# Lens upgrade advice.



## pulseimages (Aug 27, 2020)

Tax free weekend is this weekend and I have a bunch of gift cards totaling $652.19 with my local camera shop. I shoot with a 6D and would like to upgrade a lens or two.

I currently own:
EF 17-40 f/4 L
EF 24-105 f/4 L IS
EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake
EF 85 f/1.8
EF 100 f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8 L non-IS.

I shoot mainly classic cars, architecture, night photography, people and fine art.

I was thinking of buying the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II and maybe 1 other lens. I don’t know if I should upgrade my 70-200 to the newer IS III version or my Macro to the IS version. Thoughts?


----------



## tron (Aug 27, 2020)

The upgrade of 70-200 to the newer IS III seems a major upgrade not so much for IQ because the non L which I used to have has very good IQ but for the combination IQ, IS, and latest coatings. I assume that the shop will get your old lenses back to save you money...

Also you could upgrade 17-40 to 16-35 4L IS.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 27, 2020)

tron said:


> The upgrade of 70-200 to the newer IS III seems a major upgrade not so much for IQ because the non L which I used to have has very good IQ but for the combination IQ, IS, and latest coatings. I assume that the shop will get your old lenses back to save you money...
> 
> Also you could upgrade 17-40 to 16-35 4L IS.


What would be a fair trade in value for the 70-200 f/2.8 L?


----------



## tron (Aug 27, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> What would be a fair trade in value for the 70-200 f/2.8 L?


I do not know. Depends on country, condition of the lens, shop. Maybe you can ask two or more camera photo sellers. Unless you are able to find byers for your lens before you proceed with buying the new one. In that case price could be a little higher than the shop.


----------



## TominNJ (Aug 27, 2020)

A tilt-shift for architecture is a possibility


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 27, 2020)

Hi pulseimages!



TominNJ said:


> A tilt-shift for architecture is a possibility


I would second that. Depending on your overal budget the Canon T&S are maybe out of reach if you don't get a great catch used.
But a Samyang could be within reach and the IQ is very good AFAIK (disclaimer: I don't own one).

Something maybe a little bit more versatile could be one of the WA/UWA EF primes with IS, depending on the focal length you prefer.
AF and IS are their main advantages over a T&S and so you could use them for night photography or classic cars e.g. when they drive by.
I own the EF 35/2 IS and 28/2.8 IS and love both of them.



pulseimages said:


> ... I don’t know if I should upgrade my 70-200 to the newer IS III...


This is something I would recommend only if you feel that the IS is missing.
Even though you can see some advantages for the new one at the TDP lens comparison esp. at the long end (200 mm) my guess would be that in daily shooting this will be not visible.



pulseimages said:


> ... or my Macro to the IS version...


If you use your macro a lot in the field, handheld, then this could be a really good idea.
That's what I do shooting insects.
But you would gain the HIS only, as the IQ is on paar.
I can tell you from personal experience with both macros.

Hope that helps.

Enjoy you GAS


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 27, 2020)

tron said:


> I do not know. Depends on country, condition of the lens, shop. Maybe you can ask two or more camera photo sellers. Unless you are able to find byers for your lens before you proceed with buying the new one. In that case price could be a little higher than the shop.


I’m dealing with Hunt’s Photo in Massachusetts. I remember I asked them a few years ago what the trade in value was for my 70-200 2.8 L and they offered me $500.00 which I thought was a little low. Then the guy told me if I sold it myself on the street I could easily get $1,000.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 27, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Tax free weekend is this weekend and I have a bunch of gift cards totaling $652.19 with my local camera shop. I shoot with a 6D and would like to upgrade a lens or two.
> 
> I currently own:
> EF 17-40 f/4 L
> ...


Architecture, cars, ????
Then, a TSE lens is an absolute must.
The 17mm TSE easily outperforms the 17-40 zoom (take a look at the TDP review), being sharp and contrasty right into the corners, and has no noticeable distortion.
PS: do NOT buy a Samyang !!!!!!!


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 27, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Hi pulseimages!
> 
> 
> I would second that. Depending on your overal budget the Canon T&S are maybe out of reach if you don't get a great catch used.
> ...


 Hi Maximilian!

Thank you for the breakdown, that’s what I have been looking for.

When I shoot with the 70-200 2.8L I have to take multiple shots of the same subject just to make sure I get a keeper because the lens is heavy and it’s getting harder for me to keep the lens steady as I get older without IS. Especially during the golden hour when cars look best and I need to stand back far enough not to get my shadows in the shot. Would IS give me a better keeper rate and keep my ISO down as the sun goes down?

I have never used my 100 Macro on a tripod and actually bought it before the L version was released. I haven’t had a problem with it but I just can’t use it really up close with details of a car because I can’t hold it that steady closeup. Is the L’s IS able to counteract the back & forth movements and sideside movements when you’re up close?

I know my 17-40’s sharpness is weak wide open but stopped down to f8 it’s pretty good but the corners could be better. Is the 16-40 IS night and day better?

I’ve never been impressed by my 24-105’s sharpness. It’s actually the softest L lenses I have ever used. That’s why I wanted to get the 24-70 2.8 L II. Do you own this one?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2020)

I’d upgrade the 17-40 to the 16-35 f4 IS as has been said, it is a massive improvement and a great bargain.

For you chosen specialities I’d then get a TS-E24 II, it is a game changing lens that when mastered will give you incomparable results if you are a tripod user.


----------



## TominNJ (Aug 27, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Hi Maximilian!
> 
> Thank you for the breakdown, that’s what I have been looking for.
> 
> ...



I think a monopod would help you a lot


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 27, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Would IS give me a better keeper rate and keep my ISO down as the sun goes down?


It depends on whether the car is moving or standing still. 
If it is moving you have to use shorter shutter times to avoid subject motion blur. Then the IS is not that important.
If the blur is comming from your hand shaking and ths subject is standing still, the is will help a lot.



> ...Is the L’s IS able to counteract the back & forth movements and sideside movements when you’re up close?


The macro HIS is able to compensate not only vertical and horizontal rotary/anglular shake but also shift shake. 
To avoid back & forth shake I typically use servo AF. That compensates my leaning back and forth.



> I know my 17-40’s sharpness is weak wide open but stopped down to f8 it’s pretty good but the corners could be better. Is the 16-40 IS night and day better?


I know the 17-40L but not the 16-35L IS. From what I've heard it should be much better than the old 17-40. Best compare yourself at TDP.
At the wide end corners seem to be much better with the 16-35 IS. And the 17-40 has much more CA, but this can be calculated out in post.



> I’ve never been impressed by my 24-105’s sharpness. It’s actually the softest L lenses I have ever used. That’s why I wanted to get the 24-70 2.8 L II. Do you own this one?


I don't have the 24-70 2.8 L II either but it is praised to have prime sharpness in a zoom. 
I would get it for sure if I had the money to spend. Although I'd miss the range above 70 mm which I use a lot.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 27, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> I’m dealing with Hunt’s Photo in Massachusetts. I remember I asked them a few years ago what the trade in value was for my 70-200 2.8 L and they offered me $500.00 which I thought was a little low. Then the guy told me if I sold it myself on the street I could easily get $1,000.


See what they sell for on eBay, in the same condition. That will give you a good idea of what you may get trying to sell it yourself. You may also look at buying what you want in the used market.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 27, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> It depends on whether the car is moving or standing still.
> If it is moving you have to use shorter shutter times to avoid subject motion blur. Then the IS is not that important.
> If the blur is comming from your hand shaking and ths subject is standing still, the is will help a lot.
> 
> ...


The subject isn’t moving and I’m still trying to combat blur from holding the 70-200.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 27, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Tax free weekend is this weekend and I have a bunch of gift cards totaling $652.19 with my local camera shop. I shoot with a 6D and would like to upgrade a lens or two.
> 
> I currently own:
> EF 17-40 f/4 L
> ...


You will need to decide what it is that you need that you are not getting with your current lenses. Is it better sharpness at some focal length? A focal length that you don’t have? A lens that is better for hand holding? A lens that is better in low light? Let the answers guide your choices.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 27, 2020)

I’m thinking I’m going to have to rent these lenses before I buy them.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 27, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> You will need to decide what it is that you need that you are not getting with your current lenses. Is it better sharpness at some focal length? A focal length that you don’t have? A lens that is better for hand holding? A lens that is better in low light? Let the answers guide your choices.


Well the 24-105 is good for portraits but it’s sharpness is lousy in just about everything else I have used it for such as night photography, architecture and classic cars. This is my main lens and I feel it’s holding me back. What would be the ideal upgrade to this lens?

I could use a monopod for my 70-200 and 100 Macro if I want to save money instead of buying the IS versions.

It would be nice to go wider than 17mm. I’ve heard the product quality of the Samyang and Rokinon lenses have been lacking in recent years though.


----------



## Dantana (Aug 27, 2020)

One note on upgrading the 24-105 to the 24-70 2.8 II. You will be giving up the IS that you have in the current lens. I only mention this because it seemed to be a concern with the other lenses mentioned.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 27, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Well the 24-105 is good for portraits but it’s sharpness is lousy in just about everything else I have used it for such as night photography, architecture and classic cars. This is my main lens and I feel it’s holding me back. What would be the ideal upgrade to this lens?
> 
> I could use a monopod for my 70-200 and 100 Macro if I want to save money instead of buying the IS versions.
> 
> It would be nice to go wider than 17mm. I’ve heard the product quality of the Samyang and Rokinon lenses have been lacking in recent years though.


You can find a used Canon 24-70mm L II for under a thousand. That would be much sharper than the 24-105. The Rokinon 14mm f~2.8 is very sharp and great for Astro if you can live with manual focus. Manual focus is not bad for Astro shooting. I’ve used both lenses in the past. I would probably use your EF 100mm macro for portraits.


----------



## tron (Aug 27, 2020)

It seems (actually seemed since a lot of time has passed since I last used it) to me that my 24-105 is fine on 5DIV (and 5DIII before). Since 6D has "only" 20Mpixels I would assume that you would be satisfied from 24-105. I understand that these descriptions are not quantitative so the suggestion to check at the-digital-picture.com is a sound one.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 27, 2020)

Dantana said:


> One note on upgrading the 24-105 to the 24-70 2.8 II. You will be giving up the IS that you have in the current lens. I only mention this because it seemed to be a concern with the other lenses mentioned.


I don’t think that will be a problem because I used to have the EF 28-80 f/2.8-4 L lens and that lens was rather heavy but never had a problem using it on my EOS-1 and 40D.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 27, 2020)

Also thinking to the future when I will upgrade my 6D. Unfortunately the R6 has the same megapixel count as my 6D but the majority of my lenses aren’t supported by the R5 if I want to get the most resolving power.


----------



## tron (Aug 27, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Also thinking to the future when I will upgrade my 6D. Unfortunately the R6 has the same megapixel count as my 6D but the majority of my lenses aren’t supported by the R5 if I want to get the most resolving power.


 In that case a 16-35 4L IS will hold as well as 70-200L IS III and 24-70 2.8 II. But beware that in that case you will be probably tempted by the native RF lenses and a second upgrade will be costly since you will be giving up some serious glass bought new.


----------



## Dantana (Aug 27, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> I don’t think that will be a problem because I used to have the EF 28-80 f/2.8-4 L lens and that lens was rather heavy but never had a problem using it on my EOS-1 and 40D.


Got it. And you have AMFAed your 24-105 to your 6D? I know that that lens seems to be one where people get mixed results. I had the same setup you do, 6D and 24-105L v1, and I always liked my results from it.

I will say that after switching to the R and the RF 24-105L, I am even happier with my images. But, I'm not a portrait photographer, so maybe I'm not noticing it as much as you would.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Aug 28, 2020)

Personally, with what you said I would go with the RF pair of 28-70 F2 + 70-200 F2.8 if you want to switch to RF. Unless weight is the issue, than sub the 24-70 F2.8. The thing is you mentioned dark shooting, otherwise I would give a plus to the 24-105 F4 (and you have one that size anyways).


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 28, 2020)

tron said:


> In that case a 16-35 4L IS will hold as well as 70-200L IS III and 24-70 2.8 II. But beware that in that case you will be probably tempted by the native RF lenses and a second upgrade will be costly since you will be giving up some serious glass bought new.


Someday I’ll switch to the new R system but won’t all those EF lenses you mentioned perform well with the EF-EOS R adapter?


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 28, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Hi pulseimages!
> 
> 
> I would second that. Depending on your overal budget the Canon T&S are maybe out of reach if you don't get a great catch used.
> ...


Your 35 f/2 IS, is that lens nearly as good optically as the 35mm f/1.4 L II? I remember reading that one portrait photographer only carried 3 focal lengths in his bag. The 35, 85 and 135 primes.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 28, 2020)

I look at my usage in Lightroom to see which focal lengths and apertures get the usage. If I can see that I'm limited in a high usage area, that's where I'd upgrade. If your 100 Macro gets lots of use, you will love the 100mm L. If you see a need for 24-70 f/2.8, go for it. Don't get a lens for someone else, get one that your actual usage proves you can benefit by upgrading.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 28, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Your 35 f/2 IS, is that lens nearly as good optically as the 35mm f/1.4 L II? ...


For about 1/3 of the price of the 35/1.4L II the IQ (see TDP) is not as good as that one. Though TDP makes it look worse as it really is.
But not only the price but also beeing much smaller it is more than good enough for me. 
Just take a look in the dedicated lens gallery here.


----------



## tron (Aug 28, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Someday I’ll switch to the new R system but won’t all those EF lenses you mentioned perform well with the EF-EOS R adapter?


They will perform just fine. I am talking about the possible temptation to get native RF lenses to make the most of IS and get rid of adapters.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 28, 2020)

tron said:


> They will perform just fine. I am talking about the possible temptation to get native RF lenses to make the most of IS and get rid of adapters.


When will the prices of the RF lenses come down? They are all ridiculously high. I appreciated Nikon’s approach to their Z system, make optics people can actually afford.


----------



## tron (Aug 28, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> When will the prices of the RF lenses come down? They are all ridiculously high. I appreciated Nikon’s approach to their Z system, make optics people can actually afford.


I have no idea but possibly not anytime soon. They are new and top of the line.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 29, 2020)




----------



## pulseimages (Aug 29, 2020)

1) In the previous post the first image was made with the 17-40 L at 17mm, f/13 at ISO 100. The bricks on the very left side coming at the viewer are soft, would the 16-35 f/4 L IS be noticeably sharper? I placed the camera on the ground for this image.

2) 2nd image is with the 24-105 f/4 L IS at 24mm, 30 seconds, f/11 at ISO 400. The bricks on the left are so soft that they almost look like a painting. I used a tripod, cable release and mirror lock. The 24-70 2.8 L II must be sharper than this?

3) Again taken with the 24-105 f/4 L IS at 70mm, 1/200sec, f/8 at ISO 200. I aimed the center point at the M black/chrome symbol because I wanted it to pop and it just doesn't. I took multiple shots in hoping to nail this and when I got home I noticed it wasn't as sharp as it could be. It's not out of focus but not razor sharp. These are the kind of shots I would like to nail and this lens just keeps letting me down.

4) Taken with the 70-200 2.8 L at 73mm, f/5.6, 1/1600sec, at ISO 400. Took multiple shots of this car and it's not razor sharp. Camera shake?

5) 70-200 2.8 L at 155mm, f/8, 1/3200sec at IS0 400. This one looks pretty good but I feel that I need to keep my shutter speeds up really high even standing still to counteract camera shake.


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2020)

1,2) 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-7 f2.8 II are better at the edges than the lenses you mention but are you sure your issues are not DOF related? Probably they are not but just play with focusing (closer) a little to make sure and find the sharpness limits of your lenses at the corners. But again yes the 2 mentioned lenses are better (especially the 16-35) you can check and make comparisons at www.the-digital-picture.com









Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com













Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





3,4,5) Have you have microadjusted the focus? You can try 3,4,5 cases using LiveView and compare the results
The speeds you use are high so it must not be camera shake especially since your camera is a FF 20mpixel one.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 29, 2020)

The 17-40 is a great little lens, but the 16-35 leaves it in the dirt. Vastly better corners. I would also propose the 70-200 f/4L IS II over any 2.8 out there unless you _really_ need the speed. During as GAS attack I bought a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II when I already had the f/4L IS. I never bring the 2.8 unless I have a specific purpose for it. The f/4 is just as sharp and so much lighter. Of coarse you realize that asking people for lens recommendations who don't know your shooting habits is just silly...


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 29, 2020)

brad-man said:


> The 17-40 is a great little lens, but the 16-35 leaves it in the dirt. Vastly better corners. I would also propose the 70-200 f/4L IS II over any 2.8 out there unless you _really_ need the speed. During as GAS attack I bought a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II when I already had the f/4L IS. I never bring the 2.8 unless I have a specific purpose for it. The f/4 is just as sharp and so much lighter. Of coarse you realize that asking people for lens recommendations who don't know your shooting habits is just silly...


I did rent the70-200 f/4L IS but found the lens way too light to hold steady. It just didn’t balance well on my 6D but it is a very sharp lens.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 29, 2020)

tron said:


> 1,2) 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-7 f2.8 II are better at the edges than the lenses you mention but are you sure your issues are not DOF related? Probably they are not but just play with focusing (closer) a little to make sure and find the sharpness limits of your lenses at the corners. But again yes the 2 mentioned lenses are better (especially the 16-35) you can check and make comparisons at www.the-digital-picture.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have used Reikan FoCal on all my lenses and even sent my 6D and 24-105 L back to Canon to calibrate together because I’ve never been thrilled with the sharpness.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 29, 2020)

tron said:


> 1,2) 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-7 f2.8 II are better at the edges than the lenses you mention but are you sure your issues are not DOF related? Probably they are not but just play with focusing (closer) a little to make sure and find the sharpness limits of your lenses at the corners. But again yes the 2 mentioned lenses are better (especially the 16-35) you can check and make comparisons at www.the-digital-picture.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I compare the 24-105 L vs the 24-70 2.8 L II the 24-70 trumps the 24-105 at all the focal lengths and apertures except at 70mm where it's not really a big difference to my eyes. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=4


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2020)

In that case I would suggest that an upgrade path would be 16-35 4L IS 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8L IS III and at the same time parting with 17-40 24-105 and 70-200 non-IS.

But don't do it at the same time. Make it piece by piece to verify that your results are on par with the suggestions. 

FYI I have 16-35 4L IS 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8L IS II.

But I have not used all the same. I can say that definitely 16-35 is excellent at the edges but - shame on me - due to carrying restrictions I haven't used 24-70 as much as I should to know/remember about the edges and the cases where I used my 70-200 was in portraits a few years ago and at night events at low light so I cannot help.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 30, 2020)

tron said:


> In that case I would suggest that an upgrade path would be 16-35 4L IS 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8L IS III and at the same time parting with 17-40 24-105 and 70-200 non-IS.
> 
> But don't do it at the same time. Make it piece by piece to verify that your results are on par with the suggestions.
> 
> ...


Okay, if you had to start with one of those lenses to upgrade/part with which would it be?


----------



## tron (Aug 30, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Okay, if you had to start with one of those lenses to upgrade/part with which would it be?


You know best your needs but I would suggest the 16-35.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Hi Maximilian!
> 
> Thank you for the breakdown, that’s what I have been looking for.
> 
> ...


It sounds like a lot of your problem is reluctance to use a tripod. Macro shots of a stationary subject is very obvious usage. If you get a tilt-shift lens, you’ll find that the tripod will make all the difference in the convenience and control. You can use 10x magnified live view for accurate focus. I‘d suggest the 24mm TS-E lens to start with. The 17mm lens is excellent, but trickier to use and the perspective gives more challenges for interiors. The 24mm also has a wider range of movements. I find it useful in a wider range of situations. I’ve certainly done plenty of hand-held macro shots and some t-s shots, but in limited situations where a tripod was not practical.

I get very sharp pictures from my non-L 24-105mm on my 6D2. Maybe it is an autofocus issue on yours.

I really like the 16-35mm f/4. So you won’t go wrong with it.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2020)

Those are nice photos even if not technically perfect. The third one appears the most problematic. Nothing is quite sharp. Beyond that it presents a depth of field issue, at least to me. I’d like the car interior to be sharper. Perhaps a wider focal length and focusing in a little farther would work. A tilt-shift lens might be a better solution; same for the brick wall.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 30, 2020)

stevelee said:


> It sounds like a lot of your problem is reluctance to use a tripod. Macro shots of a stationary subject is very obvious usage. If you get a tilt-shift lens, you’ll find that the tripod will make all the difference in the convenience and control. You can use 10x magnified live view for accurate focus. I‘d suggest the 24mm TS-E lens to start with. The 17mm lens is excellent, but trickier to use and the perspective gives more challenges for interiors. The 24mm also has a wider range of movements. I find it useful in a wider range of situations. I’ve certainly done plenty of hand-held macro shots and some t-s shots, but in limited situations where a tripod was not practical.
> 
> I get very sharp pictures from my non-L 24-105mm on my 6D2. Maybe it is an autofocus issue on yours.
> 
> I really like the 16-35mm f/4. So you won’t go wrong with it.


I've sent back my 6D + 24-105 L to Canon I think 8 times actually when I first received it in December 2013 and it was still under warranty because I'm not sure if it was the lens or the sensor but the image would be in focus in the center but the mid frame and corners were blurry. I sent it to I believe New Jersey a bunch of times and each time they would say they performed electrical work on the lens and ship it back saying it working to factory specs except the problem was still there. This went on for almost a year until they finally sent the camera and lens to their Newport News facility. They had a Canon engineer work on it and when they sent it back the image was no longer blurry but they wouldn't tell me what they did to correct it. 

I guess I could mount my Macro lens on a tripod and shoot car details that way it's just when the cars are parked there really isn't enough room to set up a tripod between them. Do you own the Non-IS Macro lens or the IS L Macro?


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 30, 2020)

Speaking of tripods I use a Manfrotto 3021B Pro. Should I be using something else?


----------



## ildyria (Aug 30, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> Speaking of tripods I use a Manfrotto 3021B Pro. Should I be using something else?


I use the Manfrotto Befree Advanced, it is just a matter of taste and weight.

I also shoot stationary cars [1] [2] sometimes and only use my 50mm f/1.4 and my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS (mk1) and I would say 90% of the time wide open.



stevelee said:


> It sounds like a lot of your problem is reluctance to use a tripod. Macro shots of a stationary subject is very obvious usage. If you get a tilt-shift lens, you’ll find that the tripod will make all the difference in the convenience and control. You can use 10x magnified live view for accurate focus.


I totally agree with this. By using the 10x magnification, you avoid the micro adjustment required by the auto-focus.

On the pictures you showed, you don't seem to use the range 35-70, as a result I second the choice of going for the 16-35 (I have never used TS lenses).

Personally I would replace the _EF 17-40 f/4 L_ *and* _EF 24-105 f/4 L IS_ by the 16-35mm f/4 IS (as IS seems to matters to you).

*Controversial opinion:* I would not get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 (I had the mk I, I found this lens to have very unreliable results for my taste).
The reason for this is that you already pretty much cover most of the range already:
- a 16-35mm will give you the 24-35 range
- the mid range you can get with your 40mm
- the long range is available via your 70-200mm.

While the loss of your 24-105mm may feel slightly annoying for portraiture, you still have the 85mm f/1.8. The fixed focal length will force you to move to frame your portraits but the f/1.8 aperture is way worth it.



pulseimages said:


> Also thinking to the future when I will upgrade my 6D. Unfortunately the R6 has the same megapixel count as my 6D but the majority of my lenses aren’t supported by the R5 if I want to get the most resolving power.


All your lenses will be supported by the R5 & R6 (with the adaptor). There is no loss of Image Quality, and some says that the lenses perform better on the mirrorless bodies. Also note that you will not need the micro adjustment that you were complaining about as the focus is done by on the sensor and not by a different captor. You should also checkout the EOS R, 30Mpx and Eye autofocus for portraits. 

When switching to the R5 & R6 with your current EF glass, what you will not get is the 12 FPS but only 6.9.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> I guess I could mount my Macro lens on a tripod and shoot car details that way it's just when the cars are parked there really isn't enough room to set up a tripod between them. Do you own the Non-IS Macro lens or the IS L Macro?



I have the non-L non-IS 100mm macro lens. Someone above suggested that when you don't have room to set up a tripod, you could use a monopod. My guess is that in shooting details on cars, you are not at or close to the 1:1 magnification range, so things will be not so tricky as with maximum magnification. With higher magnification you lose more light, and at the same time you need to stop down more to get some depth of field. At 1:1 you might also need to make multiple shots using a focusing rail and layer them in Photoshop. Obviously that needs a tripod. But I doubt you need to do much of anything down in that range, where you are shooting things smaller than 1". Bracing yourself on the adjacent car and bracing the camera on your body and not breathing might be enough to get a percentage of your shots to work. Since I have no experience with IS in macro range, I don't know how much it helps in real life. If I had it, most of the time I would have shut it off and put the camera on a tripod anyway. When I do handheld macro shots, my problem is less of an issue with my shaking the camera as with the motion of the subject. I'm chasing a flying insect, or I'm doing a closeup of little flowers on a bush, and even a tiny bit of wind will move them around. I shot this at f/11 for 1/80 sec. It is cropped a little for the sake of composition, and of course reduced to a JPEG for posting.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2020)

My non-L lenses were bought times when the choice was largely financial. I was still shooting the Rebel T3i when I wanted to get into macro shooting. I had tried using a telephoto lens on some cheap extension tubes ($14 I think), and I got some amazingly good pictures. So I thought that rather than buying some good tubes that would let me control the lens opening, that I'd get a macro lens. So at that point it was not a decision for me between the L version and the non-L, but between buying the non-L or not buying it. Reviews suggested that IQ was comparable, and I think the price difference may have been greater than it is now. IS wasn't a consideration, since I figured to use a tripod for macro shots anyway. On the T3i it also served as a nice short telephoto, 160mm equivalent field of view.

When I bought the 6D2 to go to full frame, I decided to get the kit lens for general purposes to hold me until I figured out what lenses I eventually wanted. There was a pretty good price difference for the kit with the L lens vs. the STM, and I thought the STM might have some advantages for video anyway. Right after I got the camera and the 24–105mm STM, I was invited to go with neighbors to a Chinese lantern exhibit at some gardens, and made it a trip to try out the new camera and lens. The results surprised me pleasantly. We went late afternoon and stayed until they closed that night, and I was shooting in all sorts of lighting conditions. So I have been pleased to keep the kit lens as my general purpose lens and add amazing L zooms on both ends of the focal length range.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 31, 2020)

ildyria said:


> I use the Manfrotto Befree Advanced, it is just a matter of taste and weight.
> 
> I also shoot stationary cars [1] [2] sometimes and only use my 50mm f/1.4 and my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS (mk1) and I would say 90% of the time wide open.
> 
> ...


Good to know about losing out on the FPS. I actually do shoot a lot in the 35-70 range. I just posted images that I was unhappy with regardless of focal length.

I went to Hunt’s today and received trade in quotes for the 17-40 L - $220 and 24-105 L - $225. Though B&H will give me a little more. Is it better to sell the lenses on your own on trade them into a camera store?

I want to rent the 16-35 and the 24-70 to see if it’s right for me.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> [..] Is it better to sell the lenses on your own on trade them into a camera store?[..]



You generally get better prices selling them yourself, but that comes with the downside of having to deal with actual people. Here in .nl the biggest online marketplace (marktplaats.nl) is pretty much only used by scammers or entitled complainers once you go outside the realm of used baby gear.

I'd happily settle for less money to avoid the hassle of disputes and extra special shipping instructions. And it helps to shop around, the quoted I received for my RP were €400, €500 and €800. And the €800 quote was without mentioning what I'd trade it in for, the others mentioned the R5.


----------



## ildyria (Aug 31, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> I went to Hunt’s today and received trade in quotes for the 17-40 L - $220 and 24-105 L - $225. Though B&H will give me a little more. Is it better to sell the lenses on your own on trade them into a camera store?


I bought my 17-40 L for about 250 Euro second hand, and if I look on Markplaats, I find the 24-105 L for 350 Euro. But also stores need to make money too, so it is not surprising they accept it for less. So by default you will get more if you sell them yourself, the question is do you have the time? 

Also when buying second hand the two choices you have are in person or in store. In person you get to know the previous owner, in store you expect the lens to be checked for major defects.


----------



## Dantana (Aug 31, 2020)

I sold my 6D, 24-105 v1, a 2x Extender I never used, and an old Rebel to MPB. They gave me $368 for the 24-105, but I'm sure that changes all the time and depends on the lens itself. It's the only transaction I have made there. I have bought a few things on Fred Miranda and haven't had any issues, but have never sold anything there.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 31, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> View attachment 192498



Ah... the MIT chapel and Kresge auditorium... brings back memories.


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 2, 2020)

ildyria said:


> I use the Manfrotto Befree Advanced, it is just a matter of taste and weight.
> 
> I also shoot stationary cars [1] [2] sometimes and only use my 50mm f/1.4 and my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS (mk1) and I would say 90% of the time wide open.
> 
> ...


How can there be no loss of image quality using an old EF lens on a high resolution Mirrorless camera such as the R5? Wouldn’t certain glass that’s soft on a DSLR be just if not more soft on the R5?


----------



## ildyria (Sep 3, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> How can there be no loss of image quality using an old EF lens on a high resolution Mirrorless camera such as the R5? Wouldn’t certain glass that’s soft on a DSLR be just if not more soft on the R5?


What I meant is *the DPAF II of the R5/R6 is insanely good*, this makes lenses that were already really good (e.g. 135mm f/2) but with razor thin DoF even better because they can focus exactly where needed.


----------



## Frodo (Sep 8, 2020)

pulseimages said:


> How can there be no loss of image quality using an old EF lens on a high resolution Mirrorless camera such as the R5? Wouldn’t certain glass that’s soft on a DSLR be just if not more soft on the R5?


A lens won't be softer on a higher MP camera, indeed it will often be sharper. But you will gain more with a sharpwr lens on a high MP camera.
My EF 24-105/4L (v1) was noticeably sharper on my 5DsR than on my 6D. Indeed, it was sharper at f/8 than my EF 35/2IS at f/8 on the 6D.


----------

