14L + 24L or 16-35L? 135mm + 200L or 70-200 IS f2.8?

[Hacker]

Would you trade convenience for better IQ?

[mpenza]

depends on which is more important. generally, I need ok IQ but great convenience some people place emphasis on IQ.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by mpenza depends on which is more important. generally, I need ok IQ but great convenience some people place emphasis on IQ.

Actually, I should put in 14L + 24L + 35L or 16-35L? The 200mm would be the f1.8 .

[JediForce4ever]

I would go 16-35f2.8 + 70-200f2.8IS + 35L

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by JediForce4ever I would go 16-35f2.8 + 70-200f2.8IS + 35L

May I know why?

[JediForce4ever]

Originally Posted by Hacker May I know why?

cuz I prefer zooms more than primes.Yes, though primes sometimes make you shoot things from a different perspective, I havent reached that level of being able to use primes to shoot something yet.
Furthermore, I prefer varying my perspectives alot when I shoot something, and zooms, give me many different focal lenghts in just a single lens.Compact and easy to bring around.

So this setup gives me the lenses which I love to use most, and the 35f1.4 for bokeh and low light work.

[NorthernLights]

Originally Posted by Hacker Would you trade convenience for better IQ?

I presume you are talking about a 1.3x crop or 1.6x crop body.

certainly 16-35 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8 non-IS L. IS if you must but it costs like 800-900$ more.

Why? The 14L is the widest and brightest in its class but IQ-wise, loses the 16-35. The 24L is only marginally sharper at f2.8 against the 24mm of the zoom wide open.

14L - $3.4K

24L - $2.3K

135L - $1.35K - not useful at all for 1.3x and 1.6x crop...too long. at f2, handholdability is also in question.

200 f1.8 - expensive...$7-8K? no more parts.

Total cost way > $10K

Alternatively, 16-35L is now $2.1K local warranty. 70-200 f2.8 IS L - $2.8K.
Total << $5k. Worse still, does the same job. Try a zoom, you will avoid primes. Zooms get the job done. Primes are a luxury to me, L primes that is. If you do studio or outdoor shoots that earn $$, primes give you slightly better IQ.

Frankly, there is no comparison for lens like 85f1.2L. The colours are surreal and DOF is addictive.


Both sets of options are very very different questions in terms of cost. How do you expect advice here?

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by NorthernLights I presume you are talking about a 1.3x crop or 1.6x crop body.

No, on FF.

As for advice, just curious on what people use out there. 14 + 24 +35 vs 16-35mm is something of a peculiarity to me. 17-40mm appears sharper than both the 24L and 16-35L.

Yes, I have the 85L Mk II and the DoF is addictive. Just can't seem to see what advantages there are for the wide. Looks like the 16-35L is the way to go.

[NorthernLights]

Get the 14L, if you must only if you have the 1ds, 5d or 1dsmk2. Full frame that is. Then, it justifies. You are paying an exhorbitant price for a lens that must give you 14mm...no less.

This shot is wider than 14mm. It is taken with a non-L wide angle prime lens, also an f2.8. It is way sharper than the 14mm, has better colour and contrast. It is a Canon.

[NorthernLights]

Originally Posted by Hacker No, on FF. As for advice, just curious on what people use out there. 14 + 24 +35 vs 16-35mm is something of a peculiaruty to me. 17-40mm appears sharper than both the 24L and 16-35L.

Full frame?

Get the 24-70 or 24-105. Makes better sense than 16-35. Do you shoot wider than 24mm that is already like very wide?

135 f2 makes sense on FF. very good bokeh and not too long.

Save the $ on the 14L. Not worth it. Get the 24-70 or 24-105 and a 15mm fisheye and get a good de-fish software like PTLens.

Frankly, I would take the 135 as it is lighter than 70-200 f2.8. But it is a prime and less versatile. In a wedding, 85% of my shots are 24-70, only 12% on 70-200 and 3% on fisheye.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by NorthernLights Full frame? Get the 24-70 or 24-105. Makes better sense than 16-35. Do you shoot wider than 24mm that is already like very wide?

Thanks for the advice. I rarely shoot wider than 24 actually. I have thought about the 24-70L, but I hate lenses without IF. Of course, I can live with it. So a typical set up based on your recommendation is:

15 FE
24-70L
85L
135L

[NorthernLights]

Originally Posted by Hacker Thanks for the advice. I rarely shoot wider than 24 actually. I have thought about the 24-70L, but I hate lenses without IF. Of course, I can live with it. So a typical set up based on your recommendation is: 15 FE 24-70L 85L 135L

IF? What's that?

85L only if u shoot a lot of portraits AND you make $ out of photography or you are very wealthy and debt-free (home loans, children's education savings, retirement all accounted for). Too expensive and big. better to test with a cheaper 85f1.8 and see if you like to be restricted to 1 focal length.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by NorthernLights IF? What's that? 85L only if u shoot a lot of portraits AND you make $ out of photography or you are very wealthy and debt-free (home loans, children's education savings, retirement all accounted for). Too expensive and big. better to test with a cheaper 85f1.8 and see if you like to be restricted to 1 focal length.

I'm a hobbyist and own the 85L MK II which I absolutely like and don't mind the weight. The issue is with the wides which all have positives and negatives.

Of course, the other solution is just to get everything .

[An drew]

Originally Posted by Hacker I'm a hobbyist and own the 85L MK II which I absolutely like and don't mind the weight. The issue is with the wides which all have positives and negatives. Of course, the other solution is just to get everything .

I would prefer IF and USM lenses as well.

I went with 16-35, 35L, 85/1.8, 100/2.8,135L, 300L but I also have a zoom lens that cover almost the entire range.

I think the only great "wide" Canon lens is the 35L. 16-35 is just for the ultra-wideness, but not very sharp. 14 is perhaps not good value for money unless you specialise at 14mm. 24L is a strange lens to say the least.

85L and 135L are sublime lenses.

[dundee]

Originally Posted by Hacker Would you trade convenience for better IQ?

You seem to be trying to "cover" the range between 16-200mm. Perhaps you should figure out your shooting habits and buy lenses accordingly. That way you would end up with less "white horse" lenses that dont get used often.

As a 16-35L owner, i use this lens exclusively at 16mm. According to reviews, the 14mm is not a great performer at its price point. furthermore, the14/2.8 is a specialty lens with minimal usages for me, especially considering future full frame prospects. Then again, if you are a landscape aficionado why not?

verdict: 16-35/2.8 > 14/2.8 (I've only seen this lens in use once)

16-35/2.8 vs 24L
Most would go for the 35L in this case. the focal lengths are not that different, (think two steps back) but the 35L performs better that said the 35L is on my camera 80% of the time

135L+200L vs 70-200L IS
I will pick the primes, however why not 85L + 135L + 1.4xtc?

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by dundee 135L+200L vs 70-200L IS I will pick the primes, however why not 85L + 135L + 1.4xtc?

Never thought about it, but 135f2 + 1.4TC is still roughly a 200f2.8. It will still be better just to get 135 + 200. BTW, for 16-35, I guess you would recommend then 24 + 35 rather than 16-35? I rarely go below 24 actually.

Thanks again.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by An drew 24L is a strange lens to say the least.

Can you elaborate more on this?

[Discreet]

From what I am reading, you dont seem to know what you expect out of your equipment. Personally, that should be the main reason why you choose a lens over another. It seems to me that you do not have extensive experience with using these lenses especially the L primes like th 14L, 35L and 85L. Frankly, thoses lenses are very very specialized tools. In fact, with the nevertheless awesome selection of L zooms (24-70L, 70-200L) and the super clean ISO of today's DSLR, fast primes no longer seem so "necessary". If lens were like cars, the L zooms would be like a good european 4 door salon like a BMW 5 series while the L primes would be exotic cars like the Lambo or Bugatti Veyron.

Anyway my point is this, you do not seem to be a professional and are asking opinions online on how to spend a few grand worth of money. While I understand you want to stretch your dollar and get the best lens up front, you have to realise that everyone's shooting patterns is different. Some people prefer zooms, some swear by primes. It is like coffee and tea.

What i think you should do is to stick the F2.8 L zooms first. Get the 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8. Shoot with these 3 lenses for 3-6 months and see which focal length you end up using the most. And at which focal length you realise you are lacking light and require a bigger aperture. This is the most natural way of finding out which prime lens work for you. For example, it took me a while to realise that I do not like to shoot super wide angles. That is the reason why i sold off my 17-40L and for a while my widest lens was just a 24-70L (using a 1D mkII). Some people will say that is crazy, but as long it works for you... do whatever you want...

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by Discreet From what I am reading, you dont seem to know what you expect out of your equipment.

My original question is actually not what I need--I'm just curious what people prefer, convenience or IQ. The dilemma is on the wide side. If people actually read my post, I'm not requesting nor am I suggesting what I would need.

You should be less ascerbic about your comments. You do not even know what I have, or capable or owning.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by NorthernLights This shot is wider than 14mm. It is taken with a non-L wide angle prime lens, also an f2.8. It is way sharper than the 14mm, has better colour and contrast. It is a Canon.

My reason for this post is the fact that there is an ongoing debate on primes vs zooms on another forum (the above quote substantiates why the debate can be so heated at times). Rather than to influence people's actual comments, I have phrased the question to be as open as possible. I'm genuinely curious as to how Canon users come to their choices (no right or wrong) given so many variables to consider.

Perhaps those who have opted to use non-Canon options for the wides may like to contribute.