Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Lens/Gear Dilemma

  • 16-03-2008 9:51am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,150
    ✭✭✭


    After much consideration and ever changing decisions I have reluctantly decided that I need to cull my gear. I have been trying to figure out the best and most practical setup and my leaning is towards possibly selling or storing my zooms and going for a few small light primes. I have been trying to decide on the best combination of my existing lenses but it always revolves around the 24-70 which I have finally accepted is too heavy for being on the road. I was originally thinking of staying with that and the 17-40 but think the primes offer a far more practical solution. The other upside of switching to the primes is I can sell or store my 2 camera bags and get something small and light like the smaller slingshot and not focus on a laptop/camera bag...

    My current gear is:

    17-40L f4.0
    24-70L f2.8
    70-200L f4.0
    100mm f2.8 Macro
    15mm f2.8 fisheye
    50mm f1.8
    1.4x Extender
    Computrekker AW
    Toploader Zoom

    As for the primes I am looking at getting:

    24mm 1.8
    50mm 1.4
    85mm 1.8

    I was looking at getting the L versions of the 24 and 85 but size and weight is the main concern so the above would be far more practical. The downside of switching to these primes is that I will either need to sell my zooms or store them for possibly a few years.

    Does anyone have any opinions of the above primes? How do I go about departing with my beloved 17-40 and 24-70? I am still torn between wether 24mm will be wide enough and should I hold onto the 17-40 or just keep the 15mm? Should I hold onto the 70-200 for reach?

    I keep changing my mind on what way I should go... I have definitely decided that the 24-70 needs to go because of weight and maybe the specialised 15mm and 100mm because they are surplus to requirement at the moment or should I keep the 15mm (and de-fish the results) for wideness as its small and light? Would it be better to just ship these home (currently in Perth) and have them waiting for whenever I needed them?

    Any suggestions on what to do would be appreciated...Its more re-assurance im looking for than anything...


Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,966 elven
    ✭✭✭


    You're thinking of dumping the 24-70? Seriously? And the 100mm macro?

    Oops, maybe that wasn't so reassuring as I intended :rolleyes:

    As far as I'm aware the 85mm 1.8 is a heavy beast of a thing. Wouldn't you be better keeping the 24-70, 50mm and 100mm? And your fisheye, if you love it that much and it's small and light...

    What's your body? I currently have the 350D, and i use the slingshot 100, and I have the sigma 18-50 f2.8 (only slightly smaller/lighter than the 24-70 I think), 100mm macro and 50mm f1.8 and still have the whole upper compartment free, and space in the main bit for gloves/scarf/chocolate etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 rymus
    ✭✭✭


    having recently tried out the 85 f1.8 on a full frame, I'd have to agree with what I'd heard previously. It's a gorgeous lens. I may well pick it and the 50 f1.4 up next time I'm lens shopping.

    I'd be very slow to dump the 24-70 as it's a very useful range. It's heavy, but it's not unusably heavy. I've been regularly carrying mine all day long since I got it.

    What do you normally shoot that's led you to the above decisions? Presumably you're in the process of catering your kit to you shooting style..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,262 stcstc
    ✭✭✭


    from what i have been told, the 85 1.2 L is not worth the extra buck from the 1.8

    which is a great lens

    i would be nervous of just having primes, the flexability of the 24-70 is great.

    having only primes would mean switching out lenes a lot more for you?

    what i do is have 3 different bags - cases, and pack based on what i am going to shoot that day. so if i know i am going somewhere i dont need the 400L i put it in one of the other bags and leave it in the car.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,966 elven
    ✭✭✭


    hang on, I think I'm getting mixed up between the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.2 L... oops


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 349 digitalage
    ✭✭


    What do you want to shoot? Why do you need fast prime lenses?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,620 Roen
    ✭✭✭


    Pointing out what you shoot would be helpful and on what camera.

    I'd be tempted to replace the 70-200 ƒ4 with a 70-200 ƒ2.8, giving you 24-200 in a constant aperture. If size and weight are deal breakers though I'd have to recommend steering away from it.

    Do you use the 15mm much? It seems like a bit of a novelty lens to me. No way I'd drop the 100mm ever though, unless you fancy picking up a set of tubes to use on one of your other lenses.

    85 L rocks verily, but again it's like a tub of lard compared to the ƒ1.8 version.

    Arrrrrggh, I hate these questions!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,185 nilhg
    ✭✭✭


    The OP is in Perth Western Australia, and has said he's going on the road, I'm not exactly sure what that means but it seems to me that he wants a lightweight travel kit.

    Its just about getting up time over there now so I'm sure he'll be along to explain himself soon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,150 FreeAnd..
    ✭✭✭


    thanks everyone, dont think that getting rid of the 24-70 is an easy decision. Its been on the camera since I got it, I have taken most of my best shots with it and if circumstances were different there is no way I would even contemplate it.

    I originally thought that I would be fine with everything loaded up in the computrekker and didnt do too bad in thailand for 2 months but longterm I'd much rather get down to minimal gear, hence the switching to primes.

    I have a 5D body and there will be no specialist shooting style just generic travel etc.

    If I was settled there is no way I would be even thinking of this that is why I might just ship them home but I'm not too keen on leaving them in storage for a few years.

    I keep changing my mind everyday but switching to the primes will allow me get a smaller bag, have a lighter load, have less gear to potentially be stolen or broken so less gear to worry about, have less gear to be insured so less cost hopefully without limiting me too much.

    As for the 100mm I am torn between keeping this and getting the 85mm, I am also torn between keeping the 15mm or the 17-40. The 17-40 is a great range but with the 15mm I can keep the wideness, use some de-fish software and the lens is nice and small.

    Again thanks everyone, as I said the main driver is cutting down weight and size, the 24-70 just goes against everything thats practical and requires a bigger bag to hold it than I want to have to carry. First person to just say get rid of them and go for the primes gets a :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 Borderfox
    ✭✭✭✭


    I would keep the 17-40 and go for the 85mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.4, that would be a good compromise in my eyes...:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,150 FreeAnd..
    ✭✭✭


    thanks Keith, that does seem like a better option - I might not bother with the 24mm or with keeping the 15mm. Does anyone have opinions on the new 16-35L? Is it much bulkier than the 17-40? From recent experience with sun setting early enough the 2.8 would be far more useful...thats the one limit of the 17-40 but I'm not sure if it would warrant upgrading to the 16-35....still though keeping the 17-40 with the 50mm and 85 does sound like it would be very workable and unrestrictive...I like it - thanks Keith :)


  • Advertisement

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Advertisement