Equipment Advice ?

Paddy@CIRL

I don't want to sound like an ignorant so and so but I'd really just like to hear from people with experience that have used the lenses I'm about to ask about.

I'm looking to invest in some new lenses to add to my current setup. The current setup : Canon 1D MKII N & 5D MKII, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 2.8 L IS, 300 F4 L IS and Sigma 50 1.4

I primarily shoot motorsport and automotive statics but also shoot the occasional wedding / portrait / commercial session also.

My budget is around €3,000 to try and compliment what I already have. I will be upgrading the 300 F4 L IS to a 300 2.8 L IS at a future date but that falls outside of this post !

I'm looking for a wide angle lens and the two that appeal to me most are the 17-40 F4 L and the 16-35 F2.8 L II - Some of the best advice when buying gear was from our own Fajitas and that was to always buy the absolute best you can get. My only problem is the 16-35 is twice the price of the 17-40 and it's larger filter size will only add to that cost. The 17-40 is lighter which will be of huge benefit when shooting any rig shots of moving cars but losing that extra stop of light will be a killer during the darker events.

The other two lenses I'm looking at are the 100 2.8 L IS Macro and the 135 F2 L for the simple fact I don't have any 1:1 macro lenses and I love the 135 F2 as a portrait lens.

I think my options come down to the 16-35 and either of the 135/100 or the 17-40, 135 and the 100.

What would you guys reckon ? Or have you any alternative ideas ?

TinyExplosions

Paddy@CIRL wrote: »

losing that extra stop of light will be a killer during the darker events.

That puts to bed the 17-40 in my mind, so 16-35 it is!

Paddy@CIRL wrote: »

The other two lenses I'm looking at are the 100 2.8 L IS Macro and the 135 F2 L for the simple fact I don't have any 1:1 macro lenses and I love the 135 F2 as a portrait lens.

If you love it, go for it!

I think you've answered your own questions there (and that's not a dig, it's just in the process of asking, you've mentioned two lenses that seem to do exactly what you want )

Paulw

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8 and I love it. I'm looking at buying a 5D MkII to go with it.

Borderfox

I use the 17-40L a lot even in murky weddings and find it excellent, it has the same 77mm filter size as nearly all my gear.

I wouldnt reccomend the 135L, had one and could count on the fingers of one hand how many times I used it. You would get more use out of the macro to be honest. If you had the money the 24L mk2 is meant to be a killer

Paddy@CIRL

To throw a complete spanner in the works ...

85 F1.2 L, 17-40 F4L, 100/135 L?

Fajitas!

Paddy, pop out to my house in Waterford, the 135 f/2 is there if you want to play with it for a few days, but I'll need it back for the weekend. I couldn't recommend it enough. I should be here today and tomorrow at least.

I have far more use for it than the 85 1.2, which is a lovely lens, but just found the 135 to work better, faster and be a more comfortable focal length for it's minimum focusing distance.

I wouldnt reccomend the 135L, had one and could count on the fingers of one hand how many times I used it. You would get more use out of the macro to be honest.

Each to their own tbh, but it's one of my favorite lenses.

Paddy, are you looking at a new 16-35 MkII? If you are, I'd recommend keeping an eye on the second hand MKI's. They're going that bit cheaper these days. I still find them too wide to use, so I've never purchased, but I'm sure it's useful in your game.

Would you be interested in a super wide angle prime? Not as fast as the 16-35, and not as nessicarily convient as the 17-40, but a hell of a lot smaller and lighter, with great colours, sharpness and really good control of distortion is the Voigtlander 20mm 3.5. You'd never have to really worry about depth of field and focus (and lack of autofocus) because it's so wide, and it's a lovely lens when you don't want to be intrusive, because... well... it's tiny! It's so light, it'd be a dream to work with on your rig shots.

kensutz

Paddy call out to me on Thurs if you want the 17-40 for a few days.

Borderfox

85L without a doubt Paddy

Fajitas!

Borderfox wrote: »

85L without a doubt Paddy

Again, I'd have to disagree, it might suit you, but it's not for everyone.

It's heavy, the autofocus is slow and its minimum focusing distance too far away to make it as useful as it could be. Yes, it's 1.2 and it's got great colours, but I really don't think that's worth paying more than twice the price of the 135 for.

Borderfox

Fajitas! wrote: »

Again, I'd have to disagree, it might suit you, but it's not for everyone.

It's heavy, the autofocus is slow and its minimum focusing distance too far away to make it as useful as it could be. Yes, it's 1.2 and it's got great colours, but I really don't think that's worth paying more than twice the price of the 135 for.

For the amount of times I used it in wedding/portraits/sport it was a dead weight where the 85L was well used in all areas. Just my two cents

VisionaryP

I tried out both the 16-35 and 17-40 before settling on the 17-40. Picture quality is identical, and with a lens that wide, f4 is perfectly fine. I use it indoors and outdoors a lot, and I've never once had the thought 'Ooooh, if only I had 2.8...' 16-35 is a great lens, but so is the 17-40, which is far, far cheaper.

The 135 f2 and I have a love hate relationship. It's a great portrait lens and performs beautifully on a tripod. I find though that it's not great over long distances (due to lack of IS), so I find myself choosing the 70-200 2.8 IS over the 135 more and more.

hoganpoly

I have a 17-35L ,its a cracking lens bought in the UK for £499 from mifsuds, your welcome to borrow it if you wish, love your automotive work by the way:)

PCPhoto

just to throw it out there ..... the newer Canon lenses the "mk2's" ...if you will !

are designed to be properly calibrated with the newer digital cameras (thats what I have been told)...ie. 16-35mm mkII is supposed to compliment 1D mk4/5D mkII etc etc

I have 16-35mm mkI and mkII and can't tell the difference - if they both weren't out on loan to others I'd offer to give them both to you for testing - might have a 17-35mm f2.8 somewhere (haven't seen it in about 2yrs)

as regards upgrading .... the 5D mkII is a fantastic camera, the 1D mk4 is great....but like everything else....they're always going to bring out a newer version...rumours of a 5D mkIII due to be announced in April (for sale in May...or mid summer)

Fionn

re the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II or the EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L, i originally owned the 17-40 and then had the opportunity to buy the 16-35 in the states. As far as i could tell theres not a huge amount of difference in the IQ obviously the 2.8 gives you more light and on a full frame sometimes you have to watch it coz your toes will sometimes get in the picture

I subsequently sold the 17-40.

However if i was buying a wide angle again i'd be probably quite happy with the 17-40 especially at the price it is, compared to the 16-35.

AnimalRights

I used to own both the 16-35L II and the 17-40L, I wasn't happy with either, both distort, the 17-40L a tad more, I prefer the Fisheye option.

The 135L is my favourite lens and it has a super fast auto foucs and I couldn't do my pub shots without it, not that you've ever been to a Pub. :pac:

PCPhoto

also just to throw it out there - 180mm macro is also another option (for macro shots)

Fajitas!

The 180 is a beautiful lens.

ThOnda

:-D I wish I had the dilemma between 135/2 and 85/1.2 :-D
Honestly, it is really interesting to read what suits you and your photography, at least what I could see so far.
And about wide angle? I would not be worry about f4 for wide angle at all. Especially with nowadays sensitivities and noise handling.

Paddy@CIRL

I think in the battle of the UWA's the 17-40 is going to win it. Smaller, lighter, cheaper & 77mm filter size make it perfect for rig work - Big thanks to the user who rang me yesterday to offer me a loan of his 16-35, I'm still smiling thinking about the random kindness of a complete stranger !

I think the 135 F2 will pip it for the portrait prime and I'll wait until the 300 F4 shifts and replace it with the 100 2.8 L IS Macro.

If anyone knows of a 300 2.8 or 500 F4 for sale, please keep me in mind !

Thank you so much everyone for your help, thoughts and opinions !

Paddy@CIRL

Just to add I finally ordered the 135 F2, 17-40 & 1.4x extender for a respectable €1629 on Onestop Digital this evening.

I've been advised to skip the 300 2.8 and cough up for a 500 F4 instead. That's definitely going to hurt ...

Borderfox

What about the new 200-400L?

Paddy@CIRL

I reckon the money will be too big on them? Surely around the €6k mark?

I'd rather the quality of a prime and they can be got secondhand for reasonabler monies. Plus the thought of a 700mm F5.6 courtesy of the 1.4x is almost too much to handle