Lenses - Tell me if this is a good goal

[IgnitePhotography]

first buy = Canon 24-105 f4L
second buy = Canon 10-22mm 2.8
third buy = Canon 70-200 f2.8L

Then I will pick up a Canon 85mm f1.8 and possibly a Canon 15mm fisheye.

Shooting mostly environmental portraits (families, models, babies, kids, etc. in their natural surroundings...not studio work). I use off camera strobes. Occassionally I will shoot events.

[inkista]

Possibly not ideal. All of those lenses have huge front elements. (77mm filters, iirc) They can be intimidating to folks. If you're shooting candid and not in a studio setup, might be easier to go with tiny primes, like the 35/2 or 50/1.4 instead.

The 70-200 in particularly is a honking big lens.

[TFord.LTTP]

In my eyes though when the 24-105 4 is currently $1050 and the 24-70 2.8 $1400 it seems like a bad use of money for a couple reasons. You're looking down the road at your overall plan which is smart but for a relatively small amount more you're getting a faster lens. The little distance you're giving up is going to eventually be covered by the 70-200 if you go that route anyhow.

Yeah it's a half pound more weight but when you're lugging it all around in the field I'd rather be carrying the extra stop then 30mm redundancy. Like inkista said that 70-200 is a big boy to begin with.

[IgnitePhotography]

Originally Posted by TFord.LTTP

In my eyes though when the 24-105 4 is currently $1050 and the 24-70 2.8 $1400 it seems like a bad use of money for a couple reasons. You're looking down the road at your overall plan which is smart but for a relatively small amount more you're getting a faster lens. The little distance you're giving up is going to eventually be covered by the 70-200 if you go that route anyhow.

Yeah it's a half pound more weight but when you're lugging it all around in the field I'd rather be carrying the extra stop then 30mm redundancy. Like inkista said that 70-200 is a big boy to begin with.

I've thought it all out. The extra $350 I'll save will help me get another lens. It's one stop of light, for what? The f4L has 3 stops of IS. And if it's motion I need to capture, it's nothing a strobe can't fix.

I'm going to get a 17-55 f2.8IS for speed/wide angle. The 24-105 is sharper than the 24-70. and in many situations the little bit of redundancy is good because it means I don't have to change lenses as often.

If I'm shooting a still subject, the 24-105 is two stops better, cheaper, smaller, lighter, and sharper.

[inkista]

By most reviews, the 24-70 is sharper and has fewer optical compromises than the 24-105, which is after all going past the ideal 3x zoom range, and I've only ever gotten two stops out of the IS on mine, despite the marketing claims. Using it for event shooting, I've definitely found that f/4 is simply not fast enough for action photography indoors, even with stage lighting. And one stop faster can mean a helluva lot of difference in an available light situation.

The 24-105 is not "three stops better". It is and always will be one stop worse than an f/2.8 lens. You can better camera shake blur by two stops, but not subject movement blur. Only a faster shutter speed will do that, and only increasing iso or a wider aperture will nab you that shutter sped.

IS does nothing for freezing action. Just me, but I'll take max. aperture over IS (especially on shorter lenses) any day of the week. I have a 135 f/2L USM instead of a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM.

[Jojie]

Originally Posted by IgnitePhotography

first buy = Canon 24-105 f4L
second buy = Canon 10-22mm 2.8
third buy = Canon 70-200 f2.8L

Then I will pick up a Canon 85mm f1.8 and possibly a Canon 15mm fisheye.

Shooting mostly environmental portraits (families, models, babies, kids, etc. in their natural surroundings...not studio work). I use off camera strobes. Occassionally I will shoot events.

hahaha.. i'm in the same line of thinking as you. with the lenses. Given the 10-22mm. You have a 1.6 crop camera.

The "portrait" shooting bit.. I don't see whyou a 24-105l can't cover? and the wide angle lens is for?

I currently own a 24-105, 50 and a tamron (i use it this lens so my bag feels heavy -- i'm doing a strenthing work out... :P ) but anyway, with your description it's more or less portrait type work right? .... no reason why 24-105 can't cater for all? given the long end will be about 160mm. the wide will be usefull if you got lots a people to be fitted ofcourse and if in a small area...

but your selection is pretty much the same selection as i have in mind... but i'm not in a rush to get the rest of it.. i'm very content with 24-105... then next purchase is the 10-20mm...

but for now.. i'm really looking at a 50D before the rest of the lenses.

[IgnitePhotography]

Originally Posted by inkista

By most reviews, the 24-70 is sharper and has fewer optical compromises than the 24-105, which is after all going past the ideal 3x zoom range, and I've only ever gotten two stops out of the IS on mine, despite the marketing claims. Using it for event shooting, I've definitely found that f/4 is simply not fast enough for action photography indoors, even with stage lighting. And one stop faster can mean a helluva lot of difference in an available light situation.

The 24-105 is not "three stops better". It is and always will be one stop worse than an f/2.8 lens. You can better camera shake blur by two stops, but not subject movement blur. Only a faster shutter speed will do that, and only increasing iso or a wider aperture will nab you that shutter sped.

IS does nothing for freezing action. Just me, but I'll take max. aperture over IS (especially on shorter lenses) any day of the week. I have a 135 f/2L USM instead of a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM.

Inkista; I use strobes nearly every time I shoot. And like I said, if I ABSOLUTELY NEED the extra stop, I'll just take out the 17-55 2.8 IS and find a way to get a little closer.

As for the 24-70 being sharper, every review I've read online says the opposite, especially as the 24-70 approaches the 70mm end. At 2.8, it's not sharper than the 24-105 at f4.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=4&APIComp=0

24-105 is sharper in the center at nearly every range and stop.

[Swisstony10]

I hate to sound churlish, but if you've thought it all out, and have worked out exactly what lens you need in what order and why each one is best for the kind of shooting you plan to do, why bother to post asking people if they agree with your lens-buying plan, and then argue when they disagree?

[sk66]

I don't see the 10-22 being that useful for what you want.....
When it comes to stops, one stop is 2x (or 1/2) the shutter speed ISO remaining constant...It can be pretty significant. IS doesn't do much unless you are absolutely "stuck" at the slow end (I can hand-hold to about 1/2 focal length usually) and unless you are doing indoor shooting with slow lenses you shouldn't wind up in that situation very often.
Also, for portraiture being able to blur the background nicely is a big plus.

What I expect to see a pro using:

For portraits it's going to be fast primes and a FF body. (Maybe a short/intermediate zoom for certain situations.)

For a journalist/action it would be 24-70/70-200 and FF body.

For nature/scenics it's going to be all sorts of stuff, ND's, wide angles, macros....and FF body.

For wildlife it's going to be zooms/ long lenses and maybe a crop body.

Of course there will be some crossover depending on your style and the situation.

Because you have a "business name" and are taking work, I assume you are "going pro" and in that case your list is not focused enough for the type of work you do IMO.... It's more of a "catch all" list.

I would recommend the 24-70 f/2.8 (or the 24-105 if you insist) and a fast prime, then ONLY buy what you NEED when you find out what that is.

Putting together a do-all kit is either much more expensive or involves many more compromises....often both.

[mitchcook]

Originally Posted by sk66

Putting together a do-all kit is either much more expensive or involves many more compromises....often both.

Well put.
That was an awesome post.

edit: ps didn't mean to bring back an old post.