Is this lens setup too limiting?

Started Jan 11, 2013 | Questions thread
Doug_PS
Regular MemberPosts: 328Gear list
Like?
Re: My vote is...
In reply to Great Bustard, Jan 12, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Doug_PS wrote:

I'm in the process of putting together a collection of lenses to use with my 5DMKii that will work well for travel. I generally like to shoot landscapes, street scenes and portraits. I'm just transitioning from a 50D (and some EF-S lenses), so I'm a bit short on EF lenses. Right now, I've got the following EF lenses:

  • 135 f/2L
  • 85 1.8
  • 40mm f/2.8 (Pancake...just picked up to try....can still return)

I'm considering adding the EF 16-35 f/2.8Lii to this mix to cover the wide to "semi-normal" end. My questions are:

  1. Would the 16-35, 85 and 135 be too restrictive in terms of coverage. It doesn't seem so to me, but I'd like to get some feedback from someone who has tried this sort of setup.
  2. If I added the 16-35, would the 40mm be a bit redundant? Or, given its small size (and price) a nice to have normal perspective when you didn't want the extra weight?

Thanks in advance.

...to add the 16-35 / 2.8L II (or the Tokina 16-28 / 2.8). When I first went from 1.6x to FF, I got the 24-105 / 4L IS (equivalent to a 15-66 / 2.5 IS on 1.6x) thinking it would be my dream lens. As it turned out, I had no love for that lens whatsover (much preferred the Tamron 28-75 / 2.8).

However, when I got the 16-35 / 2.8L as the FF counterpart to the 10-22 / 3.5-4.5, it was instant love. For the longest time, I felt all I needed was the 16-35 / 2.8L, 50 / 1.4, and 100 / 2.

In the end, I sold the 16-35 / 2.8L and replaced it with the 15 / 2.8 FE and 24 / 1.4L. That's worked out for me, but I still miss that lens.

So, a 5D2 + 16-35 / 2.8L + 40 / 2.8 + 85 / 1.8 + 135 / 2L would be an extremely good setup, in my book, and I'd recommend it wholeheartedly.

Thanks for the feedback.  I was able to get some test photo's with the 16-35 (borrowed from a friend) and I'm really impressed with the quality of the lens. Even at the 35mm end, which is supposed to be the weakest end (from my understanding) the photo's were very good.  Sharpness in the center at 35mm (2.8) is right up there with the 40mm Pancake (at 2.8).  The corners were a bit softer than the 40mm.  I recently tested the 17-40 as well and the 40mm end of that lens was nowhere near as sharp as the 40mm Pancake (at f4.0) (ie even after micro-adjusting both lenses).  But the 17-40 sure has the 16-35 beat in terms of portability.  I still have a few EF-S lenses to sell (ie from my upgrade from 50D to 5DMKii), but once I get these sold, the 16-35 is very high up on my list of acquisitions.  I think it would help round out my kit nicely.

 Doug_PS's gear list:Doug_PS's gear list
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow