Want to build a quality Canon lens arsenal . . .

bvkamp

I just switched from Nikon to Canon, and I want to build a good lens line-up.

Here's what I have so far:

Canon 5D
24-104 f/4 L
580 flash

I am an amateur and I like to shoot people, street shots, cityscapes, and nature - I guess a little bit of everything. I tend toward wide-angle shots. I also like telephoto, but I have rarely found a need to go beyond 200mm. My budget is somewhat flexible, but let's throw $5000 out there as a guideline for additional lenses. I don't want to have a total of more than 5 or 6 lenses.

Here's what I got rid of in the Nikon line-up:

D1X
17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8
1.4 teleconverter
60 f/2.8 macro
85 f/1.4 AF
100 f/2.8 macro
FM2n
20 f/2.8 AIS
28 f/2 AIS
50 f/1.4 AIS
105 f/2.5 AIS
SB80 flash

Any suggestions from the Canon gang would be much appreciated! :thumb

Andy

bvkamp wrote:

I just switched from Nikon to Canon, and I want to build a good lens line-up.

Here's what I have so far:

Canon 5D
24-104 f/4 L
580 flash

I am an amateur and I like to shoot people, street shots, cityscapes, and nature - I guess a little bit of everything. I tend toward wide-angle shots. I also like telephoto, but I have rarely found a need to go beyond 200mm. My budget is somewhat flexible, but let's throw $5000 out there as a guideline for additional lenses. I don't want to have a total of more than 5 or 6 lenses.

Here's what I got rid of in the Nikon line-up:

D1X
17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8
1.4 teleconverter
60 f/2.8 macro
85 f/1.4 AF
100 f/2.8 macro
FM2n
20 f/2.8 AIS
28 f/2 AIS
50 f/1.4 AIS
105 f/2.5 AIS
SB80 flash

Any suggestions from the Canon gang would be much appreciated!

hiya bvk yeah we love spending other people's money

17-35 f/2.8: there's a 16-35 f/2.8L ($1300). there's also a 17-4 f/4L, about $600. if you're using it for landscapes, on a tripod, the 17-40L satisfies. the 16-35 is argued by some to be a bit sharper, contrastier, etc but in the end, the 17-40 gets the job done too.

28-70 f/2.8: i'd say your 24-105L covers this range.

80-200 f/2.8: canon makes 70-200 f/2.8 in IS (~VR) and non-IS. about $1100, $1600. there's an f/4 version that's a bargain. the 70-200s are generally regarded as fine fine lenses. many swear by the 70-200 f/2.8 IS

85 f/1.4 AF: canon's best value imo, the 85 f/1.8, about $300. there's an 85 f/1.2, about $1400, superb lens, weighs about as much as a full rack of ribs. you can find a fifty fifty split on these. bottomline: if you want portabilty and fast af (think indoor basketball or hockey) then the 1.8 is the one. if you're doing portraits in studio, or otherwise want the creamiest bokeh in the whole line, then the 1.2 is your choice.

100 f/2.8 macro: another fine lens in canon's lineup - 100 f/2.8 macro (~$450 i think). super sharp, super good.

50 f/1.4 AIS: canon makes an equiv - the 50 f/1.4. super lens i love it.

many of these lenses are on my website (links>gear) with examples.

good luck mate!

gtc

andy has bought and sold just about every lens in the canon line up so you can trust his judgement on this topic!

here is a link i posted a few days ago which you may find interesting,not that you are a beginner,but it covers the field pretty well



http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

bvkamp wrote:

I just switched from Nikon to Canon, and I want to build a good lens line-up.

Here's what I have so far:

Canon 5D
24-104 f/4 L
580 flash

I am an amateur and I like to shoot people, street shots, cityscapes, and nature - I guess a little bit of everything. I tend toward wide-angle shots. I also like telephoto, but I have rarely found a need to go beyond 200mm. My budget is somewhat flexible, but let's throw $5000 out there as a guideline for additional lenses. I don't want to have a total of more than 5 or 6 lenses.

Here's what I got rid of in the Nikon line-up:

D1X
17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8
1.4 teleconverter
60 f/2.8 macro
85 f/1.4 AF
100 f/2.8 macro
FM2n
20 f/2.8 AIS
28 f/2 AIS
50 f/1.4 AIS
105 f/2.5 AIS
SB80 flash

Any suggestions from the Canon gang would be much appreciated!

Andy

also, many lenses are just as good when bought used, from the flea market. popularly-traded lenses are: 17-40, 85 1.8. you can save a few bucks if you're interested.

Osprey Whisperer

Congrats on coming over to the dark side. Lens choice is very personal IMO...so in my opinion...my (current) favorite lens in my bag is my Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 USMII "L". Can't say enough good things about this lens. Along with great color,contrast,speed,build quality, sharpness, AF speed, amazing bokeh etc. etc. It's (relatively) inexpensive as far as quality glass goes. I picked mine up used for under $500 with a nice B&W filter to boot. If you think you need a light weight, fast telephoto.... this would be my choice. In those times you need more reach...it couples very well with Canon's 1.4X teleconverter/extender.


MM

pathfinder

I like Andy's suggestions a lot, but I would suggest you also consider the 135 f2 L also.

It is small, light, fast, sharp and relatively inexpensive for L glass - about $800 I think. Very smooth boquet. It focuses very quickly and focuses to approx 0.9 meters. That means it works almost as a macro too. It also couples with Canon's teleconverters. Here are two images captured last week end with it on a 20D.

bvkamp

Thanks for the help so far, guys! What a great forum you have here. Can anyone comment on the 180 f/3.5 L macro?

bvkamp

pathfinder wrote:

I like Andy's suggestions a lot, but I would suggest you also consider the 135 f2 L also.

It is small, light, fast, sharp and relatively inexpensive for L glass - about $800 I think. Very smooth boquet. It focuses very quickly and focuses to approx 0.9 meters. That means it works almost as a macro too. It also couples with Canon's teleconverters. Here are two images captured last week end with it on a 20D.

Nice shots!

bvkamp

andy wrote:

hiya bvk yeah we love spending other people's money

17-35 f/2.8: there's a 16-35 f/2.8L ($1300). there's also a 17-4 f/4L, about $600. if you're using it for landscapes, on a tripod, the 17-40L satisfies. the 16-35 is argued by some to be a bit sharper, contrastier, etc but in the end, the 17-40 gets the job done too.

28-70 f/2.8: i'd say your 24-105L covers this range.

80-200 f/2.8: canon makes 70-200 f/2.8 in IS (~VR) and non-IS. about $1100, $1600. there's an f/4 version that's a bargain. the 70-200s are generally regarded as fine fine lenses. many swear by the 70-200 f/2.8 IS

85 f/1.4 AF: canon's best value imo, the 85 f/1.8, about $300. there's an 85 f/1.2, about $1400, superb lens, weighs about as much as a full rack of ribs. you can find a fifty fifty split on these. bottomline: if you want portabilty and fast af (think indoor basketball or hockey) then the 1.8 is the one. if you're doing portraits in studio, or otherwise want the creamiest bokeh in the whole line, then the 1.2 is your choice.

100 f/2.8 macro: another fine lens in canon's lineup - 100 f/2.8 macro (~$450 i think). super sharp, super good.

50 f/1.4 AIS: canon makes an equiv - the 50 f/1.4. super lens i love it.

many of these lenses are on my website (links>gear) with examples.

good luck mate!

Andy - thanks for the insight. I've been lurking on this site for a while, and have always enjoyed the way you share your knowledge, not to mention your outstanding photography.

Those f/4 "L" zooms sure are tempting for the price and lower weight. I might do the 17-40 f/4 for the wide, but go for one of the f/2.8 lenses on the telephoto end, where I'm more likely to utilize the optical speed.

pathfinder

bvkamp wrote:

Thanks for the help so far, guys! What a great forum you have here. Can anyone comment on the 180 f/3.5 L macro?

180 f3.5 macros are great. Mine is a Tamron Di rather than a Canon L, but it is very sharp. I find it much more useful for butterflies than the shorter focal length macros. If I were to purchase today I would probably buy the Canon, but the Tamron does not suffer optically in comparison. I suspect the Canon 180 L may focus slightly faster, but this is a guess, not a fact. And macros are frequently focused manually anyway, so....
The longer length macros will have shallower DOF than the 50 or 100 macros - this can be good or bad depending on your needs, but it does allow isolation of subject against nice background bokeh. The Tamron 180 f3.5 Di macro is about half the price of the Canon, and that influenced my choice.
This was shot with the Tamron 180

bvkamp

pathfinder wrote:

180 f3.5 macros are great. Mine is a Tamron Di rather than a Canon L, but it is very sharp. I find it much more useful for butterflies than the shorter focal length macros. If I were to purchase today I would probably buy the Canon, but the Tamron does not suffer optically in comparison. I suspect the Canon 180 L may focus slightly faster, but this is a guess, not a fact. And macros are frequently focused manually anyway, so....
The longer length macros will have shallower DOF than the 50 or 100 macros - this can be good or bad depending on your needs, but it does allow isolation of subject against nice background bokeh. The Tamron 180 f3.5 Di macro is about half the price of the Canon, and that influenced my choice.
This was shot with the Tamron 180

Wow - that really isolates the subject nicely!

CalfeeRider

bvkamp wrote:

I just switched from Nikon to Canon, and I want to build a good lens line-up.

Here's what I have so far:

Canon 5D
24-104 f/4 L
580 flash

I am an amateur and I like to shoot people, street shots, cityscapes, and nature - I guess a little bit of everything. I tend toward wide-angle shots. I also like telephoto, but I have rarely found a need to go beyond 200mm. My budget is somewhat flexible, but let's throw $5000 out there as a guideline for additional lenses. I don't want to have a total of more than 5 or 6 lenses.

Here's what I got rid of in the Nikon line-up:

D1X
17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8
1.4 teleconverter
60 f/2.8 macro
85 f/1.4 AF
100 f/2.8 macro
FM2n
20 f/2.8 AIS
28 f/2 AIS
50 f/1.4 AIS
105 f/2.5 AIS
SB80 flash

Any suggestions from the Canon gang would be much appreciated!

Hi bvk!

I just did the same thing and moved from Nikon to Canon. I didn't have nearly the investment in Nikon that you had though - just a D70 and a couple of Sigma zooms.

And fwiw, I think you've come to the right place too. Andy, Pathfinder and the others on dgrin are a great bunch and as you mention really good about sharing their knowledge.

Welcome aboard!

ian408

Andy's list is pretty right on. Of those, I think I use the 70-200 most.

Ian

pathfinder

ian408 wrote:

Andy's list is pretty right on. Of those, I think I use the 70-200 most.

Ian

My brother, mereimage, uses the 70-200 as his primary tool also, Ian.

I hardly ever used mine on a 20D - too long indoors and too heavy to carry around outdoors. It is great used in a studio setting.

On a 1DsMkll, I find it works much better - wider and not as long a reach. It is very sharp and possesses a great bokeh. I just find that the 70-200 gets a lot more use at 200 than at 70 - so, an 85mm lens is a lot lighter to carry, as is a 135 prime, than the 70 200 f2.8 IS YMMV Different strokes for different folks:):

For sports shooters on the sideline it can be great on a monopod.

I was shooting the Mackinac Bridge last weekend and I was using a 20D with a 135 L and a 1DsMkll with a 70-200 zoom. The framing was almost the exactly the same for both cameras at 135 and 200 respectively, looking through their viewfinders.

It makes sense though, 135x1.6 Mag factor for the 20D= 216. Also that means 200mm on the 20D is the equivalent of 200x1.6=320 - like I said - kind of long for use inside dwellings.