# I'm done - I have all the lenses I need



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off. 

With that, I'm done. Really. I have all the lenses I'll ever need to _own_. I can _rent _longer super teles, other TS-Es, etc. for jobs or projects.

It's taken me a long time to figure out what I need, but I have and I'm so happy to have completed it 

My lenses and uses are as follows:

*24 1.4L II* - I love 24mm, it's my favorite and most used FL, period. The f/1.4 rocks for events and landscapes, and it's nice & small.

*TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II* - I have more and more architectural work coming my way and TS-Es just can't be beat. I don't like in a big city or shoot interiors much, so 24mm is ideal, plus I can use polarizers and ND filters with ease. I borrowed one from CPS and loved it, but didn't have much time to perfect it. I was very sad to return it once I realized how amazing tilt-shift movements can be.

*85 1.2L II* - the 50 1.2 and 135 2 are great, but I found the 85 to be more versatile for all types of portraits, and I think it's THE people lens.

*180 3.5L Macro* - I prefer the longer working distance, included tripod ring, and compression over the 100L. Plus it has the very best color of any Canon lens, IMHO.

*300 2.8L IS II* - I went for this over the bigger lenses as it's far more versatile (300, 420, and 600) and truly hand-holdable. No gimbal needed, just more patience and skill requireed to get closer to wildlife. I'll rent the 600 or 800 as needed.

*Extenders 1.4x III & 2x III* - both work awesome with the 180 3.5L Macro, 300 2.8L IS II and 70-200 2.8L IS II 

*16-35 2.8L II* - I don't love this lens as much, but it is very versatile for architecture, landscape, and events

*24-70 2.8L II* - Perfect do it all zoom #1

*70-200 2.8L IS II* - Perfect do it all zoom #2

I'm sure I sound a bit nuts , but I'd like to thank that I have all I need to own. Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?


----------



## bholliman (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.



You were one of those who beat me to the computer on this one! :-\ I've been watching closely for these to be restocked and was tied up in a meeting for half an hour after the canonpricewatch.com alert came in. They must have sold out very quickly.

I won't be "done" when I get this lens, but closer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> ...I have all I need to own. Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?



I


DON'T


UNDERSTAND


???


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.
> 
> With that, I'm done. Really. I have all the lenses I'll ever need to _own_. I can _rent _longer super teles, other TS-Es, etc. for jobs or projects.
> 
> ...



Awesome. 

Personally, I don't think my lenses won't be complete for at least a few years with a few primes and a couple of superteles on my wishlist.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I
> 
> 
> DON'T
> ...


I would never expect you to understand, but there's still hope for you!


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

bholliman said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.
> ...


I'm sorry I swiped the lens, but I've lost this lens *SO *many times!!! And yes, I think they only had 1 or 2 because it was sold out as soon as I clicked submit order.

There's still one more day on the 20% off sale, so I hope you're able to get one while the getting is good.


----------



## mwh1964 (Nov 1, 2013)

Happy for you. Realistically, I don't need anymore lenses. Most probably I could do with only a standard zoom or a basic p&p taken my talent into account. However, what's the fun in being realistic about such minor details. Enjoy your new lens and post some pics.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I'm sure I sound a bit nuts , but I'd like to thank that I have all I need to own. Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?



Would this change with the advent of a 14-24L f/2.8?


----------



## Eldar (Nov 1, 2013)

I wish I would be able to tic that box too. I have more lenses than I need, but I´m just too easy to tempt into trying/buying something new. 
Of the ones I have, it is only the 16-35 i´m really not happy with. If you compare its average IQ with what the 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400 produces, it has quite a way to go. The long awaited 12-24 maybe ... I love the 85/1.2L II, but if one with a new faster AF system came along ... mighty tempting.
I think an important factor will be what the +50MP sensor we are waiting for will require. A bunch of Zeiss Otus lenses maybe ...


----------



## docsmith (Nov 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ...I have all I need to own. Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?
> ...



ROFL....  

I literally burst out laughing...partly because when I saw this thread I immediately wondering if Neuro had finally done it.....

Congrats Macguyver....that is a kit to aspire too.....


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I sound a bit nuts , but I'd like to thank that I have all I need to own. Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?
> ...


Yes, and I will humbly amend my statement to say, "I have all (currently available lenses) I need to own." :-[


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

docsmith said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Thanks, and yes, Neuro is a piece of work - there is very little hope for his "addiction" - LOL! I feel especially bad for him as I know he likes Zeiss (at least at work) and now the Otus line is out, well, he's going to need to head to rehab.


----------



## Harv (Nov 1, 2013)

Every time I buy a new lens, I say the same thing. I've probably said it a hundred times. : Will likely say it again.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 1, 2013)

The story will cont...never end

It's a solid set though


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 1, 2013)

So I was just thinking, since I missed the 70-200 f/2.8 at 20% off, that maybe you need another lens so you can send it to me..........

Just thinking.

Now back to reality.

Very nice group of lenses there.


----------



## mrzero (Nov 1, 2013)

I read that list and I heard Bob Barker's voice in my head. You remember on The Price is Right when he would say, "Actual retail price is...."? 

So, checking B&H, for new US models at today's full retail prices: $21,920

Damn. 

[Edited: I accidentally left a 6D kit in my cart before I did that little experiment, so I changed the tally accordingly.]


----------



## Vern (Nov 1, 2013)

It will be a sad day when I can't wish for a lens I don't yet own. :'( 

Currently my wish list is down to the 24-70 2.8L II. Have thought about the 14mm 2.8II as well. Have the most recent versions of the 24 TS, 16-35, 70-200 2.8, 85 1.2, 135 2, 100 macro, 200 2, 300 2.8, 600 f4 and converters. Have tried to justify the 400 2.8 (just for the speed and DOF at that focal length) but I'm more interested in superteles for wildlife than outdoor sports. I'm hoping for some new offerings from Canon to add to the wish list - I hate the idea of having everything I want! Will there be a new 800mm to tempt me? Hard to imagine w the 600 + 1.4. 

I always look forward to new lenses - more than a new camera body. Three secrets to happiness = something to do, something to love and something to look forward to.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 1, 2013)

mrzero said:


> I read that list and I heard Bob Barker's voice in my head. You remember on The Price is Right when he would say, "Actual retail price is...."?
> 
> So, checking B&H, for new US models at today's full retail prices: $24,319
> 
> Damn.


And all it takes is One lottery ticket ...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 1, 2013)

I can relate to the OP here. I have bought and sold and bought and sold and owned every L-prime from 14 to 300, and quite a few I have owned several times, same with the zooms. Only I haven't owned because of no interest is the 1635 and the 24-105.

And after ten twelve years of buying, trying and selling I have recently with the purchase of the 200 f2 come to what I feel is pretty much what I want and need, the 2470 mk2 and the 200. I am going to buy the 35 L II, but I have no interest in anything else and I, personally, feel there is nothing I can't shoot the way I like and want with those two(three lenses.

The need for a specific lens might occur later on, but I don't see why it should. 

And it's the same with the camera, I have owned all three 5d's and 1d3, 1d4 and now the 1dX and that is the only camera I have been 110% happy with, so I'm not waiting to replace it like I did after trying to track a snail with the early edition 1d3 and failed ;D


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 1, 2013)

how can a list be complete without a 600mm f4? ???


----------



## unfocused (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?



Completed, as in "have more than I need?" Yes. Completed as in "have more than I want?" No, but I do find myself using maybe 2-3 lenses about 98% of the time, so in a sense yes. Although my list is much, much more modest than yours. 



But, you didn't mention speedlites. The beauty of those puppies is you can keep buying multiple copies of the same thing. (I'm up to five 600 RTs and counting. Yikes!)


----------



## ME (Nov 1, 2013)

I have had all the lenses I "need" for a good while. I will probably never have all the lenses I want. I could use more time to use those lenses. There never seems to be enough time for fun stuff. Besides, isnt need a relative term for different photographers? ;D


----------



## Famateur (Nov 1, 2013)

For some people, lenses are like clamps with my woodworking hobby: Some day, I'll have an entire _wall _of my shop covered in clamps of every shape and size. And when I finally do?





I'll start on the next wall.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 1, 2013)

haha...i'm getting to that point myself...but as other have said...there is always this...lol

The 2 biggies are upgrading my 70-200 to the IS v2 (currently on the older non IS version), then upgrading my 50mm 1.4 to the 1.2, then my 85mm 1.8 to the 1.2 ----oh...then I need the 135...lol


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 1, 2013)

Like alcoholics anonymous "just for today" I have all the lenses I need. Unfortunately, when tomorrow comes, I'll find that need other lenses. I have several friends warned to not let themselves be bitten by mosquitoes of prime lenses, because this disease has no known cure. A palliative treatment is to shoot out and do the best we can with the equipment you have now.


----------



## Mika (Nov 1, 2013)

Congratulations!

Well, I'll have to say I'm gravitating to a certain set of objectives as well, though my job as optics designer sort of requires me that I have some knowledge of the common objectives and knowledge of using them too.

I admit I'm gravitating towards the shorter end of focal lengths, my most used objectives seem to be: 
Sigma's 35/1.4
Canon's 50/1.0
Canon's 24-70/2.8 I (not looking to II, this one is better for me)
Canon's 70-200/4.0 L IS

These lenses I do have as well, but there's something I'd like to change in them:
Sigma's 12-24 I - If this was a constant 4.0... I run against 5.6 on cloudy days
Sigma's 120-400 - 20 - 30 % lighter version would be nice. Or 300/4 II, if it happens.
Canon's 50/1.4 - Quite a long to list on what I'd like to change here. Though the motivation for this is just outside photography in low light, where I would not like to take the 1 kg behemoth.

Though, I can live with Sigmas, but that 50 mm update Canon... I'd also be interested in trying out a fast wide angle (something like 24/1.4 or 20/1.8 ) when I can find one that I like. After that I think I'm pretty much set.

What did not work for me? Well, 85/1.8 and 28/1.8, I don't use neither of them that much. Though they make a good light weight set for holidays with a crop body. And since I travel quite a bit with bicycle, long and or fast teles are pretty much a no-go. For example 200/1.8 was far too heavy for me, and 70-200/2.8 IS II sounded intriguing until I realized its twice the weight of the 4.0.


----------



## Grumbaki (Nov 2, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I'm sure I sound a bit nuts , but I'd like to thank that I have all I need to own. Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?



24-70 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 85L, Siggy 35.

If I could only make my mind about what UWA I want (wait for the 14-24? 14L? 17 TSE?), I' d be set too.


----------



## sanj (Nov 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ...I have all I need to own. Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?
> ...



hahahaah. Me neither...


----------



## Zv (Nov 2, 2013)

I've been trying to reduce the no of lenses and gear in general to just the stuff I need. I think I'm close to having the ideal kit of what I need. I just need another fast prime lens in the 35-85mm range. 

However I wouldn't say that "I'm done" as there is always room for upgrades in the near future! 

If I had this I'd be done -

17mm TS-E, 24-70L II, 70-200L II ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 2, 2013)

Aside from something better than the 100-400 I'm pretty much done, too (sadly?). Canditates are a new 100-400 or slightly possible, a 300mm f/2.8.

I've condensed my line up to this:

*Prime:*
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Aspherical
Sigma 20mm F1.8 DG Aspherical RF
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM | A
Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di MACRO 1:1

*'Travel' Prime:*
Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk I

*'L' zoom:*
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM 

*TC:*
Canon Extender EF 1.4x II (great with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II)

*Lightweight zoom / 7D 'kit':*
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2,8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Tamron SP AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD

*Sony NEX-6 'kit':*
Sony E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN
Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS


----------



## PKinDenmark (Nov 2, 2013)

???
'All the lenses I need'
'Completed'

Yeah, right. And probably also
'Just received my certificate from Internet with: "Congratulations, you are done, as you just reached the last page of the Net"'

Apart from that: What an impressive list. I could do with that for quite a while, too.
And the TS/E 24 mm is truly a great addition, which I liked a lot: 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17417.0


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 2, 2013)

For my professional endeavors, I pretty much have all the kit I need or want.
But for personal and travel use, I'm in the need for something smaller and lighter.
A 24-105L and 70-300L / 70-200 f4 LIS is a hard combo to beat. 
It's light and with a wide focal range too....ho hum.


----------



## lux (Nov 3, 2013)

What is this done you speak of?

[hits refresh at price watch again and twitches]


----------



## Zv (Nov 3, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Aside from something better than the 100-400 I'm pretty much done, too (sadly?). Canditates are a new 100-400 or slightly possible, a 300mm f/2.8.
> 
> I've condensed my line up to this:
> 
> ...



Wait, are these the lenses you currently own or a wish list? That's a lot of glass!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 3, 2013)

Zv said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from something better than the 100-400 I'm pretty much done, too (sadly?). Canditates are a new 100-400 or slightly possible, a 300mm f/2.8.
> ...



Errrhh.. yes I actually own these :-\

And it took me a while to get there too, I think at max I owned about 21 lenses for digital use. I have a few FL and FD lenses too, sitting around with a couple analog canon FD/FL bodies.


----------



## Emil (Nov 3, 2013)

I already have better gear than a photographer at my skill level needs. I won't buy anything else before I've taken tons of pictures and truly improved. For now I will stick with my own personal "holy budget trinity":
Canon 6D
-28mm f1.8
-50mm f1.4
-100mm f2.0


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 3, 2013)

Emil said:


> I already have better gear than a photographer at my skill level needs. I won't buy anything else before I've taken tons of pictures and truly improved. For now I will stick with my own personal "holy budget trinity":
> Canon 6D
> -28mm f1.8
> -50mm f1.4
> -100mm f2.0


You got a "holy trinity" of prime lenses without breaking the bank. I also think Canon 50mm F1.4 and 100mm F2 is the best value in its class. On the other hand, do not really like 28mm. It is a pity that there is no decent 24mm with low price. So I have not completed my "holy trinity", but use zoom to wide angle.


----------



## TexasBadger (Nov 3, 2013)

Yeah, sure. We've all heard that before!


----------



## AudioGlenn (Nov 3, 2013)

TexasBadger said:


> Yeah, sure. We've all heard that before!



+1

my wife just laughs whenever i say that


----------



## Efka76 (Nov 3, 2013)

Almost few times a week I am considering whether I need Canon 16-35 mm 2.8L II lens as I like landscape photography, however such lenses are quite expensive. Also, my dream is to upgrade by changing my 7D into 5DMk3. However, photography is my hobby only and do not any cent from it (already spent around EUR 10,000 for my photo equipment). Also, I would like to have one of super tele lens but their costs are not justifiable for me 

I just wanted to ask people in this forum who own expensive tele lenses: is it your hobby or you buy them because they are absolutely required for your daily work?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2013)

Efka76 said:


> Almost few times a week I am considering whether I need Canon 16-35 mm 2.8L II lens as I like landscape photography, however such lenses are quite expensive. Also, my dream is to upgrade by changing my 7D into 5DMk3.



I would not even consider buying the 16-35L II for use on a 7D. Get the Canon EF-S 10-22mm, the Sigma 8-16mm or the Tokina 11-16/2.8.

If/when you get a FF body, sell the APS-C ultrawide. 



Efka76 said:


> I just wanted to ask people in this forum who own expensive tele lenses: is it your hobby or you buy them because they are absolutely required for your daily work?



Definitely a hobby. A good day job is the reason I can afford to spend what I do on this hobby.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 3, 2013)

Efka76 said:


> Almost few times a week I am considering whether I need Canon 16-35 mm 2.8L II lens as I like landscape photography, however such lenses are quite expensive. Also, my dream is to upgrade by changing my 7D into 5DMk3. However, photography is my hobby only and do not any cent from it (already spent around EUR 10,000 for my photo equipment). Also, I would like to have one of super tele lens but their costs are not justifiable for me



I am too dreaming about FF but after using a tripod for some photographs in a sunlit (but still dim) forest I see that the 18 MPix of my 600D match the lens (70-200 4 USM, non-IS) - 40x60cm prints (16x24 inch) are very detailed and I cannot see any flaws. Why go for a FF cam? Higher ISO? Doesn't help, I needed f/11 and 0.5 sec exposure time.



Efka76 said:


> I just wanted to ask people in this forum who own expensive tele lenses: is it your hobby or you buy them because they are absolutely required for your daily work?



In terms of supertele: I decided for a EF 5.6 400 and it isa really great lens but ... 400mm is often too much so the 70-200 is my main tele. And with FF it will loose it's reach. For me 1200 EUR was expensive for an item which will never pay itself - but it's cost is moderate compared to a EF 2.8 300 so there are opportunities for good compromises.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 3, 2013)

In terms of EF lenses I think I am well equipped (except for sports/action at longer focal lengths).

After checking the quality of my FD lenses* I see a clear winner: The FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. which delivers very good IQ wide open and brilliant IQ @ f/2.8. Other FD lenses are far away from it's quality except the FD 3.5 50 S.S.C. Macro. My 4.0 17, 2.5 135, 3.5 135, 4.0 200, 4.0 300 FD lenses are inferior but the 4.0 17 makes a good video lens thanks to its great focusing ring.
Now I am interested in a FD 2.0 24 S.S.C., so there is a chance that I have not enough lenses ...

* With a recently bought EOS M and adapter


----------



## wayno (Nov 3, 2013)

Interesting... I got to this point earlier in the year when I purchased the 24-70ii. Apart from a random wish for the 24 TS (not biting yet and not too fussed really) or a 300 2.8 which I don't really need and can't afford anyway, I'm rather chuffed to not be compelled to fork out for new gear. It's a good feeling and means I can spend money on other things for a change


----------



## WPJ (Nov 4, 2013)

Wow, you have a me kit.

I would say I'm about half there. I have a great set of glass which I appreciate very much there is a few really want to have and a few would be really nice to haves on my list but nothing in the next while since I gt a fair number of kit lenses this year.

17-40L/f4 - Great budget wide angle I use for sun rise/sets, landscapes and for my kids indoors. Yes the 16-35ii would be better burst 3x the cost - compromise made.

25-105L/f4 - Great all round general lens, used for indoor and outdoor general walk about lens. This replaced my original 18-200efs lens which my son (7) now uses as his big zoom. I don't think as a general lens I could go for the 24-70 it might be f2.8 but I like the more reach of the 105

70-200L/f2.8 M2 - awesome walk about zoom and I also use this as my close up soccer lens on my second D7. I found a great deal on a barley used one I could not refuse.

300L/f2.8 IS M1 - sweet lens for the soccer field again hot a great deal on a well used lens I could not refuse. Unless I fall into money its a keeper as I can't justify the upgrade at more than twice the cost for the mark 2.

so the above is my general consumption lenses. Below are my specially non everyday lenses.

18-200efs - my sons general lens he loves the reach, I would to if I was 7 and had a zoom like this.

50/f1.8 M2 - nice for playing with, I'm not a prime shooter but it is nice to play around with f1.8 sometimes.

100/f2 Macro - I love this as a macro and a portrait kens, when I go back and review I always think wow primes are so sweet...but damn you have to change a lot of lenses in a day.

100-400L - my first Tele lens it was great but not used as much now that I have the 70-200 and the 300. Keeping it for a travel lens. 

now for the want list to be complete.

16-35m2 as an upgrade to 17-40
8-15 - I live fish eye to okay with.
180l macro for more reach
200/f2 - just cause it would be nice
400/f2.8 - what ever mark I can get my hands on the soccer field will be getting bigger soon.
600 - for outdoor stuff
800 - for outdoor stuff - loto win only
40mm pancake just cause I think its cute.

1.4 and 2x extenders to hold off the 400 and 600.
maybe a few other primes

1 tilt shift to make those mini city photos.
so like I said in about half way there but now on a very big up hill road.


----------



## surapon (Nov 4, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.
> 
> With that, I'm done. Really. I have all the lenses I'll ever need to _own_. I can _rent _longer super teles, other TS-Es, etc. for jobs or projects.
> 
> ...




Dear Sir, Mr.mackguyver.
Ha, Ha, Ha--------You and Me still missing One, as shown on the attached Photo---You miss the EF 1200 MM, And I miss the Beautiful Lady, who hold the big Lens----No, We not Complete yet, So Far.
Have a great Night, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Nov 4, 2013)

All I need is a Nikon 14-24mm F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 II, Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II and Sigma 200-500mm F/2.8, that will cover from 14-500mm at F/2.8, will also need a tilt and shift, a macro and a 85mm 1.2 II. That should only cost a total of about $40,000.


----------



## extremeinstability (Nov 4, 2013)

I'm finally about there after bouncing back and forth from crop to full frame, over not being able to get good enough glass for the full frame. 

For the 6D I now have

Samyang 14 which is really silly good...sharper and less coma than Canon 14
Zeiss 21 which is hard to beat.
Samyang 24 F1.4 just for fast fast wide night and not coma'ing out the ass like Canon 24.

(so glad for Samyang, jeez)

Sigma 50 F1.4 which well is sharper than Canon wide open but eh Canon quickly flies past it even by F2.8.
Canon 100-400L has always been good enough to me.

I really only now desire the 135L and must get it.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 4, 2013)

You really have a very high end quality glasses. 
Even though I would have the money I will never say I am done. I have been into photography for almost 3 years and I have owned 27 lenses so far, including some 'L' lenses in Canon lineup, some sigmas (e.g. 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4) , one Tanrom and one Tokina.
I currently have Canon 24-70mm f2.8L (I), Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS (II), Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro, Canon EF-S 15-85mm, Sigma 35mm f1.4, Sigma 10mm f2.8 (fisheye) and teleconverter EF 1.4X (II). This arrangement works pretty well on my Canon 7D body.
In my wishlist is a long telephoto like the 400mm f2.8L IS (II) or something equivalent if Sigma, as Canon Rumors indicated comes with the equivalent lens.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 4, 2013)

All, I took the weekend off from the computer for the most part - and this was an interesting set of comments to read this morning. Too many posts to reply to, but here are a few general statements:

Yes, it's a ton of money, and it doesn't include bodies or accessories (or the losses I've taken selling old bodies) - I feel the pain each year when I have to pay my equipment insurance premium. I guess everyone needs a hobby...

I have other gear not listed here like a new EOS M kit with 22 and 18-55 lenses and the flash. So far, I love how much it feels like a Canon SLR - I have despised Sony, Panasonic, etc.'s menus and it's nice to shoot with a small Canon again.

It really is complete in terms of lenses, short of Canon releasing some cool new lens or a great upgrade to something I own. I'd rather spend my "photo" money on travel, airplane rentals (I'd like to do some aerial stuff) and private boat rentals to get really deep into the woods and swamps. The way I look at it is that I need to use every piece of my gear at least once every two months, and if I don't I'm better off renting that item when needed instead of tying up the money on my shelf. 

I'm planning to add to my basic studio set up as well. I'd like to add a third light along with some grids an snoots. If my architectural work takes off, I might grab the TS-E 17mm, but so far the 16-35 has worked really well. 

Honestly, my biggest problem is deciding what to shoot with all of my toys, at least when it comes to my personal work.

P.S. Sure, a 600mm would make the list yet more complete, but the 300mm f/2.8 IS II + 2x III @f/8 is pretty damned sharp (see #1 below). The 1200mm reach would be nice, but generally if I need that much reach, I really need a 3000mm or something because the subject is just too far away ((see #2 below). Also, besides being really expensive, it's heavy and with the heat in Florida, haze is a very real problem at 840 and 1200mm - even at 300mm. In the end, while it is an unbelievable great lens, it just doesn't suit my style of shooting, and if I ever need it, I can rent it many times over for the cost to own it.

#1 - Boring Great Blue Heron shot, but good example of 300mm f/2.8 IS II + 2x III @f/8 sharpness:






#2 - a 2.4MP (yes, 11% crop) from a 300mm f/2.8 IS II + 2x III shot of a bald eagle tearing the feathers off it's kill. There was a guy standing next to me with a 800mm + 2x and it was a lot closer, but not enough to make it a quality image. Excuse the poor white balance and such, I didn't spend much time on the shot.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Nov 5, 2013)

My 'holy trinity' of primes are:

17mm TSE
24mm 1.4 mkII
85mm 1.4 Sigma
300mm 2.8 IS mkI

(40mm pancake but that doesn't count)

Extremely yummy configuration. The 17mm and 300mm work well with both teleconverters, the 1.4 primes give me a great low light capability with a 5D3, and a great dual-camera/dual-lens solution. All except for the TSE offer insane bokeh. The Sigma 85mm is a sleeper lens, and with the $1000 you save over the Canon 1.2 beast you get faster AF and enough money for, wait for it, another lens!


----------



## wayno (Nov 5, 2013)

Agree the Sigma 85 is great. Shot a wedding with it in low light on my 5d2 recently and it performed like a champion.


----------



## Kwanon (Nov 5, 2013)

You are missing the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 Otus
it would be a great addition to your kit.


----------



## M.ST (Nov 5, 2013)

to: surapon 

The beautiful lady is now a few years older. Look at the skyline.

My problem is that I own the EF 1200 lens, but no woman is willing to carry the lens and the tripod for the lens-smile


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 5, 2013)

surapon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.
> ...


I admit that there is no much use of a 1200mm for me. : But, hey. If I buy and gain a woman to carry it for me, is a lens of a thousand and one uses. ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 5, 2013)

My only problem with the 1200mm is that it won't autofocus with the 2x extender . 

Price, weight, size, availability and other factors are no problem ;D.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 5, 2013)

Also, I'm pretty sure the woman in the photo is the publisher of the-digital-picture.com, Bryan Carnathan's, wife. She looks a lot like the photos of his daughters he has all over his site.


----------



## surapon (Nov 5, 2013)

M.ST said:


> to: surapon
> 
> The beautiful lady is now a few years older. Look at the skyline.
> 
> My problem is that I own the EF 1200 lens, but no woman is willing to carry the lens and the tripod for the lens-smile



Ha, Ha, Ha---Dear Mr. Mackguyver----Ha, Ha, Ha.---For me, Just grab 1200 mm in the right Arm, and the Beautiful Lady with the Big Tripods on the Left Arms.
Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2013)

M.ST said:


> My problem is that I own the EF 1200 lens...........



You have made that statement several times, care to post an image proving it? There are a myriad of ways to maintain your privacy while confirming your assertion.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 5, 2013)

Almost complete, just considering a swap out for a few.

14 I, 15/2.8, 24ii, 35/2 IS, 50L, 85ii, 100L, 135L, 400/4 DO 
24tse I, 45tse, 90tse 
8-15L, 24-70ii, 70-200ii
Zeiss 50/2 Makro, Conurus modded Contax Zeiss 50/1.4
& a bag full of screw mount lenses

Currently trying to sell the 15 fish
Want to swap 400/4 DO for either the 200/2 or 300/2.8ii
Already swapped 35L for 35/2 IS


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 6, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Almost complete, just considering a swap out for a few.
> 
> 14 I, 15/2.8, 24ii, 35/2 IS, 50L, 85ii, 100L, 135L, 400/4 DO
> 24tse I, 45tse, 90tse
> ...


That's a great set and I guess the 15 fisheye isn't used much anyone with the 8-15...and I can see the 35 f/2 IS over the 1.4 for most uses. I see we have many of the same lenses and I can definitely recommend the 300 2.8 IS II as an upgrade to your 400 DO. It's an amazing and versatile lens when you throw in the extenders!


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2013)

I was at that point but then I started buying speedlites.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 6, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I was at that point but then I started buying speedlites.


I can certainly understand the those three primes are all you need for most shooting. When I shot events, those three are all I ever carried.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 6, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > Almost complete, just considering a swap out for a few.
> ...



That's what I've been reading re the 300ii for a good while now and I've just been lazy to really try to offload the 400. Not the easiest lens to sell locally. I have read and seen nothing but good re extenders and the 300. I'm not happy with the 2xiii on the 70-200 until f8 and I've read that there is apparently only a negligible hit to IQ with the 300 + 2x at 5.6 (or any other aperture for that matter) which is astonishing.

The 35 swap out has worked out well since the former was too close to 24 and 50 (and no IS) for me to justify keeping it. The 35/2 IS is a great all around lens for photo/video across both of my bodies.

And yes, the 15 desperately needs to go as it has seen zero action since the zoom acquisition.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 6, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> That's what I've been reading re the 300ii for a good while now and I've just been lazy to really try to offload the 400. Not the easiest lens to sell locally. I have read and seen nothing but good re extenders and the 300. I'm not happy with the 2xiii on the 70-200 until f8 and I've read that there is apparently only a negligible hit to IQ with the 300 + 2x at 5.6 (or any other aperture for that matter) which is astonishing.
> 
> And yes, the 15 desperately needs to go as it has seen zero action since the zoom acquisition.


The 300 is excellent at 420mm wide open, and quite good at 600 f/5.6, but it's very good at f/8. I've been setting it at 5.6 and if there's time to get another shot, I'll bump it to f/8 to get the sharpest shot possible. 5.6 is definitely usable and with a touch of extra sharpening, it's probably hard to tell the difference.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 6, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > That's what I've been reading re the 300ii for a good while now and I've just been lazy to really try to offload the 400. Not the easiest lens to sell locally. I have read and seen nothing but good re extenders and the 300. I'm not happy with the 2xiii on the 70-200 until f8 and I've read that there is apparently only a negligible hit to IQ with the 300 + 2x at 5.6 (or any other aperture for that matter) which is astonishing.
> ...



You aren't joking. I can't wait till it is in my bag.


----------



## tron (Nov 6, 2013)

@mackguyver: No ... you don't 

How about a TS-17mm f/4L ? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 6, 2013)

tron said:


> @mackguyver: No ... you don't
> 
> How about a TS-17mm f/4L ? ;D ;D ;D


So far the _lowly _16-35 f/2.8L II has been able to fill my needs for interior and landscape work. If I start shooting a lot more interiors, it will probably join the collection. Otherwise, I'll just rent it as needed.


----------



## super mario (Nov 7, 2013)

docsmith said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


That was funny indeed.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 7, 2013)

Further confirmation that I'm done - scroll all the way over...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Further confirmation that I'm done - scroll all the way over...



I still don't understand. I'm not done...despite having *148* points.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Further confirmation that I'm done - scroll all the way over...
> ...


I was wondering how many points you were up to...that's awesome! 

Also, keep in mind I'm just talking about lenses -- a 1DX is definitely on my list and will certainly bump up my CPS points as well


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I can't believe the 40/2.8 is worth 2 points... ???

I did include the 1D X in my count, 10 points there. Also, I'm planning to sell my 28-300L, so that'll cost me 12 points. But who's counting? 8)


----------



## surapon (Nov 7, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Further confirmation that I'm done - scroll all the way over...



Dear Sir, Teacher Mr. mackguyver .
Yes, I am not done yet , I just get 112 Point.---Long way to go.
Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## dstppy (Nov 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Definitely a hobby. A good day job is the reason I can afford to spend what I do on this hobby.



A good day job *and *an understanding wife that is.

It's still beyond me why there is money in the savings account and I don't have all of the lenses I want. 

Then I remember why.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2013)

dstppy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely a hobby. A good day job is the reason I can afford to spend what I do on this hobby.
> ...



Well, the day job actually pays for all the living expenses, retirement, college funds, etc. That means the 'extra' income from the consulting that I do on the side can go to the gear fund, instead of things like food...


----------



## surapon (Nov 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Efka76 said:
> 
> 
> > Almost few times a week I am considering whether I need Canon 16-35 mm 2.8L II lens as I like landscape photography, however such lenses are quite expensive. Also, my dream is to upgrade by changing my 7D into 5DMk3.
> ...



Dear Teacher, Mr. neuroanatomist 

+ 100 for me too " Definitely a hobby. A good day job is the reason I can afford to spend what I do on this hobby. "------Yes, Sir----Plus, I am Lucky too, Because of I Own the A/E Firm, That I can Use All Photographic Equipments as The Office Equipments-----Ha, Ha, Ha---Yes, My CPA/ Book keepers tell me too.
Nice to talk to you, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Hannes (Nov 7, 2013)

to the OP, are you sure you couldn't use a 50mm 1.2?

It is a bit odd how differently the tiers works for CPS US compared to CPS UK. The points system the US uses probably makes more sense but the points themselves don't. Why is a 10-22mm worth more points than a 1Ds III or a 1D IV and it is worth the same amount of points as a 85 1.2? It doesn't make sense to me at all


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 7, 2013)

Hannes said:


> to the OP, are you sure you couldn't use a 50mm 1.2?
> 
> It is a bit odd how differently the tiers works for CPS US compared to CPS UK. The points system the US uses probably makes more sense but the points themselves don't. Why is a 10-22mm worth more points than a 1Ds III or a 1D IV and it is worth the same amount of points as a 85 1.2? It doesn't make sense to me at all


Yes, I had the 50 f/1.2L and sold it recently to fund my 300 f/2.8L IS II. I love that lens, but didn't find myself using it much after buying the 24-70L f/2.8 II. I will admit that it's the one I regret selling the most, however.


----------



## Grumbaki (Nov 8, 2013)

surapon said:


> Dear Teacher, Mr. neuroanatomist
> 
> + 100 for me too " Definitely a hobby. A good day job is the reason I can afford to spend what I do on this hobby. "------Yes, Sir----Plus, I am Lucky too, Because of I Own the A/E Firm, That I can Use All Photographic Equipments as The Office Equipments-----Ha, Ha, Ha---Yes, My CPA/ Book keepers tell me too.
> Nice to talk to you, Sir.
> Surapon



Dear Surapon, 

For a moment here I read " I Own the AV Firm, That I can Use All Photographic Equipments as The Office Equipments". 

I really thought what a lucky guy. Then I blamed my dirty brain.

Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 25, 2013)

Okay, I crumbled. I LOVED my 50 f/1.2 and missed it terribly so I just bought another one. The good news is that with the rebate, it becomes a net/net purchase vs. my eBay sale 

In other news, I strongly predict that the 50 f/1.2 II will be announced tomorrow


----------



## tron (Dec 26, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Okay, I crumbled. I LOVED my 50 f/1.2 and missed it terribly so I just bought another one. The good news is that with the rebate, it becomes a net/net purchase vs. my eBay sale
> 
> *In other news, I strongly predict that the 50 f/1.2 II will be announced tomorrow *


If you are implying something like Murphy's Law can I give you a list of lenses to buy? ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 26, 2013)

tron said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I crumbled. I LOVED my 50 f/1.2 and missed it terribly so I just bought another one. The good news is that with the rebate, it becomes a net/net purchase vs. my eBay sale
> ...


If we're to believe CR, then I should definitely buy a 100-400, 800 5.6, 50 1.4, 35 1.4, etc.


----------



## tron (Dec 26, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


 ... and a 16-35 2.8 II please ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 26, 2013)

tron said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Wait, but everybody _needs_ a EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 26, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Wait, but everybody _needs_ a EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM ;D


Yes, I highly recommend it and a set of Mk III extenders. The only problem is that it is the sharpest lens Canon makes so you can't blame the equipment for bad photos ;D



tron said:


> ... and a 16-35 2.8 II please ;D


Ah yes, but I already have one of those - and I would upgrade it in a heartbeat for a sharper lens 8)


----------



## tron (Dec 26, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ... and a 16-35 2.8 II please ;D
> ...


With the risk of getting off topic may I ask you for your opinion regarding this lens? I just sold my version 1 16-35 2.8 and I have not decided whether to get the 16-35 2.8 II or wait. Some background: In this FL range I have:

1. EF14 2.8 L II (actually it's slightly out of this range but still covers the need for AF and 2.8 in the widest possible rectilinear FL) Uses: 1. astrophotography, 2. landscapes
2. TS-E 17mm f/4L (with adapter for Lee filter system) Uses: Architecture, Landscape
3. Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm 2.8 1. Uses: Astrophotography, Landscapes.
4. EF35mm 1.4L Uses: General/people, mostly in extremely low light.

So I have not used 16-35 for a while. That and the fact that it has lots of coma (tested at both FL ends at f/2.8 )
and the fact that I want good edges made me sell it. Prior to the above mentioned lenses it was being used for landscapes.

Use will be for landscapes as I do not believe a 16-35 2.8 even at its 3rd incarnation would be suitable for astrophotography (that test at wide FL is left for EF14 II and Zeiss 21). However, a very good 16-35 copy could be handy in situations where it will not be practical to carry many different lenses.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 26, 2013)

tron said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


My 16-35 is collecting dust. The 17 TS-E has so much better IQ, so I tend to go for that instead. I seldom use the 16-35 with people, since I find the distortion off center unacceptable, so the extra time to operate the 17mm does not bother me. If the 16-35 was upgraded with IQ in the same class as the 24-70 f2.8L II and preferably covered 14-24, I would get it though.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Dec 26, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Okay, I crumbled. I LOVED my 50 f/1.2 and missed it terribly so I just bought another one. The good news is that with the rebate, it becomes a net/net purchase vs. my eBay sale
> 
> In other news, I strongly predict that the 50 f/1.2 II will be announced tomorrow



Ha ha... that's hilarious that the thread you started saying that you were done with lenses, ends with you buying a new lens. I know the feeling. Once my lens collection was where i wanted it to be, I got the "I should get a Fuji x100s" itch because it looks so cool ha ha.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 26, 2013)

Pinchers of Peril said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I crumbled. I LOVED my 50 f/1.2 and missed it terribly so I just bought another one. The good news is that with the rebate, it becomes a net/net purchase vs. my eBay sale
> ...


Well, it is "technically" re-buying a lens I once owned, but yeah, I had to confess on CR :-[


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Pinchers of Peril said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


You no longer have the lenses mentioned at first post. So I am afraid you ... lost ;D
You succumbed to the lens temptation, you relapsed, you had a moment of weakness ;D ;D ;D

P.S (Re-)Enjoy your new lens  
P.S2 You are still not ... done


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

tron said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Pinchers of Peril said:
> ...


Yep, I lost (see below) - and I will re-enjoy my new lens - it's on the UPS truck for delivery today -thanks ;D


----------



## ejenner (Dec 31, 2013)

Harv said:


> Every time I buy a new lens, I say the same thing. I've probably said it a hundred times. : Will likely say it again.



This.....

Although I have slowed down and don't have my eye on anything right now.

Good to see the thread continued and reality set in for Mackguyver.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 31, 2013)

ejenner said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I buy a new lens, I say the same thing. I've probably said it a hundred times. : Will likely say it again.
> ...


I think and hope I am pretty much finished - at least with Canon's current line up. We'll see what 2014 brings, but the only lens I'm really wanting is a better 16-35, and I'd happily sell the one I have to upgrade. 

The 50 1.2 was the one I didn't want to sell but did. I quickly realized that f/2.8 is way to far a bridge and with the double-dip, well, as we all know, I *HAD *to buy it


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 31, 2013)

ejenner said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I buy a new lens, I say the same thing. I've probably said it a hundred times. : Will likely say it again.
> ...



I though I slowed down too until I bought a new full frame body; in essence to replace the 7D. So now I'm affraid this will cause expensive lens acquisition mayhem once I start missing the crop on the long end of the range...  : ???

Fortunately my lens line-up is one almost fully geared towards full frame use, except for my little (and most excellent) Tammy 17-50 f/2.8 which I will sell today.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 31, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> I though I slowed down too until I bought a new full frame body; in essence to replace the 7D. So now I'm affraid this will cause expensive lens acquisition mayhem once I start missing the crop on the long end of the range...  : ???


I did the same thing - I had a 5DII & 7D and then I bought a 5DIII. I shot with them for a few month before realizing that the full frame files are so much better that I didn't miss the crop and sold the 7D. The 1.4x (and 2x) III goes a long way to make up for the crop if you own one of the 70-200 zooms of any of the telephotos other than the 135 f/2 (which isn't too great with extenders).


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



There is no treatment for G.A.S yet. It tends to spread to bigger, faster, better and of course more $$$ in the future.

Since Neuro is a Dr., he can explain this better I'm ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 31, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> There is no treatment for G.A.S yet. It tends to spread to bigger, faster, better and of course more $$$ in the future.
> 
> Since Neuro is a Dr., he can explain this better I'm ;D


I see that you have succumbed to it again with the 400. The 300 wasn't long enough, eh? I can understand but still prefer the smaller size & lighter weight of the 300. My plan is to start saving for the 800 5.6 II ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no treatment for G.A.S yet. It tends to spread to bigger, faster, better and of course more $$$ in the future.
> ...



YES, I did ;D

As you mentioned before, 300 is a wonderful lens and I'm 100% agree. The only reason I went with 400 is I need little more reach. The 400 is good as 300 in term of IQ & AF speed, but the weight feels much heavier :-\

800 sounds awesome mackguyver. I would love to add the 600 sometime next year or two - unless Canon releases better. I'm start saving now


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I though I slowed down too until I bought a new full frame body; in essence to replace the 7D. So now I'm affraid this will cause expensive lens acquisition mayhem once I start missing the crop on the long end of the range...  : ???
> ...



Thanks for sharing your experience. I am happy to say I've got a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and a 1.4x II, so that's covered for now. It's the >400 mm focal lengths that could become a problem (but I don't really do a lot of photography that requires these focal lengths). I've got a 100-400 and I know from the 5DII that is gives great results on full frame as long as the subject is in focus. Now that I have the 5D3, I'm sure I can get more out of this lens.


----------



## tron (Jan 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no treatment for G.A.S yet. It tends to spread to bigger, faster, better and of course more $$$ in the future.
> ...


So you admit: It is not over. The only temporary refrain from lens acquisition is to get money for the biggest of all lenses 
After that I officially declare this thread as a humorous one ;D ;D ;D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ejenner said:
> 
> 
> > Harv said:
> ...



I don't really understand why the 16-35IIL gets such a bad rap. It's a really good lens and is very versatile. For landscapes, I see better results than the 24-70IIL...which is a lens every one seems to go nuts over.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 6, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ejenner said:
> ...


I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls. I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II. All the same, I use it a lot for my architectural work and landscapes and I'm typically happy with the results, but I'm never ecstatic with them. To me, it's sort of like the old 24-70 - a very good lens, but not a great one. I'd love to see that level of improvement (like the 24-70 to 24-70II) in a new 16-36, but I am certainly content with the 16-35II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls. I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II.



Agreed. At 24mm, my preference is TS-E 24L II > 24-70/2.8L II > 16-35L II.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls. I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II.
> ...


+1 And there is a fairly wide gap between the 24-70 and the 16-35.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm typically happy with the results, but I'm never ecstatic with them. To me, it's sort of like the old 24-70 - a very good lens, but not a great one.



You description _exactly_ fits how I felt about my 24-70 Mk I. It's a professionals tool, nothing more. I replaced it with a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 that _does_ thrill me


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 6, 2014)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Only in sharpness....not in any other metric or concearn.


----------



## tron (Jan 7, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I guess sharpness is an important metric and since the 2 lenses have different focal range they cannot be compared outside the 24-35mm range.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 7, 2014)

Let's hope I don't have re-buyer's remorse with the new Sigma:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/06/sigma-announces-all-new-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_6


----------



## Eldar (Jan 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Let's hope I don't have re-buyer's remorse with the new Sigma:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/06/sigma-announces-all-new-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_6


This lens may be a challenge Canon need to take seriously!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Let's hope I don't have re-buyer's remorse with the new Sigma:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/06/sigma-announces-all-new-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_6



It's about time some one made a really good 50mm....I just hope Sigma have nailed their AF and QA issues. It sure looks like a pretty lens!


----------



## danimon (Jan 7, 2014)

i've compared 85L and 135L, and for me i'd say 85L is THE lens; for portraiture..it's true that 135L a nice lens but she lack the ability to shot in dimmer ambient light. i shot city crowd at the evening and nothing's more pleasing than the 85L result.it was so damn bright and everything is visible, u get what you see(in term of luminance). i'm also agree with u that 85mm is more versatile in portraiture department since 85mm has the natural and classic type of FOV. 
i think you have a good combination there with your 24-85-300mm eventhough for me i would like 35-85-200L in my lineup


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That, and the 24-70 II has a 1/3-stop faster T-stop than the 16-35 II. Sometimes every bit of light counts...


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 7, 2014)

danimon said:


> i've compared 85L and 135L, and for me i'd say 85L is THE lens; for portraiture..it's true that 135L a nice lens but she lack the ability to shot in dimmer ambient light. i shot city crowd at the evening and nothing's more pleasing than the 85L result.it was so damn bright and everything is visible, u get what you see(in term of luminance). i'm also agree with u that 85mm is more versatile in portraiture department since 85mm has the natural and classic type of FOV.
> i think you have a good combination there with your 24-85-300mm eventhough for me i would like 35-85-200L in my lineup


I loved the 135, too, but it was always a bit tight for indoor portraits, even on FF. The big thing that made me rethink the lens was reading a blog by wedding photographer Jeff Ascough who was talking about how the combination of high ISO bodies and the 70-200 2.8 IS II was allowing him to get shots he'd never dreamed of with the 135. Obviously that doesn't overcome slow shutter speeds in extremely low light, but even then the 1 stop difference isn't huge.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> That, and the 24-70 II has a 1/3-stop faster T-stop than the 16-35 II. Sometimes every bit of light counts...


Very true 8)


----------



## Digbydriver (Jan 7, 2014)

That's what I keep saying about my firearms, too. But it's never true.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> danimon said:
> 
> 
> > i've compared 85L and 135L, and for me i'd say 85L is THE lens; for portraiture..it's true that 135L a nice lens but she lack the ability to shot in dimmer ambient light. i shot city crowd at the evening and nothing's more pleasing than the 85L result.it was so damn bright and everything is visible, u get what you see(in term of luminance). i'm also agree with u that 85mm is more versatile in portraiture department since 85mm has the natural and classic type of FOV.
> ...



I like the 135L a lot...but I use my 85IIL a lot more. I like the look I get from it and it's amazingly bright. It almost creates light. I use a 70-200 f2.8 II L a lot too, it's a fantastic lens and offers a great set of benefits; focal range, fast AF, bright f2.8, weather sealing and that great 4 stop IS unit....and it's great with teleconverters. But the 135L and 85IIL do offer a slightly better look in my opinion. 
There's a lot to like about all three lenses!


----------



## J.R. (Jan 7, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > danimon said:
> ...



+1 same here. I share the sentiment


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 7, 2014)

I am basically in the same boat in terms of lenses.

*70-200/2.8 II* - While I do not have a specific use for this lens, I find it is my most often used lens on many trips. It is versatile for everything - from portraits to landscapes.

*TS-E 24 II* - My second most used lens. I use it for architecture exteriors and landscapes.

*TS-E 17* - Used for interiors and landscapes.

*24-105/4 IS* - My "I don't care lens". The sharpness is not up to snuff but it serves well when I just want some casual photo of the kids.

*MP-E 65* - Used for insects

*100L macro* - Used for small things larger than insects, or for big insects

*TS-E 90* - Used for product photography and flowers

*16-35 2.8 II* - Not often in my bag except for hikes

*8-15 fisheye* - Great nifty lens when used in moderation

*200-400/1.4x* - For wildlife and some landscapes

I say "almost" because ideally I would replace the 24-105 with a 24-70/2.8 II and would add a 600/4 II, but those are minor tidbits. I generally do not miss them and am unlikely to buy them within the next few years.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 7, 2014)

Zeiss is releasing two more Otus lenses, 85/1.4 in 2014, followed by a "wide angel"/1.4. Having seen the exceptional performance from the 55/1.4, these may be very difficult to resist ... :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> ...add a 600/4 II, but those are minor tidbits.



I'm not sure whether to be impressed or appalled that you referred to the 600/4L IS II as a "minor tidbit."


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > ...add a 600/4 II, but those are minor tidbits.
> ...


If it were, I'd already have one. Unfortunately, $13k is not minor for me :'(


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



It is a minor tidbit because I do not have a huge need for one, given that the 200-400/1.4x works well for me, and after the amount of begging and whining I had to do to obtain the 200-400 I do not even dare mention the 600/4. If I win the lottery some day it would be nice, but I am happy with what I have.

Of course, if this truly is a "lens year" then future lenses may be too difficult to resist - particularly if Canon releases a 14-24.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jan 7, 2014)

For me it's all about wants not need. So doubtless it will continue. :-[


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 8, 2014)

You 300 2.8 II praisers are giving me gear cravings.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 8, 2014)

After reading this thread, I've also got gear envy. I like what I got for now, but my favorites are my 70-200 2.8L mk II and my 85 1.8. The 85 has been a great lens for my daughters dive team where every natatorium has crummy lighting. Just the right size and focal length.

One day.....

One day....


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jan 8, 2014)

Me too! I've taken a little different tack - I got rid of a good portion of the lenses you mentioned and purchased
a 35mm summilux and a 75mm summilux to go with a new M. My shoulders don't sag, I don't quit early and I can
carry my whole kit around my neck and in one pocket. Oh yes, my pictures are sharper and photography is fun
again. I have to think about what I want, move a whole lot more and enjoy the process.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 8, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Zeiss is releasing two more Otus lenses, 85/1.4 in 2014, followed by a "*wide angel*"/1.4. Having seen the exceptional performance from the 55/1.4, these may be very difficult to resist ... :



LOL ... we are really waiting for that ... made by Zeiss! ;D ;D


----------



## Eldar (Jan 8, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Zeiss is releasing two more Otus lenses, 85/1.4 in 2014, followed by a "*wide angel*"/1.4. Having seen the exceptional performance from the 55/1.4, these may be very difficult to resist ... :
> ...


Not sure I understood that comment .. :-\

But if we drop the Zeiss price part (we all know they are expensive) and the non-AF part and the non-IS part and the size and weight part, I believe we have exceptional lenses ahead of us. 

The IQ from the Otus 55/1.4 beats any other 50ísh lens on the market, including Zeiss´own. Their current offering in the wide angel area, especially the 15, 18 and 21 lenses, are all very high performers. The only idea behind the Otus series is to out perform anything that is already out there, so I am really looking forward to them.

And if they fulfill my expectation, I would really appreciate if Canon could release that 45MP body sooner rather than later :


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 8, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Zeiss is releasing two more Otus lenses, 85/1.4 in 2014, followed by a "*wide angel*"/1.4. Having seen the exceptional performance from the 55/1.4, these may be very difficult to resist ... :
> ...



I've known a few wide angels, but I prefer the thin ones. More likely to be made in Budapest than by Zeiss


----------



## Niki (Jan 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.
> 
> With that, I'm done. Really. I have all the lenses I'll ever need to _own_. I can _rent _longer super teles, other TS-Es, etc. for jobs or projects.
> 
> ...



nice…but what happens when they introduce new lenses for 2014


----------



## tron (Jan 8, 2014)

Niki said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.
> ...


Allow me a humorous answer: The gear list is updated first.After that minor update, the declaration (thread title) continuous to be correct (until an interesting new lens is introduced and so on... ;D )


----------



## leGreve (Jan 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.
> 
> With that, I'm done. Really. I have all the lenses I'll ever need to _own_. I can _rent _longer super teles, other TS-Es, etc. for jobs or projects.
> 
> ...



Someone probably already mentioned it 

I don't see the Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 anywhere in there…. neither the Zeiss Otus 85 1.4 (that of course is because it's not here yet…  )

You are not done hehe.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 8, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Eehhh ... That´s the thing about language, especially when it´s not your native tounge. There are always double meanings and room for interpretation :

Norway (and maybe also Sweden) had a Honda called Jazz. In all other countries they were called Honda Fitta. Which for most people is OK. But for us it translates to Honda The Cunt, so they renamed it Jazz


----------



## J.R. (Jan 8, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Yes ... I understood that it was a typo - angel instead of angle. I'm a non-native English speaking person and face such issues plenty of times. 

But just couldn't resist commenting on the wide-angel


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 8, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Eehhh ... That´s the thing about language, especially when it´s not your native tounge. There are always double meanings and room for interpretation :



Your written English is pretty much perfect. Now if I tried to post in Norwegian that would be highly amusing !


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Jan 8, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Just to jump in on the Honda Jazz, it was called that here in the UK, too. I'm pretty sure it was the name they used for the entire European market and the middle east. Companies often call cars different names in the US, and sometimes in East Asia, too, though I think the Honda Fit was called that in the US and Japan, China etc.

It works with Canon cameras too  the US has the Rebel T5i, in Europe we have the 700D and in Japan they're called KISS X7i


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 8, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> You 300 2.8 II praisers are giving me gear cravings.


Sorry, but we can't help it. It's all that and then some 



leGreve said:


> I don't see the Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 anywhere in there…. neither the Zeiss Otus 85 1.4 (that of course is because it's not here yet…  )
> 
> You are not done hehe.


I'm waiting for the Otus 24mm, which will be next, after the 85mm, at least according to a Zeiss rep at some trade show last year.

And how doesn't love wide anGELs . We English speakers would all do VERY poorly if we had to speak in all of the other native languages that exist on this forum!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 8, 2014)

I'm 'done' - I have all the lenses _cameras_ I 'need'. Now I want a 70-300L for travel : : :


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 8, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I'm 'done' - I have all the lenses _cameras_ I 'need'. Now I want a 70-300L for travel : : :


Congrats and I hear great things about the 70-300L. Haven't used one but I bet it and the 24-70 f/4 IS would make a great travel pair.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm 'done' - I have all the lenses _cameras_ I 'need'. Now I want a 70-300L for travel : : :
> ...



Thanks, my revised travel kit will most likely consist of my 5D Mk III (without the grip), 17-40L, 24-105L, 35f/2 or 50f/1.8 MkI and the (to be purchased) 70-300L. I've been using this type of configuration with my 5D Mk II for a while when traveling, except the 70-300 which at the moment is a Tamron VC USD. This fits in the camera compartment of my Lowepro Fastpack 250  and leaves a little room for other stuff


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 8, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Thanks, my revised travel kit will most likely consist of my 5D Mk III (without the grip), 17-40L, 24-105L, 35f/2 or 50f/1.8 MkI and the (to be purchased) 70-300L. I've been using this type of configuration with my 5D Mk II for a while when traveling, except the 70-300 which at the moment is a Tamron VC USD. This fits in the camera compartment of my Lowepro Fastpack 250  and leaves a little room for other stuff


I have tinkered with my travel kit over the years, but now it's usually:

1. 5DIII + 24 1.4 II and/or 50 1.2; or
2. 5DIII + 24-70 2.8II; or
3. EOS M + 22 and/or 18-55IS

I remove my 5DIII grip as well, and I find that my travels rarely if ever require anything beyond 50 or 70mm and I've wasted lots of room and comfort carrying around my 135 2 (since sold), 70-200 4 IS (also sold), or 70-200 2.8 IS II over the years. I'll throw in my 85 1.2 II if I plan on taking lots of portraits (e.g. of family at Christmas), but that's the longest focal length I ever seem to need. I guess I like to get lots of context in my travel photos and find that I use 24mm 90% of the time for general shots and 50mm for most other shots, including people. I'm sure other destinations would really benefit from telephoto lengths, but this is what works for me.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 8, 2014)

dslrdummy said:


> For me it's all about wants not need. So doubtless it will continue. :-[


Somehow, that's my feeling, too :-\
And somehow, I'm glad that I don't have too much money to spend. 
So all decisions all carefully considered. 
But I also love to dream about these big whites...


----------



## Eldar (Jan 8, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> But I also love to dream about these big whites...


It´s a bit like alcoholism ... One is one too many and a dozen is not enough ...


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 8, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > For me it's all about wants not need. So doubtless it will continue. :-[
> ...


Keep dreaming about the big whites, they really are amazing and worth the wait and effort to save up for them. As for needs/wants, I bet the following lenses would cover 95% of my shooting - with the rest just being a luxury:

24-70 2.8 II
70-200 2.8 IS II
50 1.2 or 85 1.2 II (not sure which)
300 2.8 IS II
1.4x & 2x Extenders III


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I have tinkered with my travel kit over the years, but now it's usually:
> 
> 1. 5DIII + 24 1.4 II and/or 50 1.2; or
> 2. 5DIII + 24-70 2.8II; or
> ...



I agree that for most travels, it's the shorter focal lengths that are most important, and a 2.8 zoom is the most versatile if you carry just one lens. I like being able to go extra wide or have more reach though.

In my vacation I often do a fast paced cross-country trip (ie fly-drive) and the flexibility of a zoom that includes a near-to-normal focal length is a must when there's no chance (or it would not be wise -dust/moisture) to change lenses. Hence there's some overlap in my zoom ranges. This is why I always carry the:

-17-40L for landscape/cityscape/sights. It goes wide and does the 'normal' 40 mm. 
-24-105L for general purpose. I like the extended range - the 105 mm long end helps for subjects that are a little further away and I don't have much chance to get / or want to get too close to. And it's a 'normal' zoom.
-70-300 variable aperture lens for nature/tame wildlife, and of course for the compressed perspective. It does 70 mm too, which is quite usable as 'normal' (mildly tele) focal length. 
-35f/2 or 50f/1.8: All my travel zooms are relatively 'slow' at a maximum aperture of f/4. Most of my photography when I travel is in daylight anyway, and I don't mind having plenty of DOF in most of my photos when I travel. Still, to make sure I have something to go to if I need a large aperture, the little 35 or 50 mm lens is there if I need it. I decide which of the two to take before I head off.

I am trying to get my mind around the 70-300 though; last year when I traveled through Turkey I didn't use it once. Though this time around we're going to Japan and I almost certainly want to have a good quality zoom with sufficient reach (that fits in my bag). Hence the 'L'

Of course I'm trying to justify this, I mean normally I don't really need such a lens as I also have the 70-200L IS f/2.8II, 1.4x II and a 100-400L. Yes- it's GAS I know.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 8, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Of course I'm trying to justify this, I mean normally I don't really need such a lens as I also have the 70-200L IS f/2.8II, 1.4x II and a 100-400L. Yes- it's GAS I know.


It's definitely hard to restrain yourself, even with the overlap. Then again, certain focal lengths call to us - if you like at my gear, you'll see that I have _slight_ affinity for 24mm (4 lenses!):
TS-E 24mm - sharpest 24mm, plus T/S for architecture & landscapes
24 1.4 II - fastest 24mm - killer environmental portrait, event, & travel lens + great landscape lens
24-70 II - starts at 24mm - my go to landscape lens when landscape is not my primary reason for shooting, plus my bread & butter event/commercial shoot lens
16-35 II - not great at 24mm, but covers it as needed.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I'm trying to justify this, I mean normally I don't really need such a lens as I also have the 70-200L IS f/2.8II, 1.4x II and a 100-400L. Yes- it's GAS I know.
> ...



Wide angle is good! I've been progressing towards wide angle, too because I like the dramatic effect. And the 17-40 gets a lot of camera-time when I travel 

As for the 70-300, it's the versatility and usefulness of the focal length range of this lens that gets my attention although I don't particularly like the design (zoom ring at the front) or the way it looks (white and fat with a slim zoom barrel). It's a different beast than my other long zooms. I figure its compact size and promise of good image quality means it will go into my camera bag more often, even when I'm not traveling. Is that enough justification? My Tamron 70-300 sits in my travel bag permanently so I get very little use out of it... :


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 8, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...


Only you can answer that question, but one thing I've asked myself is - what else could I use $1,000+ for? That could pay for a great trip to use the gear I have, or maybe a studio rental, or savings account for the 14-24 or other future product. The other question is, how much will I use the lens (etc.). If it's less than 10 days a year, I'm probably better off renting it.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Nooooo not the voice of reason!!!!    ;D


----------



## Niki (Jan 8, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I'm 'done' - I have all the lenses _cameras_ I 'need'. Now I want a 70-300L for travel : : :




nice…and it's only 1-8-2014

for my travel kit…85 1.2 and 24-105L 5d mlll


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 8, 2014)

Niki said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm 'done' - I have all the lenses _cameras_ I 'need'. Now I want a 70-300L for travel : : :
> ...



Yes, there's still time to sell a few things and save up some money before my next trip


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 8, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



I speak 5 languages, so I have had my share of experience with 'translations' - not to mention spelling errors throughout the years. I read internet (ie international!) forums very much appreciating people who are using English (or another language that is not their first language)... as I've had to do no numerous occasions too.

In Australia it's the Honda Jazz also... and (as I also have a marketing degree) - Jazz has more positive connotations as a word / car name than 'Fitta' for our culture too (though Fitta is not an offensive word).

My 2 cents worth on that! As to the actual topic of 'enough lenses'... I keep telling myself that there is only 1 more lens I 'need' - the Canon 50mm fast prime (hopefully IS) USM.... 

Paul


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jan 9, 2014)

pj1974 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Dang! I was proud for speaking two! Even my Spanish is only comparable to a 2nd grader so it's more like 1 1/2.  

Back to lenses, I have had the "I'm done (with what I _need_)" talk several times, even after splurging on a 7D which at the time I didn't _need_, I told my sweet wife that I was probably done. Last week I went in on the 100 macro deal and now we're about to pull the trigger on the 5Diii and 24L. I'm looking forward to my, "I'm done" post, but taking it one day at a time, it is safe to say; "I'm done, for today". lol

-Tabor


----------



## J.R. (Jan 9, 2014)

I had convinced myself that I didn't need an Ultra-wide angle lens. I found myself rejecting three copies of the 16-35 II by seeking out softness in the corners. Well, the 16-35 II lens has been delivered to me earlier today. 

Ughhh ... this seems to go on forever.


----------



## tron (Jan 9, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Niki said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...


Do you ? :

I copy your signature: 5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 7D (to be sold?), Sony NEX-6 and a nice range of lenses.

There is a 5D Mark II wishing to be upgraded to 5D Mark III too... ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 9, 2014)

tron said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Niki said:
> ...



Hahaha, well not really, the Mk II has a little bit different application for me. It has a precision matte focusing screen so is ideal for use with shallow DOF. I bought the Mk III to replace the 7D. 

So stuff that needs to be sold is the 7D and the Tamron 70-300 VC USD. Considering the amount of pictures I take when traveling vs days of use, the lens purchase can probably be justified. Still, it's always good not to rush things


----------



## mackguyver (May 2, 2014)

Time for another confession :-[. The more I use the TS-E 24 II, the more I love it and while innocently browsing the Canon refurb sale, I found a TS-E 17 in stock. Now my AMEX bleeds :'(.

I think the 16-35 II is in serious peril, however.


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 2, 2014)

It's interesting to see this topic again, I've bought and sold so much, my signature has almost completely changed


----------



## mackguyver (May 2, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> It's interesting to see this topic again, I've bought and sold so much, my signature has almost completely changed


I know and it's painful when I look at a lot of the pros on CPN and elsewhere who only shoot with 3 or 4 lenses. I just can't seem to figure out what I want to shoot. I love wildlife and landscape work, make money from architecture work (hence this wise investment ), but love portraiture, macro, and other shooting as well. I suppose there's worse problems to have, but this is a mighty expensive problem!


----------



## Eldar (May 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I think the 16-35 II is in serious peril, however.


With the two TS-E lenses you are very well equipped for any wide angle situation, expect for events. Personally I don´t like wider angles than 24mm for people photography, so I sold the 16-35 II. No regrets. Added a Zeiss 15mm f2.8 though (with an extremely expensive CPL filter ...). The optical quality of the primes are in a different league than the zoom.


----------



## mackguyver (May 2, 2014)

Eldar said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 16-35 II is in serious peril, however.
> ...


The Zeiss 15 is something I've looked at but the size of it makes me reluctant to use it. The lens and CPL cost is another . The 16-35 has weatherproofing and takes filters (over the TS-E 17), but I find myself using it for interiors and exteriors of large buildings and for little else. I don't do much UWA shooting other than that, so it may need to go up for sale. I'll probably give it a month or so and see if it starts to collect dust. If so, it will be time to sell it.


----------



## J.R. (May 3, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Time for another confession :-[. The more I use the TS-E 24 II, the more I love it and while innocently browsing the Canon refurb sale, I found a TS-E 17 in stock. Now my AMEX bleeds :'(.
> 
> I think the 16-35 II is in serious peril, however.



Congratulations on the purchase  and sympathies for your wallet  

I too have the TS-E17 as well as the 16-35 II so, a question ... unless you are mostly a tripod shooter, why would you sell off the 16-35 II? To me, both the lenses serve completely different purposes.


----------



## mackguyver (May 3, 2014)

J.R. said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Time for another confession :-[. The more I use the TS-E 24 II, the more I love it and while innocently browsing the Canon refurb sale, I found a TS-E 17 in stock. Now my AMEX bleeds :'(.
> ...


I agree, but my 16-35 II seems to be my least used lens and when I do use it, I tend to use it on a tripod. I realize that it is much more versatile, but so far, I haven't used it for those other purposes. I'll hold onto it for now, but 24mm is usually wide enough for me for general purpose shooting.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 3, 2014)

I agree. With my 17-55, the wide end often didn't feel sufficient, but 24mm seems good for most purposes to me. 
Having said that, if Canon comes up with a sharp UWA zoom (no, not a f/2.8- can't afford what it will cost, more like a f/4 zoom, maybe even with IS) I will most likely bite after the dust settles.


----------



## traingineer (May 3, 2014)

Excuse me, but you're still missing a few lenses. (I crossed out the ones you currently own)


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

One more personal note - for those thinking that the TS-E 17 makes the TS-E 24 obsolete, I'd say not it doesn't. Yes, you can add the 1.4x to the 17 to get a sharp 24, and a decent 34, but you can add the 1.4x to the 24 to get a very nice 34 and a decent 48 ;D




traingineer said:


> Excuse me, but you're still missing a few lenses. (I crossed out the ones you currently own)


Nice! I wonder what the total retail cost of all of these lenses is - minus the Cinema line up.



sagittariansrock said:


> I agree. With my 17-55, the wide end often didn't feel sufficient, but 24mm seems good for most purposes to me.
> Having said that, if Canon comes up with a sharp UWA zoom (no, not a f/2.8- can't afford what it will cost, more like a f/4 zoom, maybe even with IS) I will most likely bite after the dust settles.


I'd go for a wide f/4 zoom if it were really sharp, too


----------



## traingineer (May 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me, but you're still missing a few lenses. (I crossed out the ones you currently own)
> ...



Compared to the Cine lenses, most of the Canon EF lenses seem like excellent value, but still expensive. :'(
Oh, and would the lens down below count as a Canon lens? (white paint/expensive elements/metal badge/fast and accurate focusing/something coloured in red)


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

traingineer said:


> Oh, and would the lens down below count as a Canon lens? (white paint/expensive elements/metal badge/fast and accurate focusing/something coloured in red)


Looks good to me, but I think we should really be adding the 1200mm to the list ;D


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 6, 2014)

Thats a mighty load of glass, would be honestly interested in just what you produce with these lenses ? Link to your website / work ?

Actually i just noticed the link sorry !


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

I'm glad you found it and my website is woefully overdue for an update and re-org. I use Smugmug and they changed it all around on my last year and ever since I have been stuck with my old site because trying to port my stuff to their new format has been an exercise in futility, at best. Lately, due to consulting and personal commitments, I haven't even had time to shoot, so the website has taken a back seat.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm glad you found it and my website is woefully overdue for an update and re-org. I use Smugmug and they changed it all around on my last year and ever since I have been stuck with my old site because trying to port my stuff to their new format has been an exercise in futility, at best. Lately, due to consulting and personal commitments, I haven't even had time to shoot, so the website has taken a back seat.



Not good , lots of lonely glass !

I noticed you had some amazing wildlife stuff on there so can see where you are using the longer focal lengths what about the wider ones do you do much street / landscape / anything else ?


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad you found it and my website is woefully overdue for an update and re-org. I use Smugmug and they changed it all around on my last year and ever since I have been stuck with my old site because trying to port my stuff to their new format has been an exercise in futility, at best. Lately, due to consulting and personal commitments, I haven't even had time to shoot, so the website has taken a back seat.
> ...


Yes, very lonely and sad glass, but at least they have each other 

I do a fair amount of shooting with my wider lenses, but that's the business side of things and is a completely different and rather dull set of photos that I don't normally share. I have done quite a bit of landscape work, too, but don't have a lot of it up on my site. Florida, at least the part where I live, is a lot of swamps and trees so finding interesting landscapes is quite challenging.


----------



## traingineer (May 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and would the lens down below count as a Canon lens? (white paint/expensive elements/metal badge/fast and accurate focusing/something coloured in red)
> ...



How about this? Japanese built, has ED/APO/Fluorite elements, hundreds of coatings, white tube with a red ring, heavy duty focuser, and it also includes a tripod/mount! Only for $14,000


----------



## RobertG. (May 7, 2014)

Most of the lenses you own can be improved in one way or another. So I guess at the moment you have a pretty good set of lenses to cover your work. But every new sensor demands more and more of your lens, so an update becomes inevitable sooner or later. I saw it with older medium format lenses adapted to a modern Canon ff camera body. The results are less than mediocre and so I really appreciate newer lens designs and coatings.

I have no shortage of lenses but still want better ones. Especially a proper tilt-shift lens in the range of 40mm till 60mm is lacking.


----------



## mackguyver (May 8, 2014)

RobertG. said:


> Most of the lenses you own can be improved in one way or another. So I guess at the moment you have a pretty good set of lenses to cover your work. But every new sensor demands more and more of your lens, so an update becomes inevitable sooner or later. I saw it with older medium format lenses adapted to a modern Canon ff camera body. The results are less than mediocre and so I really appreciate newer lens designs and coatings.
> 
> I have no shortage of lenses but still want better ones. Especially a proper tilt-shift lens in the range of 40mm till 60mm is lacking.


I feel pretty good about the future for my 300 f/2.8 IS II, which seems to outresolve even the 5DIII, but I'm not sure about the rest. A lot of guys are starting to use the Sony A7R with L lenses, so that might help us learn a bit more prior to Canon's high-res sensors coming out.


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 9, 2014)

Damn fine kit there...  Congrats.... Lets hope canon are listening and bring out a few new toys to tempt you out of your 'retirement'!


----------



## mackguyver (May 9, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> Damn fine kit there...  Congrats.... Lets hope canon are listening and bring out a few new toys to tempt you out of your 'retirement'!


Thanks, and I hope they do the same. A 12-24L f/_, 400+ f/5.6 IS, TS-E 45L, 135 f/2 IS, and 180L f/2.8 macro are all on my wish list and maybe Canon Claus will deliver them or some variation of them someday.


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> *16-35 2.8L II* - I don't love this lens as much, but it is very versatile for architecture, landscape, and events


To quote myself o), as I said, it's not favorite, so it's going up for sale and I'm going to cross my fingers on the new 16-35 f/4 IS I pre-ordered. It looks like a winner and much better for my needs.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > *16-35 2.8L II* - I don't love this lens as much, but it is very versatile for architecture, landscape, and events
> ...




Starting a thread called "I'm done" might not have been one of your most successful ventures in the year of the lens(es?)


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


In all fairness, I started it last year, but I guess a better title might have been "I'm delusional, please help my G.A.S. addiction" ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



And we would all have chimed in with a +1


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

LOL and have you had a chance to play with your TS-E 17 yet?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...




Hey count me out of the GAS stuff, I got most of my lenses ten years ago and have only added the 100 L Macro, the 15mm fisheye, and the 17TS-E since then.

Indeed I am breaking the habit of a lifetime and actually selling even older lenses that I now accept I will never use again.

Though I am at the stage where I realise I will not be "done" until I can't lift the camera up anymore. ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Hey count me out of the GAS stuff, I got most of my lenses ten years ago and have only added the 100 L Macro, the 15mm fisheye, and the 17TS-E since then.
> 
> Indeed I am breaking the habit of a lifetime and actually selling even older lenses that I now accept I will never use again.
> 
> Though I am at the stage where I realise I will not be "done" until I can't lift the camera up anymore. ;D



Good for you, although in all fairness I didn't even have a dSLR 10 years ago, and the only SLR I had was an FM10 that actually belonged to my friend (although he hardly used it).




mackguyver said:


> LOL and have you had a chance to play with your TS-E 17 yet?




Nope. It will be in Houston on May 22 (I got it shipped to my permanent residence in OR so my wife received it).
In the meantime, I disassembled that spare lens cap and promptly managed to lose the spring for the locking button


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Hey count me out of the GAS stuff, I got most of my lenses ten years ago and have only added the 100 L Macro, the 15mm fisheye, and the 17TS-E since then.
> 
> Indeed I am breaking the habit of a lifetime and actually selling even older lenses that I now accept I will never use again.
> 
> Though I am at the stage where I realise I will not be "done" until I can't lift the camera up anymore. ;D


The more I get, the less I seem to need, but sometimes upgrades come along, or at least equipment that seems to be a better fit, and the new 16-35 seems to fit the bill. I like the last statement, though!



sagittariansrock said:


> Nope. It will be in Houston on May 22 (I got it shipped to my permanent residence in OR so my wife received it).
> In the meantime, I disassembled that spare lens cap and promptly managed to lose the spring for the locking button


A long wait...and I watched that video and thought I might be able to make use of my Dremel, but would be more likely to cut my fingers off, so I think I'll stick with the Wonderpano that privatebydesign recommends. Sorry to hear about the lost spring.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Hey count me out of the GAS stuff, I got most of my lenses ten years ago and have only added the 100 L Macro, the 15mm fisheye, and the 17TS-E since then.
> ...



Oh I agree, I really should "upgrade' to the MkII 24-70, but my MkI seems to be a particularly good copy after some early snafus, the MkII 16-35 is nearly as lacklustre as the MkI, and the MkI fits in my old underwater housing, I will get a 14-? if one ever comes out. The 70-200 2.8 IS MkII is another, sure it is sharper, but most noticeably with TC's which I tend to not use and the backgrounds are slightly harsher anyway. The 300 f2.8 IS similarly, I'd like the MkII, the weight saving alone would be nice, but I rarely use it now so there really isn't a driving need for me to. 

It is amazing how well the old stuff holds its own. I have even struggled with the '1Ds MkIII upgrade to what?' question, but have decided to ignore it for another year or so, they can be had for under $2,000 now, that is a crazy amount of camera for the money.

Come on Canon, I am feeling left out, apart from the RT flashes and the 17TS-E I really haven't had you light me up for a long time, though they were two very innovative products worth the wait.


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh I agree, I really should "upgrade' to the MkII 24-70, but my MkI seems to be a particularly good copy after some early snafus, the MkII 16-35 is nearly as lacklustre as the MkI, and the MkI fits in my old underwater housing, I will get a 14-? if one ever comes out. The 70-200 2.8 IS MkII is another, sure it is sharper, but most noticeably with TC's which I tend to not use and the backgrounds are slightly harsher anyway. The 300 f2.8 IS similarly, I'd like the MkII, the weight saving alone would be nice, but I rarely use it now so there really isn't a driving need for me to.
> 
> It is amazing how well the old stuff holds its own. I have even struggled with the '1Ds MkIII upgrade to what?' question, but have decided to ignore it for another year or so, they can be had for under $2,000 now, that is a crazy amount of camera for the money.
> 
> Come on Canon, I am feeling left out, apart from the RT flashes and the 17TS-E I really haven't had you light me up for a long time, though they were two very innovative products worth the wait.


My copy of the 24-70 was a great one and took excellent photos but I beat the hell out of it and was one drop away from disaster. I was up on a zip line taking some photos for a local zoo and slipped, fell, and then slammed into a tree with the lens in my pocket. It survived but was not the same after that. The Mark II has much better color and contrast and is obviously sharper as well, but what I like best about it is the smaller size and better ergonomics.

I went from the 70-200 f/4 IS which I had for many years to the 2.8 IS II when they were having great sales & rebates. And I was also able to get the 300 IS II at a nice price, and most of the rest of my gear is refurbished. I use the 300mm more than any other lens for my personal work so it was a great investment and the TS-E lenses are for my commercial work. I have a 580 EX II, which covers all of my flash needs - and a pair of Einsteins I use for everything else. Prior to the 600s, I added up the cost of the 580s, transceivers and such and the Einsteins came out way ahead. They have plenty of power for most situations, the accessories are reasonable, and the wireless triggers are built in and very reliable.

As for the 1D - I can see why you would wait and I'm sure I'll have the 1D X in many years from now and skip the next gen 1D.


----------



## Eldar (May 13, 2014)

I will never be done, but I thought I was done for a while. 

But now I realize I will have to start looking for a new 35 and 50. The Sigma Art lenses I have cannot be trusted. AF is very unreliable on both (even though I thought the 50 was excellent for a while), so I´ll ship´em off to Timbuktu or something similarly remote. 

I´ll practice more with my Otus, when the Ec-S focusing screen arrives and I´m crossing my fingers for an outstanding 35mm f1.4L II in the Year of the Lens.


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I will never be done, but I thought I was done for a while.
> 
> But now I realize I will have to start looking for a new 35 and 50. The Sigma Art lenses I have cannot be trusted. AF is very unreliable on both (even though I thought the 50 was excellent for a while), so I´ll ship´em off to Timbuktu or something similarly remote.
> 
> I´ll practice more with my Otus, when the Ec-S focusing screen arrives and I´m crossing my fingers for an outstanding 35mm f1.4L II in the Year of the Lens.


That's too bad about the Sigmas as they are so good in all other respects, but I've never had much luck with the other brands, either. The Zeiss 135 f/2 is the lens that I'm most interested in using right now given the stellar reviews. I might have to give one a rent sometime, but other than that, I think the 16-35 f/4 IS and my recent TS-E 17 should keep me happy for a while. I'm not a huge wide angle guy, so it will be good to stretch my creativity a bit by forcing me to find to new and interesting subjects to shoot. 

I'd like to hear how your Ec-S screen works out as I really miss my 5DII with Eg-S screen with my fast lenses, well all of my lenses, really. The standard screens are so grainy in comparison.

Also, with the Otus, how much tripod/LiveView shooting have you done? I know that not the best use for a 50mm, but I bet the results are pretty spectacular for landscape and architecture.


----------



## Eldar (May 13, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Also, with the Otus, how much tripod/LiveView shooting have you done? I know that not the best use for a 50mm, but I bet the results are pretty spectacular for landscape and architecture.


When shooting the Otus wide open, it is difficult to focus right without using LiveView. According to those with experience, the Ec-S focusing screen makes view finder focusing doable. But from f2.8 I nail focus pretty much every time. I have ordered the Ec-S for the 1DX, since I can´t get a similar alternative on the 5DIII, and I cross my fingers that my eyesight is sufficiently good to make it work  I have been playing with the idea to get a 6D for this though, since the 1DX is pretty occupied with the long whites.

The Otus is a bit like the TS-E lenses. I really enjoy carrying it around on a tripod and taking my time to get the things right.

Now that the 35 Art will be returned (I think), it will be very interesting to see what the new Otus family members will be. There will be an 85mm f1.4, but I am too happy with my 85/1.2L II to consider that. But both a 35 and a 24 would be mighty tempting.


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Also, with the Otus, how much tripod/LiveView shooting have you done? I know that not the best use for a 50mm, but I bet the results are pretty spectacular for landscape and architecture.
> ...


Thank you for the insight and I'm sure the Otus is a pleasure to use. The 6D might not be a bad idea, but hopefully the screen will help. I also wonder about the Otus 85 - it will have to be pretty amazing to top the 85L II! The wide lenses look interesting, too, but I guess they are another year or so away.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> LOL and have you had a chance to play with your TS-E 17 yet?



So I got my 17mm TS-E yesterday, haven't got a chance to play with it yet. But I have a couple of questions since you also just purchased the same lens:
1. Did yours come with an extra, bigger shift knob like your 24mm TS-E?
2. I see some paint chipped around the barrel. Never seen this in any of the refurbs I bought before. Is this usual? Should I worry about impact damage? They also shipped with the movements unlocked, which I wasn't too happy about.
Glass looks great, and the build quality is awesome. 
I am so looking forward to using this after the long weekend.


----------



## mackguyver (May 23, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> 1. Did yours come with an extra, bigger shift knob like your 24mm TS-E?
> 2. I see some paint chipped around the barrel. Never seen this in any of the refurbs I bought before. Is this usual? Should I worry about impact damage? They also shipped with the movements unlocked, which I wasn't too happy about.
> Glass looks great, and the build quality is awesome.
> I am so looking forward to using this after the long weekend.


No, it didn't but neither did my TS-E 24mm and I had to call and email them several times to get it, only to find that the Tilt knob screw was loose and the Shift knob so tight that I halfway stripped it trying to get it off until I gave up  They were supposed to refund my shipping as well, but it doesn't look like that has happened, so I'll be following up with Canon.

I can't believe the paint was chipped - most of my refurbs, including this one, have been practically brand new. My 5DII was beat up and scratched a bit and had fingerprints on the mirror, but was still pretty good. I guess it's the luck of the draw...but at least your glass is perfect and it works well. I'm excited to get out with mine over the next few days, too. I have been working at least 2 jobs 6 or 7 days a week (consulting gig and teaching or more side consulting) since December and I'm _finally _back to just working 30-40 hours a week and this will be my first real weekend in 6 months, so I'm going to have a great time!

Also, a quick tip or two for you - if shooting landscapes, 1-3 degrees (usually 1) is all that's needed at f/8-11 for full depth of field. Tilting is tricky - focus on a distant subject, tilt the lens until the near subject comes into focus, then re-check the far focus and adjust tilt/focus until both line up. For buildings, level the camera with the lens pointing up 1 red bar (with the in-camera level) for more natural looking perspective. Finally, if you get a spot on the front element, the LensPens work really well for cleaning. The old ones sucked, but a few years ago they really improved them. 

Have fun shooting and post your results in the TS-E 17 thread...I'll do the same...


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Did yours come with an extra, bigger shift knob like your 24mm TS-E?
> ...



Thanks a lot, these are really useful advice. I was concerned about the tilt and focusing.
Here's a titbit: I went and bought a 24mm TS-E while I was waiting for the 17mm to arrive and have been playing with it since yesterday. (Yeah, that's how bad my GAS is...)
And I wasn't aware of the difficulty of tilt and focusing until I tried it. So your tips are greatly appreciated and will be a good starting point.

I guess I'll be calling Canon and bitching about the screw now...


----------



## mackguyver (May 23, 2014)

No problem, and just remember to be patient with them - they aren't the easiest lenses to use and I'm a long way from mastering them. When I first got the 24mm, I thought I needed to tilt 5+ degrees and I was way wrong. The full range is for the creative stuff, it just takes a few degrees or less for the Scheimpflug principle to work. LiveView makes it much easier, but you'll still find yourself scrolling back & forth at 10x between near & far a lot with adjustments in between to get it perfect. Not too bad in good light, but in low light with a ND 1.2 & C-PL on the lens, well, that's a bit tougher . Shift is much easier to use, just level (well almost as I said) the camera and shift the lens. Keep in mind that shifting exposes the softer corners of the image circle, though.

Congrats on the 24mm as well, and I understand the G.A.S. affliction well! Once you get the hang of the lenses, you'll be really annoyed that all lenses don't tilt & shift!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2014)

My 17 did come with the extra knob in a small bag in the box. I didn't get the funky instruction booklet though!

Tilt when focused at infinity is Scheimpflug, adjusting focus while tilted is Merklinger. Merklinger really is the key to using tilt well.

As a basic start out point a little theory makes sense, if you focus or your far point, then tilt for your near point you will get there quicker. So for a typical landscape image focus at infinity via 10x live view, then move your zoomed square to the bottom of the frame and tilt until it is sharp. That is normally all you need do unless the plane to infinity is not close to 90°, if it slopes up or down a lot from you then a focus adjustment will be needed.

For closer work the idea works again, focus for the far part you want in focus, then tilt to get the close part.

As for the amount of tilt that is needed, that all depends on how far the bottom of the camera is away from the plane of focus, if it is at eye leve, say 5',l 1° is typical with the 17 ( tilt degrees have a focal length factor, if a 17 needs 2° a 24 would need 3°) however put the 17 close to ground level, 8" or so, and you need the full 8°.


----------



## mackguyver (May 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> My 17 did come with the extra knob in a small bag in the box. I didn't get the funky instruction booklet though!
> 
> Tilt when focused at infinity is Scheimpflug, adjusting focus while tilted is Merklinger. Merklinger really is the key to using tilt well.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the tips and the correction on the tilt - every time I use the T/S lenses I realize how much I still have to learn . I didn't shoot with them over the weekend - it was way too hot up here so I ended up shooting baby alligators...


----------



## privatebydesign (May 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> .......... so I ended up shooting baby alligators...



I hope with a camera ;-)

Mind you we do have a place down here that does very good Gator on occasions!


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> My 17 did come with the extra knob in a small bag in the box. I didn't get the funky instruction booklet though!
> 
> Tilt when focused at infinity is Scheimpflug, adjusting focus while tilted is Merklinger. Merklinger really is the key to using tilt well.
> 
> ...



Thanks so much Macguyver and PBD!

The 17mm is a lot harder to use without a tripod (read: unusable in my inexperienced hands without a tripod). The FoV is great. Sufficient for very tall buildings. The focusing ring was disappointingly lose, especially compared to the 24 TS-E. Is that your experience, too?
As PBD said the tilt adjustment is very course and will need a lot of practice, but it is a fun toy to play with (I hope I make some money with it so I never need to part with it).
So I was reading Harry Merklinger's article and found tilt affecting vertical lines in my case too. Apparently the overpriced tripod mount solves that. I want to see if I can find a DIY way around it.


----------



## mackguyver (May 28, 2014)

Yes, with my camera - I posted a few of the photos in the Anything shot with a 1dx thread. Probably not the smartest thing to do, but I still have all of my appendages...and gator tail is interesting to eat...

Sagittarian - both of my focus rings feel about the same or at least I've haven't noticed any significant difference when using them side-by-side. Tilt does affect verticals, but you can compensate for it by tweaking your ballhead a hair. I'm sure a geared head would be nice and someday I might get one. I'm no expert by any means, but I don't think the collars are needed unless your work has to be absolutely perfect, as in 98% is not acceptable. I think PBD has some opinions on this given his previous posts.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 3, 2014)

If your camera has a built in level (I use a pair of 5DIII's) and you are using a tripod. Which you should be with a TS-e lens...the more stable the better, ideally without a centre column and the best quality ball head you can afford. I use a Gitzo GT3541LS with spikes and a Markins M80 head. On your camera, call up the built in level and correct the left and right pitch using the tripod. Once level, then correct the pitch using your tripod (forwards / backwards tilt) using the same level, it's the bit in the middle which goes up or down. Once corrected, then apply the lens shift function to bring the object into the frame...once placed in the frame the lens shift has corrected your perspective and no further adjustment (apart from fine focussing) is required. This is the correct (and upto now) undocumented method for correcting verticles with a TS-e lens. It's a no brainer with this technique and works every time and stops under or over correction of the shift function.

I would avoid hotshoe spirit bubbles....there'a massive degree of manufacturing error in the plastic bases. I have three than they all vary wildly. The in build camera level seems really accurate, as was the one on my iphone 4s....but my new iphone 5s is permanently off by quite a few degrees.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 3, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> If your camera has a built in level (I use a pair of 5DIII's) and you are using a tripod. Which you should be with a TS-e lens...the more stable the better, ideally without a centre column and the best quality ball head you can afford. I use a Gitzo GT3541LS with spikes and a Markins M80 head. On your camera, call up the built in level and correct the left and right pitch using the tripod. Once level, then correct the pitch using your tripod (forwards / backwards tilt) using the same level, it's the bit in the middle which goes up or down. Once corrected, then apply the lens shift function to bring the object into the frame...once placed in the frame the lens shift has corrected your perspective and no further adjustment (apart from fine focussing) is required. This is the correct (and upto now) undocumented method for correcting verticles with a TS-e lens. It's a no brainer with this technique and works every time and stops under or over correction of the shift function.
> 
> I would avoid hotshoe spirit bubbles....there'a massive degree of manufacturing error in the plastic bases. I have three than they all vary wildly. The in build camera level seems really accurate, as was the one on my iphone 4s....but my new iphone 5s is permanently off by quite a few degrees.


GMC, thanks for the additional detail - I know you've been at this for a while. I've tried the tripod method, but seem to get more reliable results by using the camera's built-in level. I get the camera perfectly level on all axes and then I pitch the lens up one (in-camera-level) line and fine tune from there as needed. It's essentially the same as the leg idea, but allows me to be sure that the leg adjustment doesn't throw off another axis, especially if I'm not on level ground. I like that it's repeatable for a sequence of photos and the first line below/above level (depending on how you see it) seems to be just right for most work. It's no good with a lightweight tripod/head, but works well with good support gear.

The hotshoe levels are atrociously off, mine all have Sharpie marks to show where true level is, but thankfully both of my primary camera have the levels built in now, so I can throw them away! I can't speak for iPhones...but my Google Nexus 5 is incredibly accurate according to an app I just downloaded. Hadn't though of using my phone...

Also, I had to do some art reproduction over the weekend that was a pain to light because of where it was mounted, and there was no way to get the tripod where I needed it. The TS-E 24 II + 1.4x III saved the day by allowing me to shift the painting into view!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 3, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> If your camera has a built in level (I use a pair of 5DIII's) and you are using a tripod. Which you should be with a TS-e lens...the more stable the better, ideally without a centre column and the best quality ball head you can afford. I use a Gitzo GT3541LS with spikes and a Markins M80 head. On your camera, call up the built in level and correct the left and right pitch using the tripod. Once level, then correct the pitch using your tripod (forwards / backwards tilt) using the same level, it's the bit in the middle which goes up or down. Once corrected, then apply the lens shift function to bring the object into the frame...once placed in the frame the lens shift has corrected your perspective and no further adjustment (apart from fine focussing) is required. This is the correct (and upto now) undocumented method for correcting verticles with a TS-e lens. It's a no brainer with this technique and works every time and stops under or over correction of the shift function.
> 
> I would avoid hotshoe spirit bubbles....there'a massive degree of manufacturing error in the plastic bases. I have three than they all vary wildly. The in build camera level seems really accurate, as was the one on my iphone 4s....but my new iphone 5s is permanently off by quite a few degrees.



Thanks for the advice. As I understand slight under correction of shift will be preferable. 
According to Merklinger, the problem with verticals is associated with tilt. He says that when you change the tilt to change plane of focus, you will see the verticals have changed. So a bit of back and forth is needed, unlike in view cameras.
Clearly not a big problem if PBD with so many years of professional experience says so.
I am aching to try out my toys but first bad weather and now bad health is holding me back. Soon, though...
Thanks all for the helpful advice. I usually follow protocols to the T before being completely familiar with something (from my days at the Molecular Biology bench)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 3, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Thanks for the advice. As I understand slight under correction of shift will be preferable.
> According to Merklinger, the problem with verticals is associated with tilt. He says that when you change the tilt to change plane of focus, you will see the verticals have changed. So a bit of back and forth is needed, unlike in view cameras.
> Clearly not a big problem if PBD with so many years of professional experience says so.
> I am aching to try out my toys but first bad weather and now bad health is holding me back. Soon, though...
> Thanks all for the helpful advice. I usually follow protocols to the T before being completely familiar with something (from my days at the Molecular Biology bench)



The tilt plane changing the verticals is a "feature" of retrofocus tilt lens designs, on view cameras none of the lenses are retrofocus, unfortunately with the 42mm registration distance for the EF lenses the 17, 24 and the 45 all suffer from this effect, the 17 quite severely.

When I got mine I did some tests that showed almost all the forward tilt is actually used up by the necessity to use reverse tilt, or rear tilt, to re straighten verticals. Having said that, in the field I have rarely (never so far) been forward tilting to the max whilst needing totally oof rendered verticals parallel, though this is one situation where the 135 format T/S lenses cannot compete with technical cameras.

So I dug up the tests I did. It is important to understand what is going on here so forgive me if I don't explain it well.

Image 1: I set the camera up with a level to be perpendicular to the ground and parallel to the posts, through the viewfinder everything was straight and level. I then applied full forward tilt of 8º *on the lens only* and did nothing else, that is the first image, as you can see the posts lean in a lot at the bottom, this is the "characteristic" of retrofocus tilt lenses, and it kind of sucks. 

Image 2: I then looked through the viewfinder and tilted the whole camera back until I had the posts parallel again and took image two.

Image 3: I then took a picture of the camera illustrating how far back you have to tilt to get the posts parallel again.

Now this looks pretty dramatic, but as I pointed out, in actual shooting situations the need for extreme tilt and close quarters parallel lines is not something I have encountered, though it does limit tilt use for interiors if you are using very short J distances. However for normal 40"-48" height interior shots it is no issue as the tilt required by a 17mm lens at that distance is >1º if you are even using tilt.

Hope this helps.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 3, 2014)

privatebydesign, thanks for sharing more great information and the shot of the camera with tilt corrected is quite interesting to see. I've shot nearly all of my interiors with a Tokina 11-16 or 16-35 II, so it's going to take some time to get used to the TS-E 17mm. I haven't had any interior work come up in a while, but might play around at my house, but I'm loving the lens for landscapes. Nice pool, btw.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 3, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> So I was reading Harry Merklinger's article and found tilt affecting vertical lines in my case too. Apparently the overpriced tripod mount solves that. I want to see if I can find a DIY way around it.



No the overpriced tripod mount doesn't solve that, it just moves it. It moves it from a front tilt with rear tilt correction, to a rear tilt with front tilt correction. All the mount does is enable easier parallax free stitching, though I have yet to take an image where PS hasn't sorted all that out for me anyway. Image impacting parallax is difficult to induce in stitched 17mm images, though if you try really hard you can do it. 

I can't advise staying away from the idea of the lens mount enough even those who advocate for it strongly don't end up using it.

One thing I can highly recommend for the 17 TS-E though is the Fottodiox Wonderpana filter system, it is the only filter system I have seen that allows 100% shift, not only that but it allows 100% shift and some tilt, or max tilt and a little shift, far and away the best filter solution on the market.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 3, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign, thanks for sharing more great information and the shot of the camera with tilt corrected is quite interesting to see. I've shot nearly all of my interiors with a Tokina 11-16 or 16-35 II, so it's going to take some time to get used to the TS-E 17mm. I haven't had any interior work come up in a while, but might play around at my house, but I'm loving the lens for landscapes. Nice pool, btw.



Hey you are welcome, at heart I am all about spreading good information. As for the pool, you know where it is and you are welcome any day you are over heated.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 5, 2014)

Thanks for the information, PBD. 
I was able to go out after a bout of rain followed by bout of fever. Wasn't able to do much other than take my first shifted image of a high-rise. Nothing special... at all. But I am taking baby steps. 
Hand held, 1/25s, 1/100, no tilt.

Wonder if it needed less stretching...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 5, 2014)

sagittariansrock, nice building, the sort of thing the 17 was made for.

One thing I do with big shifts is resize on the shifted axis but not on the other axis, many might say it is sacrilege and you lose IQ, but the truth is the building gets compressed in the shifted axis, I normally resample 10% - 25% or so more to give the building back its height and haven't had any real issue with IQ.

Here is another test I did with mine when I got it, the first shot is full shift and as shot, the second has been resampled on the shifted axis only, in this case an extreme 30%, that is what it took to get the building back to the actual proportions of the real life structure. But I was very close and used max shift, normally not so much resampling is needed and you need to strike a better balance between IQ and actual proportions.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> sagittariansrock, nice building, the sort of thing the 17 was made for.
> 
> One thing I do with big shifts is resize on the shifted axis but not on the other axis, many might say it is sacrilege and you lose IQ, but the truth is the building gets compressed in the shifted axis, I normally resample 10% - 25% or so more to give the building back its height and haven't had any real issue with IQ.
> 
> Here is another test I did with mine when I got it, the first shot is full shift and as shot, the second has been resampled on the shifted axis only, in this case an extreme 30%, that is what it took to get the building back to the actual proportions of the real life structure. But I was very close and used max shift, normally not so much resampling is needed and you need to strike a better balance between IQ and actual proportions.



Thanks, there are some interesting buildings in the Texas Medical Center.
I see what you are saying- the building gets squished in the shifted axis. How would you stretch it in LR?

One more question to whoever has switched the small shift knob for the bigger one (yes, Canon delivered the spare!)- how does one go about getting a driver for that odd little screw-head? I was lucky to stop before I used my Philips-head and stripped it!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 5, 2014)

McMaster Carr has good ones for very reasonable money.

http://www.mcmaster.com/#jis-%28japanese-industrial-standard%29-screwdrivers/=s9rn76


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> McMaster Carr has good ones for very reasonable money.
> 
> http://www.mcmaster.com/#jis-%28japanese-industrial-standard%29-screwdrivers/=s9rn76



Japanese industrial standard, eh? Cool, thanks so much for the info. I've done a lot of business with McMaster-Carr. Very nice people to work with.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 5, 2014)

"How would you stretch it in LR?"

You would have to use the Export dialog box, the bit about Image Size, you can change to resample, you can then set it to reimport the new file.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> "How would you stretch it in LR?"
> 
> You would have to use the Export dialog box, the bit about Image Size, you can change to resample, you can then set it to reimport the new file.



Erm... I was exporting something to FredMiranda for uploading at 640p-longest dimension. As a result, I have lost the default


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 19, 2015)

As my work has evolved - primarily due to the limitations I have with pain - so has my gear. Events and hiking are no longer possible, so I've sold off my 24 f/1.4 II and 50 f/1.2. I also sold off my 16-35 f/4 IS, which I may regret, but I don't think I need it with the 11-24 and 24-70, plus the excellent EF-M 11-22 IS. My current gear is now:

11-24 f/4
24-70 f/2.8 II
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
TS-E 17 f/4
TS-E 24 f/3.5 II
85 f/1.2 II
180 f/3.5 macro
300 f/2.8 IS II
1.4x III and 2x III extenders
EF-M 11-22 IS, 18-55 IS, 22 

I'd like a 600 f/4...but I think it would cost me twice as much in jewelry and other "make-up gifts" for the wife


----------



## JoeKerslake (Mar 19, 2015)

This thread is brilliant! I had a similar conversation with my girlfriend after I bought the 70-200mm 2.8 II, she asked "how many more do you need". I genuinely couldn't bring myself to answer so I stared blankly at her. I think she got the message.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 19, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.
> 
> With that, I'm done. Really. I have all the lenses I'll ever need to _own_. I can _rent _longer super teles, other TS-Es, etc. for jobs or projects.
> 
> ...




congratulations man.
im only 3 away, 17mm TSE f4, 85mm 1.2, 24mm 1.4, 400mm 5.6 IS will wait on that one. 

the 400mm 2.8 IS II i can rent.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Mar 19, 2015)

Let's see. Other than my "dream" lens I'm done buying lenses:

Sigma Art 24 1.4
Sigma Art 50 1.4
40mm pancake
70-200 2.8L (would consider selling this if I had the $ for the II version)
400 5.6L
2X extender

Can't think of anything else I need. If I had 11K I'd sell the 400 5.6 and get my dream lens:
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens


----------



## agierke (Mar 19, 2015)

i dont think i will ever be done. aside from a few more 35mm dslr lenses i would like to acquire, i have a strong interest in reviving antiquated formats including polaroids of all formats, 8x10 film, and non silver processes. and then there's the studio gear...still lots to acquire there as well.

all of photography for the past 150 years is highly intriguing to me. in the past couple months i have tested van dyke brown printing from 4x5 negs, am trying to put together an 8x10 package to run 8x10 polaroids off an 8x10 polaroid printer i picked up, refurbished an kodak 1a folding camera and modified it to take 120 roll film panoramas, and completed my polaroid 180 kit. lol...i just cant get enough of this stuff.

now im looking at Petzvel Brass lenses on ebay and wondering what kind of portraits i could take with those.....

it never ends!


----------



## LarryC (Mar 19, 2015)

I have about 10 lenses plus TCs at the moment and I certainly have MORE lenses than I NEED. But trying new lenses is one of the main things that keeps me interested in photography so I buy new lenses whenever I want to try something different, but then I will also sell a lens to keep capitalization costs down. I usually have around 10 lenses, so I guess that means I need 10. I buy and sell 80% of my gear on ebay, and I make a bit of money.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 20, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> As my work has evolved - primarily due to the limitations I have with pain - so has my gear. Events and hiking are no longer possible, so I've sold off my 24 f/1.4 II and 50 f/1.2. I also sold off my 16-35 f/4 IS, which I may regret, but I don't think I need it with the 11-24 and 24-70, plus the excellent EF-M 11-22 IS. My current gear is now:
> 
> 11-24 f/4
> 24-70 f/2.8 II
> ...



The list looks good mackguyver.

I'm going to give mirrorless world a try. 

*Smaller and lighter*: Sony A7s + Zeiss FE 28mm f2 + Ultrawide converter - convert 28mm f2 to 21mm f2.8 + Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8 + Zeiss FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS as my outdoor lens.

*Sports, Kids activities, BIF etc*: 1Dx + 40mm pancake + 85L f1.2 II + 200mm f2 IS + 400mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC III. (sold my 1.4x TC III, since I don't use it much). I still have three 600EX flashes and a transmitter. I'm not sure what to do at this moment. Time will tell. 

One thing for sure, I'm going to miss the Canon 24-70 and 70-200 combo. For now, my Sony/Zeiss 50mm and Canon 200mm will temporary fill those spots. Funny, how a zoom shooter suddenly becomes a prime shooter 

This move could be a bad decision, but, if I don't give it a try then I will never know "the grass is truly green or not"


----------



## jcarapet (Mar 20, 2015)

I'm definitely at the point where can't JUSTIFY need for new lenses. sure, if a 1200mm comes around after I win the lottery then maybe.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 22, 2015)

A while back I was at the same point... Though I had everything I needed... So I started building my daughter's kit... In the span ofa year and change she went from an xti & borrowing my 85mm f1.8 usm to an sl1 & a 40mm pancake to a t4i and a 18-135mm (non stm). I'm mulling over "selling" her my 24-105 when I eventually upgrade the lens, but there isn't anything I want to upgrade to.



jcarapet said:


> I'm definitely at the point where can't JUSTIFY need for new lenses. sure, if a 1200mm comes around after I win the lottery then maybe.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 24, 2015)

I have the three lenses I want and need, but there is a space saved for a 50mm. I miss the 50 Art so much. Hopefully the 50 L II rumors are true and its a retrofocal winner. I sometimes would like a 70-200 again, but I know it would see very little use when I still have the 200.


----------



## tron (Mar 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Thanks, or maybe no thanks  to a canonpricewatch.com alert I set up, I just snagged a refurbished TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II at 20% off.
> 
> With that, I'm done. Really. I have all the lenses I'll ever need to _own_. I can _rent _longer super teles, other TS-Es, etc. for jobs or projects.
> 
> ...


Long story short you didn't have all the lenses you need . Allow me to predict the future: You still do not have ALL the lenses you need ;D (neither do I ;D ;D ;D )


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 24, 2015)

There is some truth to that, but I have the same number of lenses now as I had when I posted this message. My needs have changed (events>real estate) and Canon has released two fantastic wide zooms in the past two years. I traded the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the the 16-35 f/4 IS and sold it after buying the 11-24 f/4. I'm very content with what I have now .


----------



## tron (Mar 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> There is some truth to that, but I have the same number of lenses now as I had when I posted this message. My needs have changed (events>real estate) and Canon has released two fantastic wide zooms in the past two years. I traded the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the the 16-35 f/4 IS and sold it after buying the 11-24 f/4. I'm very content with what I have now .


OK 1.5 year ago I had sold the version 1 16-35 2.8 so I was ready to get the 16-35 f/4 IS. I like it very much. Although I am thinking about 11-24 I wouldn't like to sell my 16-35. It is very practical (filter in front element, IS). So I believe I am worse than you (G.A.S wise speaking ;D )


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 24, 2015)

tron said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > There is some truth to that, but I have the same number of lenses now as I had when I posted this message. My needs have changed (events>real estate) and Canon has released two fantastic wide zooms in the past two years. I traded the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the the 16-35 f/4 IS and sold it after buying the 11-24 f/4. I'm very content with what I have now .
> ...


I have the EF-M 11-22 IS for my little M, so that's my walkaround wide lens now that I sold its big brother. It's very sharp and compares well to the 16-35 f/4 IS though it's a 18-35 and missing one aperture blade. I need to pick up a ridiculous 55>82mm step up ring for my C-PL and NDs


----------

