Your ultimate Canon Set up, Why ?

[Roosta]

So I would love to hear your thoughts on the ultimate currently available Canon produsts to suit you, and why.

For me, I would love the 1DMk4 (FPS) ((Sport)).
Lenses, 16-35mm II f2.8 L, 24-70mm f2.8 L, 70-200mm IS II f2.8 L, 200mm f2.0 L, 300mm f2.8 L + 1.4 and 2.0 TC's

The 70-200mm would be my main general sport lens and of course, for the long sport stuff and general wildlife, the 300 mm with/out TC would be my option every time. Having been lucky enough to use them all last weekend on a shoot, the 1Dmk4 with 300mm and the 400mm and also the 200mm f2.0, I can say, lugging the 400mm was too much, given the reach and IQ of the 300 f2.8 + TC and alot less weight, for me that was a great shoot to attend and some great (One Powerball) gear. The 200mm was by far my favourite lens that day, so bloody sharp, easy to use and light enough to lug around on a 1D all day every day. I'd say you might get a few strange looks wondering around with it hanging from your neck on the old holiday tours tho. Maybe some envious ones aswell.

The 16-35mm would be my sea/landscape lens of choice, all day everyday.

The 24-70, would probally live on the body, untill I had a speciality need for one of the above.

Given my passion is sea/landscape work and try in vain to get some good sharpe Rugby shots, this I feel would fit the bill nicely.

What's yours?

[sunny6teen]

re: sport...bear in mind that 200mm is only good for about 15m or so. fine for shooting wingers but anyone in the middle of the pitch will be out of reach.
re: landscapes... the 16-35mm is a good lens (for a zoom) but f/2.8 is probably overkill for the task at hand. what's the point if you're shooting at f/16?

[Roosta]

re: sport...bear in mind that 200mm is only good for about 15m or so. fine for shooting wingers but anyone in the middle of the pitch will be out of reach.

To right, but this is grade rugby I'm shooting, not Super 15 or Test Rugby, so the 300mm will work a treat, but I get by with my old trusty 70-200mm at the moment, remember the question was, 'What is your ultimate setup and why'. Not to pull mine apart. So whats yours?

re: landscapes... the 16-35mm is a good lens (for a zoom) but f/2.8 is probably overkill for the task at hand. what's the point if you're shooting at f/16?

Do you shoot f16 in low light or dusk? I don't think so. I don't think I've ever needed to go to f16 yet, but as above, off topic of the question posted.

So Tony, whats your (PRIME F-Stop) that you use or would love to own that shoots landscape at f16 for you?

[sunny6teen]

I'm not an expert on rugby but I was assuming that the pitch was roughly the same size at any level. the point I was merely making is that every 100mm gets you about 10m reach. even if you can walk along the touchline, you'll fail to reach the middle. lens choice is a simple one during play. as long as possible without losing too much speed. glass beyond 400mm is ideal but too slow.

...and since you're buying I'd be using...
400mm 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 85mm 1.2, 16-35mm 2.8


regarding landscapes...I'm not sure what you're asking.
of course I'm shooting at f/16 in low light. most do, unless a shallow DOF will add something creative to the image. if you just want it to be sharp from front to back - f/16 is a pretty good place to start. that's what the tripod's for.

sorry, I don't know what you mean by 'prime f-stop'

something to keep in mind... TC's reduce the amount of light. so a 300mm 2.8 with a 2xTC becomes a 600mm 5.6

To right, but this is grade rugby I'm shooting, not Super 15 or Test Rugby, so the 300mm will work a treat, but I get by with my old trusty 70-200mm at the moment, remember the question was, 'What is your ultimate setup and why'. Not to pull mine apart. So whats yours?

Do you shoot f16 in low light or dusk? I don't think so. I don't think I've ever needed to go to f16 yet, but as above, off topic of the question posted.

So Tony, whats your (PRIME F-Stop) that you use or would love to own that shoots landscape at f16 for you?

[Dylan & Marianne]

re: sport...bear in mind that 200mm is only good for about 15m or so. fine for shooting wingers but anyone in the middle of the pitch will be out of reach.
re: landscapes... the 16-35mm is a good lens (for a zoom) but f/2.8 is probably overkill for the task at hand. what's the point if you're shooting at f/16?

I actually use the F2.8 alot on night shots for star freezing effects! (stacking focus for foreground if its interesting enough) Also for wedding receptions but that;s not my main goal

And for that reason, my current ideal setup would be:
1dsMKIII + (or the 1dx when it comes out)
16-35mm 2.8,
70-200 2.8, 2X extender, (if not limited by cost, why not a 400 prime lol - I do shoot a few landscapes at this focal length)
. I find the 24-70 excellent for walk around and weddings on the 5dmkII, but for landscapes, because it doesn't come with a lens ring, doing vertical long exposures is always risky unless you bolt on the tripod quick plate.

[William W]

So I would love to hear your thoughts on the ultimate currently available Canon products to suit you, and why.

Bodies: 5DMkII; 7D
Zooms: EF 8 to 15F/4L; EF16 to 35F/2.8LMkII; EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII
Primes: EF 24F/1.4LMkII; EF50F/2.5; EF50F/1.2L; TS-E90F/2.8; EF 135F/2L;
Lens Attachments: EF x1.4MkIII; EF x2.0MkIII; Life Size Adapter EF; EF12mmMkII; EF25mmMkII
Flash: 580ExMkII; 580ExMkII
Odds and Sods:TC-80N3; OC-E3; Canon Angle Finder C; EG-S screen

Reason – a cost effective and smallest kit to fit in one bag which would cover mostly all situations whilst providing the maximum system redundancy with only two cameras.

WW

[William W]

I can say, lugging the 400mm was too much, given the reach and IQ of the 300 f2.8 + TC and alot less weight . . .

Do not dismiss the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII and the EF x2.0MkIII, as an alternative lightweight option for the EF400F/2.8L.

WW

[Roosta]

Do not dismiss the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII and the EF x2.0MkIII, as an alternative lightweight option for the EF400F/2.8L.

WW

William are my calculations correct here,

1D body with 1.3 x crop (My 1DMK2N) with 70-200mm @ 200 = 260, then 260 with 1.4 TC = 364mm EFOV is that right at f4? ( EFOV = Effective Field Of View)

If so that would be great for DOF on my Rugby Shoot,

KIWI - William, You might have put me onto something here.
If this is right thanks again..

Stuff I learn on this site.. Love it

[William W]

. . . are my calculations correct here, 1D body with 1.3 x crop (My 1DMK2N) with 70-200mm @ 200 = 260, then 260 with 1.4 TC = 364mm EFOV is that right at f4? ( EFOV = Effective Field Of View)

Yes:
You will have a Field of View equivalent of a 364mm lens mounted on a 135 format camera.

Yes:
You will have an effective maximum aperture of F/4.

No:
For the DoF calculations - you will have the equivalent of a 280mm (max.F/4) lens, mounted on an APS-H camera.

WW

[Roosta]

Yes:
You will have a Field of View equivalent of a 364mm lens mounted on a 135 format camera.

Yes:
You will have an effective maximum aperture of F/4.

No:
For the DoF calculations - you will have the equivalent of a 280mm (max.F/4) lens, mounted on an APS-H camera.

WW

Thanks WW, so the DOF doesn't take into account the difference the TC makes? Why is that, I would have thought it would given the extra glass/length.

[Bennymiata]

My perfect Canon set-up would be a small van, fitted out with every DSLR they make and with each of their lenses neatly displayed for me to choose from.
Then there would be a section for flash and lighting equipment and I'd be ready for any shoot!

Good I'm not greedy, huh.

[andylo]

+1 ^^

My perfect Canon set-up would be a small van, fitted out with every DSLR they make and with each of their lenses neatly displayed for me to choose from.
Then there would be a section for flash and lighting equipment and I'd be ready for any shoot!

Good I'm not greedy, huh.

[Roosta]

My perfect Canon set-up would be a small van, fitted out with every DSLR they make and with each of their lenses neatly displayed for me to choose from.
Then there would be a section for flash and lighting equipment and I'd be ready for any shoot!

Good I'm not greedy, huh.

'One Powerball'

[Roosta]

Tony,

I was referring with my (PRIME-F-STOP) comment to 're: landscapes... the 16-35mm is a good lens (for a zoom)" I was guessing you might be hinting at a prime you'd use or prefer. Having a 400mm on the body, I'd rather not carry two bodies all the time or limit myself to the minimum focal range of the 400mm (2.7 Meters) ((And you wouldn't get much in the frame at 2.7 meters) I guess, personal preference. + Leaving the 400mm on body + tripod, then getting up walking around to get close action work, you need a second person to watch all the bloody gear. Slavery is outlawed in this country.

As before, I've never needed to go to f16, tripod or not.

As for the rugby, I'd rather move about and get action from the fringes not just the center areas of the ground, as in the Pro's at televised games. The 70-200 works well in that instance for me.

Cheers.

[kiwi]

Yoyre missing the point why use a 400, it's not just about reach, it's about DOF, anyhow

My perfect canon set-up would be, well i wouldnt

[Roosta]

Yoyre missing the point why use a 400, it's not just about reach, it's about DOF, anyhow

Oh Ok I see what Tony was trying to get across, Thanks for pointing out the not always so bleedingly obvious for all, I hit DOF Mater, object at 50 foot distance - 0.3' feet @ 400mm front and back, and 1.19' in-front and 1.15' behind at 200mm.

Thanks Darren.

[sunny6teen]

the reason I mentioned the 400 for sport is because it's the longest of the canon lineup that can still be opened up to 2.8.
reach and speed is everything and I'm assuming your shooting in poor light.
shallow dof makes a massive difference but pointless if you can't fill the frame or get enough light.

I was also assuming it was a 'scrooge mcduck' scenario where $$$ wasn't an issue.

and you've piqued my curiousity...what apertures are you using for landscapes? (if intending to keep the entire image in focus).
you might want to think about closing your lens down (assuming there's no lights etc creating starbursts)

[Roosta]

shallow dof is desirable but pointless if you can't fill the frame or get enough light.

I can now see the point you where trying to make, it didn't click till KIWI mentioned DOF, then the brick hit my head.

and you've piqued my curiousity...what apertures are you using for landscapes? (if intending to keep the entire image in focus).
you might want to think about closing your lens down (assuming there's no lights etc creating starbursts)

Tony, like I said, I've not found a need to stop to f16, I ain't no pro, so I will give it a go when I get home, I'm open to anything new that I can learn from, I have a function to attend on Sunday (wedding, and I will have my 1D and 24-70mm F2.8 + tripod there) and also our WA event on Saturday night, I'll find something to give it a go. I'm guessing lots of sun and low ISO shortist exposure and a deep landscape, non reflective, hills mountains maybe, please let me know and I'll give it ago..

Cheers mate.

[swifty]

I don't shoot Canon but can I have a go?
Canon 1Dx (not avail but announced so it counts right)
24L 1.4
35L 1.4
50L 1.2
85L 1.2
135L 2
200L 2
70-200 2.8 L IS
And the 5:1 macro one as well, I forget the name.
And some TSE lenses too.. Ok I'm getting too greedy :P

Some of those probably should have a II designation but you get the idea.
That would be my ultimate Canon kit. You can interchange most of that with Nikon equivalents, give or take 0.2 of a stop.

[Xenedis]

Let's see...

Firstly, here's what I have (all Canon):

• 5D Mark II
• 35/1.4L
• 85/1.2L II
• 135/2L
• 180/3.5L Macro
• 300/2.8L IS
• 16-35/2.8L II
• 70-200/2.8L IS
• 1.4x TC II
• 2x TC II
• 580EX
• 580EX II

As for what I'd like and why:

• 1DX - 5D full-frame goodness with 1-series features (AF, sealing, construction, etc.).
• 14/2.8L II - I shoot mostly 'scapes, love ultra-wide rectilinear lenses, and would replace my 16-35 with it if it supported creative filters.
• TS-E 17/4L - I'd use this a lot for cityscape and architecture photography, and for that, it'd also replace my 16-35.
• 200/2L IS - to replace my 70-200 and gain a stop; I've used one and it's very nice.
• 500/4L II IS - aviation and dabbling with wildlife photography, although I can too 600mm at f/5.6.

Here's what I'd specifically avoid:

• f/4 zooms - too slow.
• Zooms in general (I prefer primes, and tend to shoot zooms like primes).
• 50mm - I cannot stand the focal length.
• Standard zooms - I have no use for such a lens.
• Any DSLR with a smaller-than-35mm sensor (I've shot FF DSLRs since 2006 and would't go back).

So, out of the stuff I'd like, the one item that would give me the most benefit is the TS-E 17/4L, both technically and creatively.

The next most useful item would be the 14/2.8L II. I use my 16-35/2.8L II a lot, and would love a wider view, but the prime doesn't support creative filters (ie, GNDs and NDs in my case), which for me is a show-stopper.

As for the big 200 and 500, they're both stellar, but I have 200mm (which I rarely use) at f/2.8, 420mm at f/4 and 600mm at f/5.6 (and don't often use either), so there isn't any real limitation there.

As for another DSLR, even though the 5D II is possibly the oldest current-model camera in the lineup, it is perfect for what I do, so it doesn't need to be replaced.

I haven't bought a lens since 2008, and given I just bought a new car, I'm unlikely to drop legal tender on camera gear any time soon (not that I was eyeing off anything with the slightest amount of seriousness).

The reality is that, while I'd love to have a few more toys as most people do, my photography is not limited by gear. Light and opportunity tends to be my nemesis, with motivation sticking the boot in from time to time.

Dreaming about what I'd buy if someone handed me a big pile of free cash is always fun, but most importantly, I am exceedingly happy with the gear I have.