking mostly studio photos I'd have one for sure. It's :naughty:, especially the II version.

    I've had a 1D2N, 17-40,24-70,70-200 before...

    I liked the 17-40 but the 16-35 is better, particularly the II version. I thought the 17-40 was higher quality than the first 16-35 from the samples I tested.

    I didn't use the 24-70 much because either I wanted the 17-40 or the 70-200 on the camera, though it was still pretty good I thought it was not as sharp as either of those two as well. The 50 1.4 has worse looking bokeh but outshined the 24-70 there too. Then again I ended up using the 17-40 a lot at 40, and 35 is noticably wider.

    The 70-200 was pretty awesome, but it just seems like adding it to that setup would be overkill... the 135 is better (noIS) the 24-105's 70-105 goes from good to meh with IS, and the 300 2.8 is quite a bit better at the long end. I was either using the 70-200 at the wider end, or all the way at the end and it never had enough reach.. Especially on the 1D, it's not a great "oh look an animal far away!" lens... It was great for event/outdoor portraits, but the 135 can do that as well just less flexible.


    I could totally see adding a 100-400 just for the reason that it's more portable and flexible than the 300, and to give a good 2 lens travel kit of a 24-105 and a 100-400... but if I can I prefer to take around all my lenses anyways so then it'd be one more lens to pack around.
     
  17. ittech

    ittech "If You're Not Part of the Solution, There's Good OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    18,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    I got 7K from selling my old stuff, so yeah... The 300 is ridiculously expensive however, but it's very good with TC's, the smallest and cheapest of the super-tele's etc. I may end up picking up a used non IS version instead if the price is right.
     

Share This Page