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?

[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

[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?

[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. :D

[andylo]

+1 ^^ :D


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. :D

[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.

[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. :D

'One Powerball'

[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 :)

[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.

[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.

[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 :)

[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.

[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.

[Art Vandelay]

2x 1Dmkiv's, a nifty fifty and one each of the long white lenses.

[William W]

Here's what I'd specifically avoid:


50mm - I cannot stand the focal length.




Crikey!
I got the answer wrong.
I ordered TWO 50mm lenses.

WW

[Xenedis]

Crikey!
I got the answer wrong.
I ordered TWO 50mm lenses.


That's two more 50mm lenses than I want or need. :-)

I just don't like the focal length. I shoot on a 135-format DSLR, and the focal length is neither wide nor long, both of which I tend to favour.

Additionally, it gives me the same field of view I get without a camera, which frankly bores me. I want a wide vista or massive telephoto compression and up-close details, not the ordinary view I get without a lens.

Personal preference and all.

[Brian500au]

I am with Xenedis. I am not unhappy with the gear I have, and it is certainly not the lack of gear that is limiting my photography progression.

I have the following (all Canon bar one)

* 1D Mk III
* 5D Mk I
* 24/1.4L I
* 50/1.2L
* 85/1.2L I
* 135/2L
* 12-24 Sigma
* 16-35/2.8L I
* 24-105/4 IS
* 24-70/2.8
* 70-200/2.8L IS I
* 1.4x TC II

* 550EX
* 580EX
* 580EX II

I have two I want to add to my list. One being the 200/2 and the other being the 300/2.8. I do a lot of portrait / glamour work and the 200/2 would suit this type of work. My son is into rowing so I would use the 300/2.8 for that purpose.

The only other lens I will add in the future is swap over my 700-200 IS version 1 for the updated version 2. The above might seem a huge investment but I have bought it all over quite a few years and all second hand.

[Roosta]

: 50mm - I cannot stand the focal length.

Love to hear your main reason why? Can't just be the lenght, can it?

Posted around the same time as WW, you answered, so thanks.

[JM Tran]

Love to hear your main reason why? Can't just be the lenght, can it?

Im with Xenedis, as I think the 50mm normal focal length is simply boring in terms of visual appeal to me and my work:)

[Roosta]

2x 1Dmkiv's, a nifty fifty and one each of the long white lenses.

Like your thought process Art.

[Roosta]

The 200mm F2 L seems to touch a few of us here, it sure left it's mark on me, but not my credit card just yet.

[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)

[sunny6teen]

students love them because they're cheap and fast. handy for journalism but that's about it.



Im with Xenedis, as I think the 50mm normal focal length is simply boring in terms of visual appeal to me and my work:)

[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.

[William W]

I just don't like the focal length. [FL = 50mm] I shoot on a 135-format DSLR, and the focal length is neither wide nor long, both of which I tend to favour.
I already understood that: I know several who share your feelings.
My previous comment was in humour.

***


students love them [50mm lenses] because they're cheap and fast. handy for journalism but that's about it.
The 50/1.8 is the only really “cheap and fast” one.
I would think that FL = 35mm (on 135 format camera) would be more useful for journalism.
And a 50mm lens on an APS-C is way too long for a flexible prime lens for journalism.

WW

[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

[JM Tran]

I already understood that: I know several who share your feelings.
My previous comment was in humour.

***


The 50/1.8 is the only really “cheap and fast” one.
I would think that FL = 35mm (on 135 format camera) would be more useful for journalism.
And a 50mm lens on an APS-C is way too long for a flexible prime lens for journalism.

WW


William is right, Im a journalist, dont know any colleagues or travel writers using the 50mm length at all on FF or APSC cameras, but 24 and 35mm and teles are abundant.

[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.

[Roosta]

William is right, Im a journalist, dont know any colleagues or travel writers using the 50mm length at all on FF or APSC cameras, but 24 and 35mm and teles are abundant.

In laymens terms, why is that? Why the wider primes for photo journo's? I get the tele's.

[JM Tran]

In laymens terms, why is that? Why the wider primes for photo journo's? I get the tele's.

we prefer a lot of environmental portraits, where you can get semi close up to the subject and still retain a slightly wide field of view for the surroundings and background etc. If you want pure portraits thats where a short and medium tele comes in, so the focal length of 50mm is made almost redundant in terms of need.

take a look at my recent Vanuatu work photos for mainly examples of the 35mm focal length:)

[Roosta]

we prefer a lot of environmental portraits, where you can get semi close up to the subject and still retain a slightly wide field of view for the surroundings and background etc. If you want pure portraits thats where a short and medium tele comes in, so the focal length of 50mm is made almost redundant in terms of need.

take a look at my recent Vanuatu work photos for mainly examples of the 35mm focal length:)

Thought as much, but I like to ask now, rather than assume. Will do, Vanuatu is on a must visit list for me.
Cheers, JM.

[Bennymiata]

I had a nifty-fifty, but found I never use dit, so I sold it.
However, I have the cheap 28mm F2.8 and I use that a lot for shots of family gatherings and even some landscapes.

As a kid, I had a Canon FT-QL and it only had the 50mm lens and I managed quite well with just that lens at the time, but for some reason, today, I would never use it.

If I really need a 50mm lens, I'll just use my 24-105.

[LJG]

I think a lot of people are already starting to salivate at the thought of the 1DX. It is going to be a rippa! Not that I will probably ever find out haha

Personally, I am happy with my new 5DII, but wouldn't mind something better than the 50D for birds, maybe a 1DIV with a 400 f2.8 IS II bolted to the front :eek: As my wife would say, not in this lifetime buddy :(

[mikec]

I'm with a few others and find the 50mm a little boring. I don't really pull mine out all that much.

I'm pretty happy with my gear at the moment, I'd just like to add;

- 7D (the 5D is a little slow for climbing shots sometimes)
- 17mm TS-E
- 24-70 2.8
- Maybe another 580EX II + Flex TT5

I'd probably swap the 50mm for a 24/35mm too if I think hard.

[Wayne63]

Well I'm happy with my 450D as it does more things than I know how too, would love a Sigma 50-500 or a 150-500 for my birding and a 100 or 150 macro lens, otherwise happy with what I have.

[Xenedis]

The 200mm F2 L seems to touch a few of us here, it sure left it's mark on me, but not my credit card just yet.

It really is a stunning lens and IME and IMO, is on par with the 300/2.8L IS.

If I were slightly less sane, I'd order one; but it is very expensive and for someone who doesn't use 200mm much, it's over the top.

[Xenedis]

we prefer a lot of environmental portraits, where you can get semi close up to the subject and still retain a slightly wide field of view for the surroundings and background etc. If you want pure portraits thats where a short and medium tele comes in, so the focal length of 50mm is made almost redundant in terms of need.

Not that I do a lot of environmental portraiture, but when I do, I'm inclined to opt for my 35/1.4.

On a 135-format (D)SLR, it's just the right length to be wide enough to offer context, while not being too long to lose the story.

The wide aperture of my particular 35mm prime also makes it easy to nicely diffuse the background, and even at f/1.4 it's quite sharp.

It's about as general-purpose as a lens gets for me, and if I had to take only one lens for general opportunistic stuff, it's the lens I tend to take.

A 35 and an 85 nicely cover many situations, but for 'scaling (most of my photography), 16mm is it.

[William W]

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.


You might have misread my post.

If you wish to calculate the DoF using a DoF scale or program you DO take into account the Tele-extender:
Note my text - “For the DoF calculations - you will have the equivalent of a 280mm (max.F/4) lens, mounted on an APS-H camera.”


***



On a 135-format . . . a 35 and an 85 nicely cover many situations


The Perfect "People Photos" pair, if limited to a light kit, of only two lenses (and shooting AL).


WW

[JM Tran]

Not that I do a lot of environmental portraiture, but when I do, I'm inclined to opt for my 35/1.4.

On a 135-format (D)SLR, it's just the right length to be wide enough to offer context, while not being too long to lose the story.

The wide aperture of my particular 35mm prime also makes it easy to nicely diffuse the background, and even at f/1.4 it's quite sharp.

It's about as general-purpose as a lens gets for me, and if I had to take only one lens for general opportunistic stuff, it's the lens I tend to take.

A 35 and an 85 nicely cover many situations, but for 'scaling (most of my photography), 16mm is it.


I agree, the 35L is my weapon of choice for a lot of my travel photography, and when it comes to wedding work its 35L and 85mm, woot!

[sunny6teen]

that's because you have a job and can afford better glass than a nifty 50 ;)
I was really just thinking of students...that said. I had forgotten that they'd all be using APSC's so it's a bit pointless really.
maybe I should of said art students :lol:



William is right, Im a journalist, dont know any colleagues or travel writers using the 50mm length at all on FF or APSC cameras, but 24 and 35mm and teles are abundant.