# Want to expand my gear?



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 30, 2013)

I have a 5d3
24-70 ii
70-200 2.8ii
Sigma 35mm 1.4
600exrt

Take family portraits, vacation photos and eventially school functions.

Not sure where to invest next.
70-300l for more reach
2more 600exrt for flash photography
100mm 2.8 lens portraits and macro
16-35 2.8 for landscape

I know thats a lot of choices but just want to keep expnading and not sure which is the best for vacations and portraits
Considering what i have. I am staring to get into wildlife.


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 30, 2013)

Do you have a good tripod? If not then I would make that my next purchase.

Most of the alternatives you list are for completely different types of photography. I think that before I decided on the lens I would decide on what kind of photography I want to branch out into first. Macro? Landscape? Better portraits? Wildlife?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 30, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> Do you have a good tripod? If not then I would make that my next purchase.
> 
> Most of the alternatives you list are for completely different types of photography. I think that before I decided on the lens I would decide on what kind of photography I want to branch out into first. Macro? Landscape? Better portraits? Wildlife?



Better portraits
Wildlife
Landscape
Macro in order of importance


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Better portraits
> Wildlife
> Landscape
> Macro in order of importance



Better portraits = 85L, Sigma 85/1.4, or 135L
Wildlife = 2xIII for your 70-200 II
Landscape = a good tripod
Macro = 100L IS

For 'better portraits' though, do you mean outdoors, indoors, or studio? Fast primes are wonderful for blurring a busy background outdoors or in the house. But another option would be a backdrop setup, monolights (or more Speedlites), and softboxes. 

Also, you mention school functions eventually, the 135L is great there.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > Better portraits
> ...



Indoors mostly but a group of 3-4 people. Also I was considering the 70-300l since with the extender the weight is a lot for travel. Would love a light setup but would need something that could go up and down.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Indoors mostly but a group of 3-4 people.



Then you're set with the 24-70/2.8 II. More Speedlites aren't the best answer, either. Good lighting for a small group means big modifiers, so I'd start looking at monolights (the PCB Einstein is excellent, and cheaper than a 600EX-RT). 

The 70-300L is a great travel telezoom, but IMO still not really long enough for wildlife.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > Indoors mostly but a group of 3-4 people.
> ...



Can you give me an example of a lighting setup so i could look into costs please?


----------



## klickflip (Mar 30, 2013)

Just my opinion of whats nice and simple in photography, buy more primes first ( see you've got the sigma 35 1.4 which seems a great lens) it will make you start thinking about your shots and composition better, also help you choose the right lens for a shot. Now even if the flexibility of zooms for some jobs still is needed, start shooting personal work like portraits with the primes - i'd say 50 and 85mm are the first ones or maybe the 135mm F2L, also the 100 2.8 macro is great for portraits and macro. 
Also if portraits are a big part of you're photography then definitely 2 or 3 proper flash monoblocks - even cheaper elinchrom D lites or something and a few modifiers, softbox, brolly & beauty dish will make you work have a new life, camera & lens is just half the equation in my eyes but then I use flash a lot to light scene & portraits, and thats where a lot of my style or technique come from. 

With all you're zooms and the fact that maybe you're wanting to get a longer zoom, can I hazzard a guess that you like capturing moments and that side of photography? Maybe try looking at the other side a bit more.. ie making or controlling an image with a extremely considered view / composition and then begin working on the lighting and experimenting of what you do with lights (studio flash) and that will open up possibly a whole new way of thinking and working. TBH i normally get more excited about a new flash head or certain modifier than a camera or lens as I can do a lot more with it. 
Hope this helps!


----------



## Northstar (Mar 30, 2013)

You have portraits and landscape covered pretty well with the 24-70ii and 70-200ii.. You can take fantastic portraits and landscapes with those.....even your macro can be shot pretty well with a 70-200....but...

You have nothing for wildlife/birding, and you say that is a priority. Your 70-200 is way short....the 2xiii is a good suggestion to go with your 70-200 because 400mm at 5.6 works well with your set up (I have it)

You should go with the 2xiii.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 30, 2013)

As others mentioned, a 1.4X and a 2X TC will extend the range of your zoom to 280mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6. I have the MK II TC's and I can stack them and still get slow autofocus with my 5D MK III for 560mm f/8. 


Unfortunately, you can't stack the MK III TC's.

Here is one shot with the 70-200mm f/2.8 MK II yesterday. Handheld, of course, with a severe crop as well. Its far from pixel sharp, but if I took my time and got closer, it would be sharper. Light was a problem as well, I should have used my better beamer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Can you give me an example of a lighting setup so i could look into costs please?



Probably a couple of monolights to start, with a 4' octabox and a 3' stripbox. A couple of light stands (e.g., Manfrotto 1004BAC), and a boom (e.g. Manfrotto 024) to get the stripbox overhead as a rim light. Possibly a background support, and backgrounds (muslin or paper - the former is durable but you have to deal with wrinkles, the latter is seamless but 'consumable'). I use the Manfrotto 1314B support - cheaper ones are fine for muslin, paper is heavier and needs a 9' cross bar, the Manfrotto works for both, and the risers in the kit are nice air-cushioned 8' stands (1052BAC) that can be used independently (e.g. for a speedlite) if you don't need the backdrop. 

You'll also need a wireless trigger, e.g. CyberSync or PocketWizard. 

I like the PCB monolights and modifiers, and in particular the Einstein. The Alien Bees are good, but the Einstein has a 9-stop range (most are 6 stops), meaning you can dial down the output indoors but have enough to overpower the sun outdoors.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 30, 2013)

I thank everyone so far. I know that it was a all over the place question. I just am torn with which way to go. I think I will first evaluate the whole lighting setup as an option. If that does not fit for now then I can consider the 2xIII ex for my lens or a 50mm 1.4, 85 1.8 and 100mm 2.8l combo for portraits. Just need to figure out which one I want to start with for now then move to. I have a trip to Disney coming up so I was considering the 70-300mm for travel since that is my most immediate need vs. carrying the 2.8 zoom. Then picking up a 270ex for a lighter travel flash. This way I can lighten my load for that trip. If there are any suggestions for that immediate need please let me know. I definitely will be getting a tripod. The part about the primes that kills me is to keep two people in focus I end up having to stop it down so wondering what other benefits the primes will have besides subject isolation options and compositional thinking vs zoom.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Mar 30, 2013)

here is my thought:

70-300l for more reach: imo, i would not choose this one... for more reach, i would wait to get 7d mark ii or 70d so that i would add another body to my list and it will be obviously more reach than what you have planned when pairing with 70-200mm. someone here might claim that 5d mark iii is better at high ISO... sure, but keep in mind that lens is f/4-5.6.... at most two stops and think about it, you can shoot at f/2.8 with focal length of 320mm instead of f/5.6 at 300mm

2 more 600exrt for flash photography: sure
100mm 2.8 lens portraits and macro: i just got it 
16-35 2.8 for landscape: got it last year but also thinking about and waiting for 14-24mm


----------



## pedro (Mar 30, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Take family portraits, vacation photos and eventially school functions.
> 
> 16-35 2.8 for landscape
> 
> Considering what i have. I am staring to get into wildlife.



16-35 sure is a good and a versatile choice for landscape. Just bought the 16-35 F/2.8 L USM II used, excellent shape, at CHF 998.00 (at my retail shop) instead of CHF 1998.00 list price. So try to get your hands on one 8)
I am not into wildlife, but I'd suggest an even longer lens at FF. 100-400 plus converters? Or if money is not an issue, one of the primes? 400, 500 or 600? You might also check out Rokinon: 

http://www.rokinon.com/product.php?id=20 
http://www.rokinon.com/category.php?catId=2

also available via amazon.com


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 30, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> here is my thought:
> 
> 70-300l for more reach: imo, i would not choose this one... for more reach, i would wait to get 7d mark ii or 70d so that i would add another body to my list and it will be obviously more reach than what you have planned when pairing with 70-200mm. someone here might claim that 5d mark iii is better at high ISO... sure, but keep in mind that lens is f/4-5.6.... at most two stops and think about it, you can shoot at f/2.8 with focal length of 320mm instead of f/5.6 at 300mm
> 
> ...



Thats a good point about the body. But the 7d ii will probably be expensive.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Mar 30, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Then picking up a 270ex for a lighter travel flash.



You can't bounce this so I'd avoid it; direct flash is horrible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> here is my thought:
> 
> 70-300l for more reach: imo, i would not choose this one... for more reach, i would wait to get 7d mark ii or 70d so that i would add another body to my list and it will be obviously more reach than what you have planned when pairing with 70-200mm. someone here might claim that 5d mark iii is better at high ISO... sure, but keep in mind that lens is f/4-5.6.... at most two stops and think about it, you can shoot at f/2.8 with focal length of 320mm instead of f/5.6 at 300mm



This applies only if you're making big prints (larger than 16x24"), submitting for publication, or have some other need for high MP, the cropped 5DIII image will have equivalent IQ to the APS-C image (and better IQ at higher ISO). The 'reach' of APS-C is often an illusion. 

Plus, the OP's talking about lightening his load - does carrying two bodies make sense?



KKCFamilyman said:


> The part about the primes that kills me is to keep two people in focus I end up having to stop it down so wondering what other benefits the primes will have besides subject isolation options and compositional thinking vs zoom.



With the MkII zooms that you have, when stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower, the primes' advantages are negated, except sometimes size/weight (e.g., 135L vs. 70-200 II). 



Hesbehindyou said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > Then picking up a 270ex for a lighter travel flash.
> ...



Might want to check your facts before making an assertion like that...


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 30, 2013)

A 135L and/or two PCB AB800s with modifiers.


----------



## pierceography (Mar 30, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Unfortunately, you can't stack the MK III TC's.



I'm curious - Is the inability to stack the mark III TCs an electronic or physical limitation?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

pierceography said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, you can't stack the MK III TC's.
> ...



Physical. A 12mm extension tube between them allows stacking.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > here is my thought:
> ...



I was thinking the same thing about the 270 while weak it is a good travel flash.


----------

