Wmcmanus
President treasurer secretary and sole member of the Cayman Islands Head-Fi Club.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Posts
- 11,830
- Likes
- 27
Quote:
I had actually given that some thought. I'd like the zoom flexibility and most folks seem to think the Nikon is the better lens.
Another thought is to save a bundle and get the Canon fisheye 15 f/2.8 (for $699 at B&H) and another prime. I mean, I really don't like the idea of a "fishy" lens, but saving $1,500 to spend on other toys is certainly appealing.
The 15 fishy gives a 180 degree field of view, as compared to 146 degrees with the 14, and the sharpness is pretty close. But every single snap with a fishy is forever "branded" as such, so it kind of eliminates itself as a "serious" lens and thus sits in the bag 99% of the time until you want to do some oddball shots at a wedding or of your dog, etc.
As for the additional prime, it would be either the 135 f/2L or 85 f/1.2L. I've got a 50 f/1.2L and use it more than either of my zooms (24-105 f/4L IS USM and 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM) but I do like the 24-105 a lot because of the IS. So I pretty much use the 50 indoors and the 24-105 outdoors when I'd like to have the zoom flexibility and light is not an issue.
The 70-200 is way too bulky, heavy, and attention drawing. Not the kind of thing you want to lug around all day, especially if it will eventually come off of the camera when it's time for another lens. Thus, I'd be more likely to use the 135, given my current bag, plus it's way cheaper ($1,069 for the 135 versus $2k for the 85) and the IQ seems quite comparable, not to mention that the 135 is quicker focusing and not likely to cause any confusion on my part as to when to use it versus my 50.
If I pick up a 135, I could leave the 70-200 mounted on my 40D, perhaps even with a 1.4 or 2.0 extender. That way, on a nature walk if I wanted an extreme close up, I could take advantage of the crop factor and not worry so much about sharpness (big drop off with the 2.0 but not so much with the 1.4). In any case, there would be some flexibility there and having that lens mounted and available would mean that is would get much more use than it does now.
The 5D II would then be used for the 24-105, 50, 135, and occasionally the 15. Unless I go completely nuts and get the 135 and 14, which is definitely a possibility.
I might try the 15 fishy and see if I have fun with it. I can always sell it without much of a loss and go for the 14 (or the Nikon 14-24 and adapter) if need be. Decisions...
| Originally Posted by Bob_McBob /img/forum/go_quote.gif It doesn't help with your filter issue, but I'd probably be inclined to get the Nikon 14-24/2.8 with an adapter. Too bad those 16-9.net adapters are so stupidly expensive now. |
I had actually given that some thought. I'd like the zoom flexibility and most folks seem to think the Nikon is the better lens.
Another thought is to save a bundle and get the Canon fisheye 15 f/2.8 (for $699 at B&H) and another prime. I mean, I really don't like the idea of a "fishy" lens, but saving $1,500 to spend on other toys is certainly appealing.
The 15 fishy gives a 180 degree field of view, as compared to 146 degrees with the 14, and the sharpness is pretty close. But every single snap with a fishy is forever "branded" as such, so it kind of eliminates itself as a "serious" lens and thus sits in the bag 99% of the time until you want to do some oddball shots at a wedding or of your dog, etc.
As for the additional prime, it would be either the 135 f/2L or 85 f/1.2L. I've got a 50 f/1.2L and use it more than either of my zooms (24-105 f/4L IS USM and 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM) but I do like the 24-105 a lot because of the IS. So I pretty much use the 50 indoors and the 24-105 outdoors when I'd like to have the zoom flexibility and light is not an issue.
The 70-200 is way too bulky, heavy, and attention drawing. Not the kind of thing you want to lug around all day, especially if it will eventually come off of the camera when it's time for another lens. Thus, I'd be more likely to use the 135, given my current bag, plus it's way cheaper ($1,069 for the 135 versus $2k for the 85) and the IQ seems quite comparable, not to mention that the 135 is quicker focusing and not likely to cause any confusion on my part as to when to use it versus my 50.
If I pick up a 135, I could leave the 70-200 mounted on my 40D, perhaps even with a 1.4 or 2.0 extender. That way, on a nature walk if I wanted an extreme close up, I could take advantage of the crop factor and not worry so much about sharpness (big drop off with the 2.0 but not so much with the 1.4). In any case, there would be some flexibility there and having that lens mounted and available would mean that is would get much more use than it does now.
The 5D II would then be used for the 24-105, 50, 135, and occasionally the 15. Unless I go completely nuts and get the 135 and 14, which is definitely a possibility.
I might try the 15 fishy and see if I have fun with it. I can always sell it without much of a loss and go for the 14 (or the Nikon 14-24 and adapter) if need be. Decisions...
