I currently have the following

Canon 17-40 F/4 - not going anywhere
Canon 70-200 F/4 - not going anywhere...until I can afford to upgrade to a 2.8 IS.

That leaves these two.

Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 - Very sharp all around, yet I never use it.

Sigma 50mm F/1.4 I get great results from it and the bokeh is dreamy..

Been thinking of dumping both the Sigma and the Tamron and then picking up a 135mm F/2

Thoughts?

Here are my thoughts:

The 135L is a great lens, one of my very favorites, but if you sold the sigma and the tamron, I think you'd want something faster and shorter than the 135. You know better than me, but that's my first reaction. Going to think about this one some more.

Do you use the Sigma much? Would you miss the FL between 40 & 70?

Originally Posted by Markitos

Here are my thoughts:

The 135L is a great lens, one of my very favorites, but if you sold the sigma and the tamron, I think you'd want something faster and shorter than the 135. You know better than me, but that's my first reaction. Going to think about this one some more.

I agree. I could see ditching the tamron for it, if you were keeping the 50.

That's what I keep thinking about too, I never use the 28-85 and I do use the 50mm a lot and love that focal length on the 5D. So, maybe I need to sell the Tammy and save $450 and then buy the 135mm?

for me the 135 and the 70-200 f/4 were very similar lenses. Both small, light and had amazing IQ. I preferred making the 135 work for portraits because it's IQ was a step better. If I were traveling, I preferred the 70-200 because it had more FLs and mine had IS. But in the end, I went with the 135 for when I was shooting people, and dealt with a 100-400 for when I needed reach (travel).

The issue, is if you do this you have nothing from 40 to 70? That's a pretty small gap though, but when I'm landscaping, at least recently, I've found 35~40 not quite long enough and 100 (on crop) too long....Granted that gap is bigger/different.

Here's the question though. I know you just bought and like the 70-200, but if money was NO OBJECT AT ALL, what lenses would you use for your landscaping and what would you use for your portraits? If you're considering an all prime portrait setup, then get the 135, but I'd consider keeping your 50 and selling/returning the 70-200 and picking up an 85mm 1.8 in it's place. 50/85/135 easily covers what a 70-200 does and it's not all that much bigger/heavier.

You really have to decide which works better for you though, primes or zooms, and build your kit around that first. They both have their place, and I know my ideal kit (that's out of my price range) involves a nice mix of both, but practically speaking I have to concentrate on getting the setup that works best for EVERYTHING I shoot.

Similar setup to me, but I'm on the opposite side of the fence.

For me, I'm looking to drop the 70-200 and go for the 135 f/2..

I was kind of grossed out by the 28-75 when I used it for that "Pro" a few months ago, his was pretty beat up, but still it felt like a kit lens and while it was sharp, I just couldn't help but thinking I was going to snap it in half. So I fully support tossing that out the window to someone

Sigma 50 -- This is like locked on my body now, I never really enjoyed the nifty fifty when I had it on crop.. but 50 on FF.. it's perfect, love it. Probably helps that the Sigmalux produces nice bokeh.

That being said, the 135 + 85 + 50 + wide range should cover 90% of what I shoot, and I feel that you'd be in a similar boat. Want telephoto separation or tight headshot? 135 Want a walk around? 50 Want some landscaping? Wide range

I generally don't like overlapping focal lengths because it leaves me complacent with a zoom rather than experimenting and utilizing the prime. My 85 sits often unless I actively push myself to say, "No, stop twisting, use your feet and utilize that ultra sharp prime damnit!"

So after that long winded turn it into an all about me convo I'd say keep the wide side obviously, ditch the 28-75, keep the sigmalux.. and see how it feels for a while. I know the 135L is sexy, but will you use it? Are you not using the 28-75 because you ARE using the 50? Would you NOT use the 70-200 if you got the 135? I know they can have different uses, but if you're on a limited budget I'd always be setup to have what you get the most consistent use out of... just like why most of us would never go buy a 200 f/2, sure it'd get used, but not enough to warrant the $$$$$

Wow, way to beat me and say the exact same thing, Ben.

As Ben mentioned, the gap between 40 and 70 isn't that big, but for me it's less about having a lens that fills the gap, and more about having a FAST lens that ALSO fills the gap. I.e., I had a 50 to use if f/2.8 wasn't fast enough between the 16-35 and 70-200. When I sold the 50 and bought the 35L, that gave me 3 options at 35mm and at least f/2.8--the 35L, the 16-35, and the 24-70... But for me, they all serve different purposes. I use the 16-35 as the UWA landscape lens on the 5D, and a short walkaround lens on the 1D3; I use the 35L for portraits and general photography, along with a longer lens, usually the 135; and I use the 24-70 when I don't want to have to switch lenses between the 35L and the longer lens, and when speed/isolation isn't as important.

I know that that doesn't answer YOUR question about YOUR lenses, but I think it's helpful to think about how you use your zooms, and how you use the various focal lengths available to you. A 50L or my Sigma would have worked just as well for my purposes, but I like the 35L better--it just suits how I shoot a little better. I just think if the 135L is the fastest lens you have, that you'll feel a bit limited because it's sort of a weird longish walkaround focal length (though I've done it) and a shortish telephoto, which is why, much as I love the 135, I still haven't jettisoned the 70-200.

Originally Posted by Blazin

Wow, way to beat me and say the exact same thing, Ben.

you did bring up the 200 f/2 though, good point?..

Mark, btw, when you landscape, what lenses/bodies do you bring with you?

I'm only asking because I'm trying to sort out the 1 or 2 body question along with a UWA zoom that pairs well with a standard zoom -vs- primes, and I think this will also help Shawn since he's thinking of ditching his 28-75mm... That and I feel that landscaping with 2 bodies is kinda a PITA? I'd rather landscape with one, but having the second as a backup does make some sense to me (leave it in the car or just have it at home if I kill a camera).

For me, I love the theory of having the UWA zoom, then primes, then a tele zoom (only because I can't afford tele primes, I'd go that route if I could afford them for sure). But when I've actually been landscaping w/o the mid range, I've found it frustrating a few times already with trying different FLs and not getting what I want with 2 or three primes where I'm stuck in one place and just need to frame the scene slightly tighter (which can be cropped) or wider.

+4 or is it 5, now

If you want the 135, buy it if you can.

I'd keep the Sigmalux. Its your only really fast lens. One stop faster than the 135 and 3 stops faster than your others if you sell the Tammy. Could you imagine being stuck in a tight space with only a 135?

Don't keep a lens you don't use, but will selling the Tammy really get you much closer to the 135 (less than half way there?)

my $0.02

For me, Landscaping I want the 17-40 and a 70-200, no questions about it.

For portraits and walk around, I am not exactly sure. I use the crap out of my 50 1.4, so it doesn't make sense to sell it now that i think about it more.

I think I will sell the 28-75 soon and add the money from that sale to the new lens fund or possibly grab an 85 1.8

I really love primes for portraits, but also love the 17-40 and 70-200 zooms for landscapes.

Why not save for the 135? 85 is really close to 50, and the 85s slower anyway

Originally Posted by PhatheadWRX

Why not save for the 135? 85 is really close to 50, and the 85s slower anyway

I will probably do just that. I am weighing my options now. The 135 has the reputation and I would like to see what it's all about. The thing is, you really can't lose money on that lens either. That's why I got the 70-200 F/4, at the price I paid, I can sell it for the same if I want to upgrade down the road.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Mark, btw, when you landscape, what lenses/bodies do you bring with you?

That's a really good question, and I don't know that I have a great answer for it. I like the 16-35/70-200 combo, especially on the 5D, but sometimes on the 1D3 the 16-35 isn't wide enough. I generally prefer the 70-200 over the 135 for landscapes because of its flexibility, IS, and tripod collar--I don't use L brackets, so I can just rotate the lens/camera in the collar to change orientations. I also generally want more compression in landscapes than the 135 can offer, so the 70-200 wins there, too. I am considering going back to a 70-200 f/4IS if I think the 135 can hack it enough for weddings.

I do try to bring both bodies with me when I go out with the intent to shoot landscapes... as you said, I usually just leave one in the car if I don't end up needing it. I've used both the 1D3 and the 5D successfully with landscapes, and it really just depends on what I'm going for--the 5D is a bit sharper and has a few more pixels (and is lighter, smaller, etc.), but the 1D3 has live view, easier-to-access mirror lockup (no My Menu for the 5D), and is more configurable for various landscape settings. It also has highlight priority, which may or may not matter (I don't use it much, but sometimes it has helped).

The main problem with the 16-35 is that it's an inferior lens to the 24-70, IMO. It's good enough, especially stopped down, but if I only need to go as wide as 24mm, then it's the 24-70 every time. This is easier on the 5D than the 1D3, as the 24-70 is often not quite wide enough on the 1D3 and just wide enough on the 5D. I keep the 16-35 for a lot of other reasons--primarily because it's the only way I can go wider than 24mm--it's a good lens, just not as good as the 24-70.

I have not used the 35L much for landscapes, but that's more lack of opportunity than anything else.

Originally Posted by thomps6s

That's why I got the 70-200 F/4, at the price I paid, I can sell it for the same if I want to upgrade down the road.

This is one of my primary reasons for having all L lenses, aside from the build and IQ--I could actually sell many of my lenses for a decent bit MORE than I paid for them, esp. right now when the dollar is weak against the yen. You pay more for them upfront, but when you switch things around you pay less of a penalty, in general. That being said, if you never sell them, it's less of an advantage!

Originally Posted by thomps6s

I really love primes for portraits, but also love the 17-40 and 70-200 zooms for landscapes.

sell the 28-75 and get either an 85 or 100 f/2. When I was last on canon I ended up selling my 135 for the 100 f/2. It and the 85mm 1.8 are almost identical in every way, you just swap some FL for some aperture. Pick whichever FL suits you best. IMHO if you KEEP the 50, 2x that FL is 100 so that'd win. If you shot with a wider prime then the 85 makes more sense. That's assuming you're going for a 2 prime setup (for now). Otherwise I also loved 24 50 and 100, but 35/85 works very well for me.

personally, I'm finding the large gap between 22 and 100 on my landscaping zooms annoying, but it's 35~160 really where you're gap is 40~70 which is MUCH smaller. That's where I'm looking at a midrange zoom, but in the same not, JUST the midrange and UWA gives me really good coverage (10-22 and 24-105 would be 16~160 effective in a small package)...

Originally Posted by Markitos

That's a really good question, and I don't know that I have a great answer for it.

god damnit mark, I was looking for ANSWERS to what I'm thinking about, not more questions!!!!

I was asking because to me, 16-35 and 70-200 with BOTH bodies is pretty similar to 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 on the 5D. For landscaping, which works better? And I know it's not a cut and dry answer, but I'm looking at keeping the 5Dii or swapping it for a 5D and 24-105 for more coverage.

I'm just in the middle of sorting out my kit right now and I keep thinking if shooting with 2 bodies in the bag makes more sense than 1 and an extra lens (5D/5Dii and 7D and UWA and tele -vs- 7D and 10-22, 24-105, 100-400 -vs- 5D/5Dii 17-40, 24-105, 100-400). It's a tough choice because all three cameras are great, I just need to decide if I NEED a spare body, and if so which it'll be and then if so, what I'll actually use for landscaping.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

god damnit mark, I was looking for ANSWERS to what I'm thinking about, not more questions!!!!

I was asking because to me, 16-35 and 70-200 with BOTH bodies is pretty similar to 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 on the 5D. For landscaping, which works better? And I know it's not a cut and dry answer, but I'm looking at keeping the 5Dii or swapping it for a 5D and 24-105 for more coverage.

Then you bring up the points about why the 1Diii is better for landscaping in some ways (lack of live view, MLU etc) as I'm pretty set on going to a 5Dc and 7D setup. The battery difference and lack of dust shaker is my biggest concern personally, I rarely use MLU, but I DO use liveview from time to time. Generally with my 10-stop ND though.

Personally, I like the 24-70 better for landscapes, period. It's a sharper lens out to the corners and generally, for ME, 24mm is usually wide enough. HOWEVER, sometimes you need to go wider, and I like the 16-35 for that. FOR YOU, it seems like a 16-35/17-40 would be the best answer with a FF/Crop body setup, BUT you also have the 10-22, so I understand where you're coming from with the 24-105 idea, and it's not a bad one, IF you use the 5D mostly for that stuff. If you don't, I can see you doing a lot of swapping between the 24-105 and the 10-22, because that 18-25mm range is where a lot of landscape stuff happens.

Originally Posted by Markitos

This is one of my primary reasons for having all L lenses, aside from the build and IQ--I could actually sell many of my lenses for a decent bit MORE than I paid for them, esp. right now when the dollar is weak against the yen.

yep. Ignoring the 10-22 I'm basically going all L zooms now. The primes I'd go with Ls if I had the cash, but I don't. But every single lens I have right now I've bought used and my bodies are refurbed and rebated so I can do no worse than breaking even on anything I own right now. That's why I flip all the time, to make money, a lot of people don't get that....

Originally Posted by Markitos

Personally, I like the 24-70 better for landscapes, period. It's a sharper lens out to the corners and generally, for ME, 24mm is usually wide enough. HOWEVER, sometimes you need to go wider, and I like the 16-35 for that. FOR YOU, it seems like a 16-35/17-40 would be the best answer with a FF/Crop body setup, BUT you also have the 10-22, so I understand where you're coming from with the 24-105 idea, and it's not a bad one, IF you use the 5D mostly for that stuff. If you don't, I can see you doing a lot of swapping between the 24-105 and the 10-22, because that 18-25mm range is where a lot of landscape stuff happens.

here's the way I see it, for me:

7D & 5Dii, 10-22, 17-40, 100-400 (2 landscaping options, 17-40 as mid on 7D)
7D & 5Dii, 17-40, 24-105, 100-400 (7D loses wide end when I need FPS)
7D & 5Dc, 10-22, 17-40, 24-105, 100-400 (all lenses covered, 5Dii gone, but what would I miss?)
7D, 10-22, 24-105, 100-400 (do I need FF at all at this point?)

do I need FF at all? If so, will I regret selling a 5Dii for a 5Dc? I'm keeping the 7D... I just wonder if I have both, will I revert back to FF for landscapes then ONLY use the 7D for action/reach? Is there a problem with that if I did? If I go with just a 7D, are there other lenses I could use the second body on more effective (primes that I'm not listing)? Right now I LOVE the 7D and I know it's good enough for the work I get paid for (all outside, all at low ISOs). But I'm wondering if I'll eventually want a better setup for shooting inside with Elias day to day? I liked/rationalized my GF1 originally, look where it is now. But LR3 makes a MASSIVE difference in noise on the 7D (and 5Dc, I was checking out old files with it last night).

Why no: 7D & 5Dii, 10-22, 24-105, 100-400? 10-22 will work on FF from ~16-22.

that's another option. My 10-22 is already EF converted. I just haven't had time to test it much.

but basically the 7D is staying and I really feel the 10-22 should stay as well thanks it and the 24-105 making a killer small kit for skiing...

If it helps you with any decisions, Ben, you shouldn't take much stock in what I use to shoot landscapes since I hardly ever go out with the specific intention of shooting landscapes. I often shoot them with whatever lens I have on hand that I've felt like packing/bringing with me.

But you likely already knew that. I just know that when I was in Oregon and TRYING to shoot landscapes that I mostly used the 24-70 and the 70-200, but that's also because I couldn't get close to a lot of the stuff I was shooting and used compression/layers instead to get my shots.

yeah, but you've also got the best reference in terms of a UWA, standard and tele zoom with 2 sensor sizes that have similar IQ, so it's worth asking, know what I mean?

Obviously the UWA is my bread and butter, but I've been feeling I want a standard zoom as well? But it's the 15-85 -vs- 18-55 -vs- 17-55/17-50 -vs- 24-105 -vs- 24-70 -vs- 17-40 (only if I keep a FF and feel I want a UWA there as well).
The 15-85 is tempting if I go just crop, it's drawback would be no sealing and it's variable.
the 18-55 is a hell of a value honestly, I could drown 9 and be ahead $ wise.
the 17-55 is 2.8 which would be rad with IS, but it's range seems short when paired with a 10-22.
the 24-105 seems to be the best range paired with the 10-22, but will f/4 be limited for how I'd use it (lack of separation)
the 24-70 is massive and expensive, but it has the second best range, is sealed, and the 2.8 would help if I go crop only
the 17-40 would only be an option if I keep a FF body and decide I want a UWA for it. Sealed small and inexpensiveish, but tiny range.

10-22, 24-70, 85 1.8, 100-400 would be a pretty nice setup, would it not? Would you miss much in there at all?

Originally Posted by Occytron

10-22, 24-70, 85 1.8, 100-400 would be a pretty nice setup, would it not? Would you miss much in there at all?

2.8 isn't fast enough for me in low light basically, so if I'm going to have at least two primes (one wideish, one longish) then why not save money and weight on the mid range zoom?

10-22, 24-105, 100-400 (and the 100-400 can stay home for a lot of things)
24/28 and 85

when I need speed, the primes give it to me. Even on one sensor size those 2 FLs cover a lot of options, but if I keep FF and crop, it's 4 FLs and I'm VERY covered. Also, if I keep FF the 24-105 will have good enough separation there if needed. I'm really thinking that's the solution for me, the only question is do I NEED a FF body, should it be the 5D or 5Dii and do I get a 17-40 as well.

I would give the 24-70 a lot more consideration if it wasn't so much more expensive AND bigger/heavier. It's the range of the 24-105 on crop when it'd be my long lens that makes it make more sense to me really, having 160mm f/4 is a lot of range in a 2 lens setup.

Would you really need the 17-40 if you kept FF? How wide can you go feasibly on the converted 10-22?

I saw you are selling the 24 to go with the 28 1.8, so that would be 10-22, 28, 24-105, 85, 100-400. I guess that would cover pretty much everything in that range.

first off, shawn, is this helping you at all? I know I like to hear how other people look at their own gear and use it, but we can move it to another thread if you like...

Originally Posted by Occytron

Would you really need the 17-40 if you kept FF? How wide can you go feasibly on the converted 10-22?

if I landscaped with the FF then yes. If I didn't then no. The 10-22 is converted. At about ~15mm there's no vignette stopped down, even with a filter (GND) but the corners look like they're ALWAYS soft unfortunately. Yes I could crop it a bit and make it work, but if I'm keeping FF for better landscape IQ, I'm getting a 17-40. The other thought is for portrait "work" as some of Nikki's friends are asking. But why can't both of these be done with the 7D?

I saw you are selling the 24 to go with the 28 1.8, so that would be 10-22, 28, 24-105, 85, 100-400. I guess that would cover pretty much everything in that range.

The 24 is going to do a 28mm AND 17-40mm for right now. Once I get the 17-40 on the 5Dii it'll be a very fair comparison between the 7D w/10-22. Then I'll shoot with both for a bit and see if I feel I need the 5Dii. Then I need to decide if I even want a FF at all if I don't keep the 5Dii.

I'm just coming around to the point that my high ISO shooting is all for fun for me. So a FF -vs- the 7D and a 24L -vs the 28, I don't NEED the better stuff just for fun. So I'm reducing the cost of my fun photography and trying to get my kit dialed in where I'm happy with it.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

first off, shawn, is this helping you at all? I know I like to hear how other people look at their own gear and use it, but we can move it to another thread if you like...

I was just thinking it was funny that every "What gear should I get" turns into a "What gear should ben get" thread

Ben, I'm hoping you like the 28. It was the fastest AFing lens I've owned (never had an L or a lens over $500), but I wasn't that happy in the long run.

Originally Posted by PhatheadWRX

Ben, I'm hoping you like the 28. It was the fastest AFing lens I've owned (never had an L or a lens over $500), but I wasn't that happy in the long run.

me too. I owned one before actually when I sold my 24-70 and got a 28/50/85 with the money... I didn't use it much back then, maybe 300 shots total? I got the 24L AFTER Elias was born and was doing my PAD mostly at night so my shooting subject/style changed DRASTICALLY between the two. I'm just hoping it AFs fast enough as that's my concern... The 85mm 1.8 SMOKES my current 24L right now. I also have a chance to buy back MY old 24L, so this will force that issue if the 28 isn't cutting it.

Shawn, I'd do (and may go this way long term):

Landscapes w/17-40 and 70-200.

Portraits/low light - 24/35, 50, 85, 135, or maybe you go long term 35, 85, 135 for portraits.

^ That looks pretty good, and is pretty much what I have, but I think 85 and 135 are pretty close together and I'm not sure you need both... same for 35/50--they are not super different FLs.

Yeah - for me I like 24/50 for now and maybe would do 135 longer term, or maybe 85. I'm finding that the 50mm is really nice and is becoming my go-to lens for a lot of shooting. Like shawn my 28-75 stays in the bag, but I am planning on keeping it around in case I get into weddings heavier as it works well as a backup lens - small, cheap, light, but still great shots.

yep, I've always felt doubling the FL is the next prime, so either 35 then 85 (or longer) or 24 50 and 135 (or the 100).

I've been trying the 35/85 combo by using the 24 on crop and the 85 on FF and I like it honestly. For me, It's nice only having ONE longer choice. When I had 50 and 135 I'd always pick wrong it seemed.

Originally Posted by thomps6s

That's what I keep thinking about too, I never use the 28-85 and I do use the 50mm a lot and love that focal length on the 5D. So, maybe I need to sell the Tammy and save $450 and then buy the 135mm?

Well if you do decide to sell, I could give it a good home