# Crop to FF Questions:



## Cory (Jan 3, 2016)

1. Would 24mm (24-70 2.8 II) be good-to-go in most cases for astrophotography?

2. 40mm or 50 STM for street/light travel?

3. Would the new 100-400 not be too bad indoors with the high ISO capability (especially for stage performances)?

4. Does the 24-70 somewhat replace an 85 1.8 and then the 135 2.0 being a nice complement to the 24-70?

:-*


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 3, 2016)

1- Yes, the Canon 24-70mm L ii, it really is a good lens to astro photograph also. There are better options for astro, but this is a good start.

2- Yes, 40mm and 50mm STM lenses are great for street photography and travel.

3- No, Canon 100-400mm L ii, is not very suitable for shooting indoors. Not only because it F4.5-5.6 but the zoom range. Canon 70-200 IS II shines here.

4- Somehow, 24-70 L II can replace 85mm F1.8 as the angle of view is similar. But 135mm F2 obviously can not be replaced by 24-70, but by 70-200mm. I particularly love the Canon 100mm F2, which is almost as good as 135L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2016)

1. Agree, the 24-70/2.8 II is very good. I generally prefer wider, the Rokinon/Samyang 14/2.8 is an excellent option. 

2. I like the 40/2.8 – it's basically a body cap. Often f/1.8 DoF is too shallow. 

3. Depends on distance. If you're really far, you may need that 400mm. Personally, I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II for indoor events, and even at f/2.8-4 I'm usually at ISO 3200 or higher. 

4. If I interpret your question correctly, the 24-70/2.8 on FF certainly does not replace the 85/1.8 on crop. The 70-200/2.8 would. The pairing of 24-70/2.8 and 135L is good (think 17-55/2.8 + 85/1.8 on crop), but budget permitting the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII lenses are tough to beat as a pairing for versatility and IQ.


----------



## Cory (Jan 3, 2016)

Thanks. I think my minimalist approach is leading to either -
1. 24-70 2.8 II and 200 2.8 (already have the 200) or
2. 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II (and maybe a 2x extender for those high school graduations, etc.?) - I guess these two would potentially be quite bada**ed?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 3, 2016)

Cory said:


> Thanks. I think my minimalist approach is leading to either -
> 1. 24-70 2.8 II and 200 2.8 (already have the 200) or
> 2. 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II (and maybe a 2x extender for those high school graduations, etc.?) - I guess these two would potentially be quite bada**ed?



The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a great event lens indoors, but depending on how dim it is, going to f/4 or f/5.6 with extenders may not be practical. The 24-70/70-200 is a great but heavier combo. Some events put restrictions on lens size, which often rules out the 70-200. Outdoors or where there is ample light, the 100-400 II is better if you need longer.


----------



## tolusina (Jan 3, 2016)

Cory said:


> ...
> 2. 40mm or 50 STM for street/light travel?
> ...


I have both, no question in my mind, the 40 wins.
The only time I mount the 50 is when I'll be shooting in very very dark conditions, and then I only choose the 50 for the brighter viewfinder.
The extra 'reach' of the 50 is of very minor significance.
The slightly wider field of view of the 40 I find quite significant.

Obviously, the 40 is much slimmer and lighter, makes a very tight and tidy carry package mounted on a 6D.


----------



## Cory (Jan 3, 2016)

Thanks everyone. I think when the time comes (moving on to the 6D) the winner will be the 24-70 2.8II, 200 2.8II that I already have and 100-400II (with the 40 obtained right away to kick things off).


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 3, 2016)

The 24-70 f2.8L II and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II are my workhorses. For anything indoor -- sports, events, portraits -- these two lenses meet just about any need. They top my Four Lenses I can't Live Without list.

The 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II and the 40 f2.8 pancake round out this list. The 100-400 is a recent acquisition, just in time for last summer's sporting events. When there's light, it's easy -- very easy -- to like this lens. It's fantastic for sports, focuses very quickly, and can still provide creamy backgrounds. For outdoor work, I generally leave the 70-200 home and bring this lens (unless I'm shooting portraits) and either the 24-70 or the 40.

The 40 is my travel light lens, for obvious reasons. Many times I only need the long zoom, but always bring the 40 just in case I need something wider. This lens is also great for more casual events like burgers with the team, where you want something less obtrusive.

Of these four lenses the 70-200 is my most used, by far. This lens is particularly great for candids and portraits.

If funds allow, I would certainly recommend starting with the 24-70 and the 70-200, then adding the 40 and the 100-400. For what it's worth, I considered tele-converters with the 70-200, but opted for 100-400 for several reasons. When compared to 70-200 on a 2X converter, the 100-400 has better IQ, potentially better focus performance, and the 100-400 range is more useful than 140-400. On paper, the tele-converter route is more versatile. In practice, this means more lens and converter swapping -- more wasted time, potentially more lost shots, and a greater risk of getting dust on the sensor.

Last thought. I most often shoot with two bodies, one with a short zoom and one with a long zoom. There are other great lenses to consider. I like the 24-105 f4L IS and the 35 f2.0 IS. These lenses give me the option to play with controlled motion blur using slow shutter speeds. The 35 is also great for low light and smaller DOF. I may add a fast 50 and/or a fast 85 in the future. But, I consider these to be specially lenses for more specific types of shots. If shooting an event where getting the shot is critical, the 24-70 and 70-200 on two bodies can't be beat. They're great for low light, cover a wide focal range, and no time is lost in changing lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 4, 2016)

Cory said:


> Thanks everyone. I think when the time comes (moving on to the 6D) the winner will be the 24-70 2.8II, 200 2.8II that I already have and 100-400II (with the 40 obtained right away to kick things off).



There is a huge gap between the 24-70 and 200mm. The common FF portrait focal lengths of 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm are missing. The 100-400 will not fill it except outdoors, and it will not give you shallow dof. Consider a 100mmL, or better yet, the 70=200mm f/2.8 L

I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 stm over the 40mm f/2.8 because sometimes you really need f/1.8 or even f/1.4. Having one wide aperture lens can come in handy.


----------



## Zv (Jan 4, 2016)

1. 24mm is pretty wide and f/2.8 is fairly decent for Astro. Some prefer wider though it's down to preference. Anything between 14mm - 24mm is generally good for Astro. The Samyang / Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 manual lens is cheap and makes a good alternative or compliment. 

2. Personally I like the 50mm focal length and the f/1.8 ability which comes in handy when you're indoors. Haven't used the 40 but if you have the 24-70 f/2.8 you likely wouldn't use it much. 

3. 70-200 f/2.8 IS is your friend for this stuff. Get a 1.4x teleconvertor for that extra reach. 100-400L II is nice though and very versatile I hear. You could bump up the ISO but might as well use the best tool for the job in the first place. 

4. I would recommend the 135L for portraits. The 24-70 would kinda cover your wider portrait focal length with some cropping. However if you have a 70-200 lens you could do without the 135L. F/2.8 is already pretty shallow at this range. 

So you could get by quite nicely with just 24-70LII, 70-200LII and 50 STM (practically free). That's a decent kit that covers a lot. Good place to start.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2016)

Zv said:


> Haven't used the 40 but if you have the 24-70 f/2.8 you likely wouldn't use it much.



That's not the case for me. I have both the 24-70/2.8 II and the 70-200/2.8 IS II and they're a great and versatile combo...and a heavy combo. When I'm going to an event where I know the 70-200 will be the primary lens and I need to be mobile, the 40/2.8 is great because it fits in a pocket (even jeans!) in case I need a wider FoV.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 4, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 stm over the 40mm f/2.8 because sometimes you really need f/1.8 or even f/1.4. Having one wide aperture lens can come in handy.


Good point. The 50 f1.8 is cheap, sharp, and relatively small. It is handy having at least one prime lens in the 35-85 range with an aperture of f2.0 or wider.


----------



## Cory (Jan 4, 2016)

I think you all have talked me into the 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400. The good news is that I start tomorrow waking up at 4:30 every morning to work my *** off.
Might wait to see what/when/if replaces the 50 1.4.
I think that Operation-Selling-Off-Sh*t is about to commence.
Thanks again.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't used the 40 but if you have the 24-70 f/2.8 you likely wouldn't use it much.
> ...


+1. I do this a lot. I'll take a 1Dx with the 100-400 to an outdoor event plus the 40. Or I'll take the 70-200 to an indoor event plus the 40. In a strange way, it's kind of fun shooting a 1Dx with a 40 pancake on it.


----------



## Zv (Jan 4, 2016)

FTb-n said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Yeah I agree with having a small prime in the bag / pocket when primarily using a bigger zoom but I just thought for me that small prime is the 50 STM rather than the 40 as is doubles up as a nice low light lens. The 40 would in theory get less use since it's aperture is same as the zooms. The 50 gives you an extra reason to take it along and the size difference isn't that much between them, relatively speaking. 

Though I can totally see the advantage of a pancake lens and I have often thought about buying the 40 just for a bit of fun!


----------



## Cory (Jan 4, 2016)

Sorry to be a nut, but what do you think of:
Rokinon 14 2.8 (or Sigma 20mm Art)
Canon 35 2.0 IS
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 135 2.0
Canon 200 2.8 II
Canon 100-400 II


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 4, 2016)

Cory said:


> Sorry to be a nut, but what do you think of:
> Rokinon 14 2.8 (or Sigma 20mm Art)
> Canon 35 2.0 IS
> Canon 85 1.8
> ...



That would be a nice set up - all depends on how many lenses you want to carry with you. I agree with the group here that the 24-70 and 70-200 are a great combo that will cover most, maybe all, situations.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2016)

Assuming no budget or size limits, if I were to go for a 2 lens kit for FF, I'd get the 24-70F2.8 and the 100-400F5.6. Yes, there is a gap between 70 and 100mm.... If it were to be a 3 lens kit, then it would also include the 70-200F2.8....

If it was for travel and I was worried about weight, I'd replace the 24-70 and 70-200 with the F4 versions.

However, to address your questions....
1. Would 24mm (24-70 2.8 II) be good-to-go in most cases for astrophotography?
Not really.... you want wider and faster....

2. 40mm or 50 STM for street/light travel?
yes.... the 40 is about the size of a lens cap.... a decent lens and you can't get any smaller...

3. Would the new 100-400 not be too bad indoors with the high ISO capability (especially for stage performances)?
It would do, but it is slow for that combination of poor lighting and action... I'd want an F2.8 (or faster) lens.

4. Does the 24-70 somewhat replace an 85 1.8 and then the 135 2.0 being a nice complement to the 24-70?
no opinion, hard to say unless you know the circumstances it is used under...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 4, 2016)

Cory said:


> Sorry to be a nut, but what do you think of:
> Rokinon 14 2.8 (or Sigma 20mm Art)
> Canon 35 2.0 IS
> Canon 85 1.8
> ...


A great kit lenses for sure. But for that kind of photography?

You said do school events and a wide-angle zoom seems required on these occasions. It seems to me there is no escaping the 24-70 F2.8.


Sigma 20mm F1.4 Art, serves very well to capture the entire stage in a photo, and for astro just stop down and eliminate coma.
Canon 35 IS F2 is a great lens for various uses.
Canon 85 F1.8 and 135L are great lenses, but I preferred to go with Sigma 50 Art and Canon 100 F2.
Canon 200 F2.8 II is excellent, but you can miss image stabilizer.
Canon 100-400 ii is fine if the light is sufficient.


----------



## Cory (Jan 4, 2016)

You've all been enormously helpful. I think to start:
wide angle - ?
Canon 35 2.0 IS (already have it)
Canon 100 2.0 
Canon 200 2.8II (already have it)
Canon 100-400II

on a side note - here's a bunch of pics I took, if you like, the other day with the 200 2.8II/70D (straight JPEG with zero processing or cropping) -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157663004303236


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 4, 2016)

Cory said:


> Sorry to be a nut, but what do you think of:
> Rokinon 14 2.8 (or Sigma 20mm Art)
> Canon 35 2.0 IS
> Canon 85 1.8
> ...



A very nice set of lenses, but not very practical if you need to change focal lengths often/quickly. Most people use zooms most of the time and supplement it with primes. Those that predominantly use primes also tend to have multiple bodies.

If you plan on keeping your 35 f/2 IS and 85 f/1.8, then getting the 100-400 II only can work as long as you're not too critical about getting shots indoors at longer focal lengths. The most versatile is the 24-70/70-200 combination with a 2x TC. The 70-200 with the 2x will still be very good even if it can't match the 100-400 II. If you're able to fund both lenses without selling the 35 or 85, then you should be all set for most of your use cases. The 35 f/2 IS can serve as a street/light travel lens. The 40 pancake is smaller, but when the body is accounted for, it's not much smaller and you gain a stop and IS. You also might also considering selling the 85 f/1.8 and 200 f/2.8 if it helps with funding the purchases.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 4, 2016)

Cory said:


> Sorry to be a nut, but what do you think of:
> Rokinon 14 2.8 (or Sigma 20mm Art)
> Canon 35 2.0 IS
> Canon 85 1.8
> ...



I think that is a great kit. Of course I'm a bit of a prime shooter and the 35mm/85mm primes are one of my favorite kits to go out with.

Personally I'd swap the 200 f/2.8 for a 70-200 zoom, much more versatile.

It really comes down to personal preference and as others have asked, what kind of shooting do you do or want to do. Like I said, I like primes and for the casual shooting I do they work really well. If I were an event shooter though, it would be tough to beat the versatility of a 24-70 zoom and not lose times swapping lenses.


----------



## Zv (Jan 4, 2016)

If you have the 35 f/2 IS you can do without the 40 STM. 

Sell the 85 and 200 and do yourself a favor and buy a 70-200LII. There are limitless uses for a fast telephoto zoom with IS. Why have a 200 without IS when you can have one with plus you get 70 - 199mm as a bonus. 

At 200mm you'll be able to get good results at 1/60s or even slower with the IS which is very useful indoors when your subject is static. Getting that extra DOF without having to resort to ridiculous ISO values. It also steadies the viewfinder for easy composing. 

I didn't have much love for the 85 1.8 when I owned it. Purple fringing all over the place wide open. Yes you can fix that easily in post but it's still more work. The darn thing only worked well around f/2.8 and again a 70-200 will cover that nicely, with IS to boot! 

On FF f/2.8 is shallow. You get about 20cm or less of DOF when focusing ~ 3 meters. Get any closer and you have to really nail the focus. Very easy to get nice bokeh! Not like crop where you need f/1.8 for the same look.


----------



## Cory (Jan 4, 2016)

Holy ****
I think that the 24-70, 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 now make the most sense to cover 99.9% or more of my needs.
I guess that's the ultimate in minimalism and it's better to be confused and working it out before spending money.
Thanks again.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 4, 2016)

Cory said:


> Sorry to be a nut, but what do you think of:
> Rokinon 14 2.8 (or Sigma 20mm Art)
> Canon 35 2.0 IS
> Canon 85 1.8
> ...


On paper, it looks great. But, the lens shuffle gets old quick. The 35 2.0 IS is a great lens, but I most often prefer the 24-70 (or the 24-105). I'd skip the 85 and 135, and get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II. For portraits and indoor events, you will love this lens.

Best advice I was given is don't buy a lens until you have a specific need for it. It's fine to brainstorm options for an acquisition path, but expect it to change. It is very tempting to plan out a bunch of lenses to cover every situation and often disappointing to realize that the shooting experience can be very different than the planning stage expectations. It might seem reasonable to carry 3-4 lenses, but actually using them will be a much different experience. Odds are high that you will either miss a lot of shots while changign lenses or let one or two of these lenses collect dust at home.

What's the bigger need -- long range outdoors or long range in low light indoors. Let this be your guide to picking up the 100-400 or the 70-200. Don't be surprised if you get the other lens down the road.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2016)

FTb-n said:


> ..It is very tempting to plan out a bunch of lenses to cover every situation and often disappointing to realize that the shooting experience can be very different than the planning stage expectations. It might seem reasonable to carry 3-4 lenses, but actually using them will be a much different experience.



This is very good advice. I should follow it. 

Seriously, although I have a lot of lenses (too many), I seldom carry more than 2-3 to any assignment. The 24-105 f4 goes with me almost everywhere because it is so versatile. I then pick another lens or two depending on what I am shooting (for example, the 70-200 2.8 for indoor sports, a longer telephoto zoom for outdoor sports, a wider zoom if I am shooting an interior, etc. Lately, I've been throwing in the 24 f2.8 IS because it's so small and can come in handy if I have to shoot indoors in poor light).

In addition to the problems of switching lenses on the fly is just the pain of carrying around a bag with three or more heavy "L" lenses in it.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 4, 2016)

Cory said:


> Thanks. I think my minimalist approach is leading to either -
> 1. 24-70 2.8 II and 200 2.8 (already have the 200) or
> 2. 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II (and maybe a 2x extender for those high school graduations, etc.?) - I guess these two would potentially be quite bada**ed?



#2 is my "core kit"....those two lenses are phenomenal. So I see that you started talking about a lot of different primes, but those two zooms are approaching (if not equaling) high end prime quality. I would start there.

I do own prime lenses. While I know others use primes differently, for me, my primes fit a specific need. So, the first step is to identify the need that is not filled by the 24-70 II or 70-200 II. For me that has led to the Rokinon 14 f/2.8 for astro, ultrawide angles. Sigma 50 f/1.4 A for low light, uber sharp images and when I want faster than f/2.8, EF 100 f/2.8 L Macro for macro and close up portraits.

So, I'd go with the zooms, then identify needs and fill those with primes.


----------



## Zv (Jan 5, 2016)

Last two replies were spot on. Zooms nowadays are more than capable in about 90% of situations. Primes go that extra mile when you need it. Most shoots I take a zoom and a prime. Two or three lenses max in the bag. Otherwise you're better off with a second body to avoid constant lens changes. 

Buy your zooms first then see what's missing and add it. If you're absolutely honest with yourself you'll likely not buy any primes but let's face it primes are fun and that's why we really buy them! 

I could get by with just the 24-105L but how sad is that? I'd get bored of those similar looking shots after a while. So, then I add a wide angle and a telephoto to spice things up. Same deal with primes. Add them to your kit to spice things up if and when you feel the need for it.


----------



## Cory (Jan 5, 2016)

I think it's possible that I wasn't pleased with any of the "entry level" zooms early on, discovered primes and never looked back. Also didn't look forward to the "serious" zooms (with some brief exceptions) and never really gave good zooms a chance.
Maybe the new me is pending. 
I'm doing some significant volunteer work that the recipients are enormously pleased with. I wonder if, moving forward, I can say "will work for lenses" and proceed accordingly.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 5, 2016)

I agree with the consensus here that the 24-70 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/2.8 II are a great combo and will satisfy 90% of you needs. Supplementing these two with the inexpensive 50 f/1.8 STM should give you a very complete kit for everything except when you need more reach. A 1.4x and 2x extender with your 70-200 will do that for you if you only need the added reach occasionally.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 stm over the 40mm f/2.8 because sometimes you really need f/1.8 or even f/1.4. Having one wide aperture lens can come in handy.



I considered both of these and went with the 50 STM due to the wider aperture. I also like the 50mm focal length.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 5, 2016)

Cory said:


> Sorry to be a nut, but what do you think of:
> Rokinon 14 2.8 (or Sigma 20mm Art)
> Canon 35 2.0 IS
> Canon 85 1.8
> ...



You aren't a nut brother. You can see by my gear list that I have gone the zoom route except for the 135L AND 400L. I someday hope to add a couple of fast primes (and my 135L is pretty fast). Your list looks nice!

If it were me and that was my list what would I change? I'd drop the 200 f/2.8 II and the 100-400 II and get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and a 1.4x III instead. I'd also get a Tamron 15-30 instead of the Rokinon or Sigma.

I just would not spend the $2k on the slow 100-400. However, that is my preference. There really isn't a right or wrong answer. My reasoning is that if one is going to spend that much on a lens ($2k is a lot of money), it should at least be a f/2.8. Someday I will replace my 400 f/5.6L. It was my first L lens. I like it a lot. I just want faster and IS... even if that means spending $10K one day to get it. I can dream, I guess.

Good luck to you!


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 5, 2016)

FTb-n said:


> Best advice I was given is don't buy a lens until you have a specific need for it.



Agree on the advice - I found it tough to follow though


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 5, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > Best advice I was given is don't buy a lens until you have a specific need for it.
> ...


Yeah, me too.


----------



## Cory (Jan 6, 2016)

OK, I think I got it - 
Don't use UW very much and then just the 100-400 when I rented it twice for a specific rare need.
So, I think I'll kick this off with ditching my 10-18, 85 and 200 and putting all of that cash towards a 70-200 IS II. That'll leave me with the 35 2.0 IS and 70-200 (and my 70D for now). 
That's the start and will just evolve from there.

:-*  8) :-* :-*


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 6, 2016)

Zv said:


> Buy your zooms first then see what's missing and add it. If you're absolutely honest with yourself you'll likely not buy any primes but let's face it primes are fun and that's why we really buy them!



Or speed? Not a lot of f/1.4 or f/2 zooms out there last I checked.


----------



## Cory (Jan 7, 2016)

Just got one other thought - 
Anyone get most of what they need done with just a 35 2.0 IS and a 135 2.0?
I promise to stop.

:-X


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2016)

Cory said:


> Just got one other thought -
> Anyone get most of what they need done with just a 35 2.0 IS and a 135 2.0?
> I promise to stop.
> 
> :-X



I have 15mm fisheye, 11-24L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS, 300mm f2.8 IS, 17 TS-E, 35 f2.0 IS, 50 f 1.4, 100 f2.8 L Macro.

I could do almost all my pro shooting (apart from some real estate/architecture) and virtually all my pleasure shooting with the 35 f2.0 IS and the 100mm L Macro. I found the 100L much more versatile than the 135 f2.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 8, 2016)

Cory said:


> Just got one other thought -
> Anyone get most of what they need done with just a 35 2.0 IS and a 135 2.0?
> I promise to stop.
> 
> :-X


I like your 70-200 and 35 f2 plan. But, it's tough to fully answer your question, because I'm not clear on your shooting needs and venues.

The vast majority of my work involves people -- events, candids, sports, and portraits. I generally try to avoid anything wider than 35 for distortion reasons, but mostly, I like the tight shots. To be fair, there have been many times when the wider end of the 24-70 came in handy. The jump from 35 to 70 is a gap that I can often live with. But, it truly helps to have the full range of 70-200.

To be more specific, if I'm shooting for myself, it is much easier to restrict myself to a 35 and a 70-200. I really wouldn't want to restrict myself to a 135 for the long end. 

If I'm shooting an event for others, I might be able to get away with the 35 and the 70-200 for sporting events. For social events or basketball (where I can shoot from the sidelines), both the 24-70 and the 70-200 are must have lenses (and on separate bodies).


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 8, 2016)

Cory said:


> Just got one other thought -
> Anyone get most of what they need done with just a 35 2.0 IS and a 135 2.0?
> I promise to stop.
> 
> :-X



I recommend sticking with your 35/70-200 option. You'll find that particular zoom lens hard to put down once you start using it. Have you considered Sigma? They have a 24-35 F2 you might like and that would give you a versatile WA option.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 8, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> I recommend sticking with your 35/70-200 option. You'll find that particular zoom lens hard to put down once you start using it.


Absolutely true. The 70-200 is a dream lens and by far my most used lens. This may sound crazy, but if I could only have one lens, this would be it. I know my versatility as a photographer would be limited without something in the 24-70 range, but I would be getting the shots that I most enjoy shooting.


----------



## Dantana (Jan 10, 2016)

I think there is some great advice here from some very different points of view.

My advice would be to not sell any of your EF lenses until you have your new camera. I would get the kit with the 24-105 4 L. It's a great bargain and a very solid lens. Then try what you have on your new body and you will have a much better idea of what you need. The 35, 85, and 200 primes are all very useful lenses to a lot of people. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 10, 2016)

Dantana said:


> I think there is some great advice here from some very different points of view.
> 
> My advice would be to not sell any of your EF lenses until you have your new camera. I would get the kit with the 24-105 4 L. It's a great bargain and a very solid lens. Then try what you have on your new body and you will have a much better idea of what you need. The 35, 85, and 200 primes are all very useful lenses to a lot of people.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


More good advice. My first step into full frame was 5D3 kit with a 24-105. It is a very good lens and one that I still use. But, Dantana has probably offered the best advice so far. Get the feel of a FF body before you start re-vamping your lenses. 

It's hard to fully grasp the difference between crop and FF without first-hand experience. It is as if lenses take on different personalities on crop vs. FF. In general, on FF, images can be sharper and pop my with small DOF -- plus the obvious perspective differences. It's a great idea to get accustomed to your lenses on a FF body before you get rid of them.


----------

