NO Images - but a serious question.

Bilsen · December 5, 2013

This isn't a general question like "What lens should I buy?" It's very specific for opinions from y'all.

Right now my two main lenses are a 24-105 f4L and a 70-200 F4L IS. I also have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which, frankly, I rarely use because it just doesn't match up to the "L"s for sharpness or IQ.

I'm considering the Canon 28-70 f2.8 L

95% of what I shoot is model portfolio work, outdoors from April to November and in studio (with strobes) from November to March.

Obviously I have the focal length covered by my 2 "L"s so the question is:

For approximately $1,000 (used), what will one extra stop (f 2.8 ] do for me that I can't do now?

I'm dead serious here about wanting opinions from the members here. I can afford the lens but I'm old school enough not to waste the money for no incremental value.

What say you all??

divamum · December 5, 2013

What lens are you consdiring?

2.8 will buy you better bokeh, more light, and the ability to use depth of field more effectively. Especially on a crop camera, these are all important, IMO.

If you're considering the 24-70 2.8 I, I'd say don't bother; save up for the Mk II. Frankly, I'm so frustrated with standard zooms right now I'm considering selling them both and going to a 35L. I have both the Canon Mk I and the Tamron VC - both of them are decent lenses, but I am SO SO spoiled by the outstanding IQ of the 70-200 mk II -or my fast primes - that I'm frequently disappointed. This is, effectively, more a problem with ME than the lenses, but there we have it.

divamum · December 5, 2013

Ok, I see you edited to update the lens you're considering. I definitely WOULD NOT consider the 28-70 at that price; you can get the NEWER 24-70 I for that (sometimes less), and while the 28 is supposedly more consistently sharp wide open, it also isn't supported by Canon anymore, and doesn't have the resolution of the newer glass.

I'd put the grand in the piggy bank and save up for the Mk II, or go with a wide prime.

Sam · December 5, 2013

You have the focal lengths covered and for a, lets call it normal, f5.6 or so aperture these lenses are great.

Now for more creative work I would go with primes.

Canon's 135L 2.0 is fantastic! Canon's 85mm line up is also superb, and don't forget the Sigma 85 1.4.

Sam

Bilsen · December 5, 2013

Thanks Sam.

I wonder about the 135 and 85mm primes on my 1.6 and 1.3 crops. I had the 50mm 1.4 (still do but it's busted) and it was a good length on my 1.6 crops.

divamum · December 5, 2013

You shoot outside much of the time. You have the room for the 135. It's perfection wide open on a crop OR FF.

jmphotocraft · December 5, 2013

f/2.8 and faster also enables any high precision AF points you may have. If you're worried about the length and price of the 135L, the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are "secret Ls".

Hackbone · December 5, 2013

I've quit using the 28-70. It's heavy and I don't really want to shoot at 2.8. The folks here love the bokeh effect but it's never done much for me. I've been very happy with the 24-105 and the 70-200. I can get just about any effect I want with those. there is something about the compression of the 70-200 that is hard to beat for everything if you've got the room to back up. I've got a 135 and a 85 and never use them. Just an opinion and we've all got one.

With the high ISO settings now the 2.8 light gathering capability is not necessary.

jonh68 · December 5, 2013

For the 24-70 range, I don't think 2.8 is a big difference from f4. I would keep what you have. A cheaper option is to look at used 85 1.8 and 1.4 lenses as well as the 135 mm. I like my 85 1.8 because it is still small, but does give me a bit of compression over my 50mm 1.8.

I think the 2.8 difference is notable on the 70-200 vs the f4 option, but I like subject isolation.

Bilsen · December 5, 2013

Hackbone wrote: »

I've quit using the 28-70. It's heavy and I don't really want to shoot at 2.8. The folks here love the bokeh effect but it's never done much for me. I've been very happy with the 24-105 and the 70-200. I can get just about any effect I want with those. there is something about the compression of the 70-200 that is hard to beat for everything if you've got the room to back up. I've got a 135 and a 85 and never use them. Just an opinion and we've all got one.

With the high ISO settings now the 2.8 light gathering capability is not necessary.

To be honest Hack, this is my thinking right now.

Jon, thanks. I have a 50mm 1.4 that I almost never used, even before the auto focus committed suicide.

zoomer · December 5, 2013

85 1.8 and don't look back

Qarik · December 5, 2013

go with an 2.8 lens. that is one thing I never cared for in your shots..I can always see background very clearly

jmphotocraft · December 5, 2013

Qarik wrote: »

go with an 2.8 lens. that is one thing I never cared for in your shots..I can always see background very clearly

On this note, I say kill several birds with one stone - keep the 24-105L, sell the Rebel, the 1D2, the 28-75, the 55-250, don't buy a 24-70/2.8L, and spend the money on a 6D.

jasonscottphoto · December 5, 2013

+1 on the 135mm! Love this lens!

Bilsen · December 5, 2013

Qarik wrote: »

go with an 2.8 lens. that is one thing I never cared for in your shots..I can always see background very clearly

Well this is the 70-200 f4L IS at 116 mm. This isn't enough??

On this note, I say kill several birds with one stone - keep the 24-105L, sell the Rebel, the 1D2, the 28-75, the 55-250, don't buy a 24-70/2.8L, and spend the money on a 6D.

Now THAT's an interesting idea BUT I am falling in serious love with the 1D2 and I don't print about 9x12 so the megapixels mean nothing to me. Still, FF is intriguing.

Thanks for chiming in Jason. 135mm is a bit long for my APS-C and APS-H bodies. Zoomer may be closer with the 85mm but even that seems a bit long at 136 mm eq.

jonh68 · December 5, 2013

Bilsen wrote: »

Well this is the 70-200 f4L IS at 116 mm. This isn't enough??

Now THAT's an interesting idea BUT I am falling in serious love with the 1D2 and I don't print about 9x12 so the megapixels mean nothing to me. Still, FF is intriguing.

Thanks for chiming in Jason. 135mm is a bit long for my APS-C and APS-H bodies. Zoomer may be closer with the 85mm but even that seems a bit long at 136 mm eq.

It would be creamier with a 2.8, OR shooting at 200mm, especially full frame.

I guess I don't see how the 135 would be too long on a cropped sensor. Since you shoot outdoors, just back up a little more. The longer the lens you use the less distortion you get for portraits. Photographers that do professional head shots and portraits will try to use 300 mm if they can.

divamum · December 5, 2013

jonh68 wrote: »

It would be creamier with a 2.8, OR shooting at 200mm, especially full frame.

I guess I don't see how the 135 would be too long on a cropped sensor. Since you shoot outdoors, just back up a little more. The longer the lens you use the less distortion you get for portraits. Photographers that do professional head shots and portraits will try to use 300 mm if they can.

FWIW, I use the 70-200 2.8 more than any other lens these days. Even indoors......

I guess I keep wondering: if you're happy wiht your current lineup WHY do you want a different lens? What's the reason for adding another? If you can answer that question, it will make the choice of gear much clearer

wave01 · December 6, 2013

i think you have it covered with lenses and as you said its just one stop. now lets look at what else you could get and and i would look at a 5d mk3 springs to my mind

Bilsen · December 6, 2013

Well thanks all. The little bout of 24 hour gear flu seeme to have passed. For the moment, I'm sticking with my current lineup.

Jon, et al., you're right that 135 and 85 are not too long outdoors and I may consider one next year but I'm headed indoors and don't really have room for even my 70-200 indoors.

jmphotocraft · December 6, 2013

Bilsen wrote: »

Now THAT's an interesting idea BUT I am falling in serious love with the 1D2 and I don't print about 9x12 so the megapixels mean nothing to me. Still, FF is intriguing.

Yeah I went through that phase. I got over it though, especially when shooting over ISO 800. And unless you're shooting events for pay you don't need two bodies.

puzzledpaul · December 7, 2013

Bilsen wrote: »

...I am falling in serious love with the 1D2 ...

After using a 1D3 (yes, I know

) for nearly 4yrs, I can see why ...
The only physical disadvantage that I (personally) experience from its form factor is that I can get lower with a non 1D body when paired with a smaller dia lens than the 500 I normally use.

pp

NO Images - but a serious question.

Comments