# Which way to go



## d8032 (Nov 8, 2012)

I've recently developed an interest in nature and landscape photography after working in weddings and journalism for some time. I'm considering a new lens, but am struggling to decide what I would get the most use out of. My current glass setup is as follows:

17-35/2.8
28/1.8
35/2.0
50/1.8
85/1.8
100/2.8 macro
70-200/2.8
2x teleconverter

I'm considering a fisheye (15mm/2.8 ), a tilt/shift (most likely either 24 or 90) or something longer (400/2.8, 600/4 etc.). What do you feel would have the broadest application? (Not limiting it only to nature/landscapes but other areas as well)
Thanks for the help!


----------



## dhofmann (Nov 8, 2012)

On an APS-C body, even 15mm isn't very wide.

Is your 70-200/2.8 the mkII?


----------



## d8032 (Nov 8, 2012)

I suppose I should have listed my bodies as well. I've got a 5d Mk3 as well as a 30D. No, my 70-200 is the non-IS mk1


----------



## dhofmann (Nov 8, 2012)

Okay, 15mm on the 5D would give you a pretty good field of view, and you can always defish if necessary.

The 70-200/2.8 IS II is much sharper than the /2.8 non-IS, especially with the teleconverter.

A tilt/shift lens would be fun to play with, too...


----------



## preppyak (Nov 8, 2012)

Based on what you have, I'd say you are either looking for a T/S lens (probably the 24mm) or something long, like the 100-400. If you've got the money, then 400 and 600 you mention would be great for nature, but, they are a different world than what you are currently using.

Upgrading your 70-200 would probably have the broadest application, as you'd get IS and decent sharpness at 400mm f/5.6 with your TC. So, that may be the way to go for nature stuff until you are certain you need one of the $5000+ lenses. I think the T/S could have some broad applications as it expands to architecture, etc as well. I think the fisheye would be the most limited.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 8, 2012)

okae... okae... in between 21mm zeiss


----------



## dhofmann (Nov 8, 2012)

I really think you need something wider than 17mm on APS-C or 28mm on full-frame. You just can't get certain shorts otherwise.


----------



## d8032 (Nov 8, 2012)

Thanks for the replies, and particularly thanks for the link comparing the teleconverter and lenses dhofmann. I hadn't seen that site before and I think it could be really helpful in objective comparison. 

I acknowledge there are sharper options available for most of my gear (the 17-35 in particular comes to mind), but I've gotten reasonable (for me) results so far. I've considered to moving more towards primes (135/2 and 200/2.8 ), but at the moment I think I would rather have something that would let me do something I can't do already.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 8, 2012)

d8032 said:


> 28/1.8
> 35/2.0



I noticed you have both of these; I'm curious to know if you have a clear favorite? or are there different applications in which you use one over the other?


----------



## d8032 (Nov 8, 2012)

I've done a little thinking over the afternoon in regards to the long glass (400-600). If I were to go the long glass route I may look at a 300/4.0 over the larger ones for a few reasons. 

First it would be more economical. As you pointed out, I could use it for a while and if later I decided I absolutely had to have the bigger stuff I could step up then. In the mean time I could use the other funds to pick up other things. 

It would be more flexible when used with the teleconverter. 

It would be be lighter weight for hiking and general transportation. 

Lastly I could use existing filters on it because of the 77mm filter size. (polarizers, ND etc).

Does any of this sound like crazy talk?

kubelik,

I've always really liked the 28/1.8 but only really used it on film. (I just got the mk3 about two weeks ago) I used it extensively while shooting photo stories when i was in school for photojournalism. I would carry it, the 50 and the 85. It made for a very light and compact and reasonably flexible kit that wasn't very distracting for my subjects. 

That being said, I like the 35 focal length. I think optically it may be better than the 28, but I may just imagining that. I don't care for the AF motor on it (non usm), but I really like that it's small and light weight. 

Long story short I don't have a clear cut favorite at this time, but I'm starting to use both much more and the 17-35 less now that I have a full frame digital body. If I only had one lens it'd probably be a 35 mm (it was in fact the first lens i bought). The new 35 IS has my attention, but I'm not to keen on the price.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 9, 2012)

I suggest the ef 24mm f1.4ii and maybe a 10 stop nd filter, and that needs a tripod.


----------



## gmrza (Nov 9, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Okay, 15mm on the 5D would give you a pretty good field of view, and you can always defish if necessary.
> 
> The 70-200/2.8 IS II is much sharper than the /2.8 non-IS, especially with the teleconverter.
> 
> A tilt/shift lens would be fun to play with, too...



Just a comment on the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye - this lens is now discontinued, the only fisheye than Canon currently produces is the 8-15mm f/4L. You can probably pick the 15mm fisheye up 2nd hand if you really want it.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 9, 2012)

d8032, thanks for the reply! I'm still juggling whether or not the 35 f/2 IS is what I'm after or if I'm going to hold out a little longer for the 35 f/1.4 replacement (despite the obvious price difference that there's going to be). I've also heard lots of things good and bad about the 28 f/1.8 but I can't tell how much of it real-world use and how much of it is pixel-peeping, so it's great to hear from a real user.


----------



## d8032 (Nov 9, 2012)

gmrza,

Good point. I didn't realize it had been discontinued. I generally prefer used equipment for the economics. Though, after having to fix the 17-35 AF myself when it broke and canon would no longer support it, I've started to be a bit more leery about a lens that is several versions behind.

I've gone back and forth with myself over the 15 vs. the 8-15. I think the 8-15 is reasonably priced, but I don't know that I would use the wide end of it very much and question if the difference in cost could be better used somewhere else. Do you have experience with either lens? What types of situations would you want the circular image the 8mm produces on a FF body? 

kubelik, 

Over all I don't regret either lens, and am not in a big hurry to replace them even though the USM motor would be nice on the 35. Is either lens the best canon makes? No, but we have to be honest with ourselves as to what we actually need and what is the best use of our resources.

I've often considered the 35/1.4, and there is no denying the lens is sharper than either the 28 or 35's we've discussed, but it's also heavier, bulkier and more costly. The kit I described shooting with in school (28/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 ) could all be purchased together for less than the 35/1.4, probably less than the 35/2 IS if purchased used, and would give you a wider range of options while only being half a stop slower. 

I apologize if it seems as though I’m lecturing. I just think we all struggle with wanting the absolute best (myself included), even though there may be a more reasonable option that will still meet our needs. Lately I’ve been trying to evaluate potential purchases as to what it will enable me to do that I can’t currently accomplish. If it simply does the same job better it usually takes a back seat to something that opens up other options.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Nov 9, 2012)

always go the other way!


----------



## d8032 (Nov 9, 2012)




----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 9, 2012)

d8032 said:


> I've gone back and forth with myself over the 15 vs. the 8-15. I think the 8-15 is reasonably priced, but I don't know that I would use the wide end of it very much and question if the difference in cost could be better used somewhere else. Do you have experience with either lens? What types of situations would you want the circular image the 8mm produces on a FF body?



The zoom range of the 8-15 is nice if you have camera bodies of different formats, which you do. You can get full frame 180 diagonal AOV with both bodies, and you can decrease the AOV on the crop by using it at longer focal lengths. The longer focal length on a crop effectively uses the center of the image circle, which is less distorted.


----------

