Seeking quick advice

[growler]

While I realize I will probably get a lot of different answers, I appreciate feedback from CR members about gear purchases. Here is my situation. Late last year I switched from crop to full frame (60D -> 6D) and am still in the process of changing my lens kit. Here is what I currently have:

Zooms:
Canon 24-105 f4L (not going to sell this no matter what anyone says; it is a great walk around lens)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO HSM (2001 vintage, bought when I was shooting 35 mm film, no OS)
Sigma 1.4X EX APO

Primes:
Rokinon 14 f2.8
Canon 24 f2.8 IS
Canon 40 f2.8
Canon 50 f1.8

Interests: Landscapes and portraits, roughly 50-50 in terms of number of shots for each.

Situation: I will be spending a couple of weeks wit family in the pacific northwest in late July/early August and will be hitting North Cascades, Rainier, and coastal areas between Seattle and Vancouver. A few good quality Canon refurbs are still available (e.g. 100 f2 (not macro), 135 f2L, 200 f2.8L), but today is the last day. I can spend up to $500 over and above the proceeds I'm likely to get if I sell any of my current lenses. Because I will be hiking and want to travel light, I'm looking for lightweight but high quality lenses.

Option 1: Forget about the lure of the above highly discounted refurbs, sell the Sigma 70-200 & 1.4 teleconverter, and buy a Canon 70-200 f4L IS with the proceeds + cash (with rebate, this lens goes new for $1150 until later in the month). Not interested in 70-200 f2.8 (any version) because I won't hike it around due to weight/size. Also not interested in non-IS version of 70-200 f4 both because I want IS in this zoom range and because sharpness is noticeably better on the IS version. Down the road (probably around December) when I can afford it, purchase a good portrait lens such as Sigma 85 f1.4, Canon 100 f2, or Canon 85 f1.8 (no, I won't spring for a Canon 85 f1.2).

Option 2: Purchase either the 100 f2 or the 135 f2 refurbs and face the fact that I won't have a hikeable 70-200 zoom for the Pacific Northwest trip and will have to wait to buy later. Advantages of the 100 f2: much less expensive, nice focal length for portraits. Advantages of the 135 f2: Better IQ (especially wrt to chromatic aberration), more reach.

Thanks for reading and for your thoughts.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you are wanting light weight telephoto, I'd say add a 70-300L to go with the 24-105. Its light and powerful. Don't let the refurb deals cause you to pick something you do not need.

If you want a ultra wide that's cheap, look for something like the old Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime. Its good and well built.

 

[growler]

Thanks Mt Spokane. While 14 - 24 seems like a big gap, I'm actually happy with the wide end of my kit. It is the lack of a portrait lens capable of nice bokeh and a high quality tele-zoom that is limiting. I know that many people think highly of the 70-300L. It is more expensive than the 70-200 f4L IS, but maybe if I get more than I think for the Sigma 70-200 + teleconverter....

 

[growler]

I should also add that in option 1, my hiking kit would be Rokinon 14 f2.8, Canon 24 f2.8 IS, Canon 40 f2.8 and 70-200 f4L IS.

For option 2 it would be same except swap the 70-200 zoom with either the 100 or 135 prime.

 

[Random Orbits]

How much do you think you'll need a telezoom in the future. If you get a 70-200 or a 70-300, you will end up with a fast 85. If you decide that you don't need a telezoom, you could go with the 135L and 1.4x III. I think in many ways the idea lens does not ideally fit your landscape/portrait concentrations.

If you decide to go prime, then the 85, 135 and 1.4x III make sense. If you decide to go zoom, then a 70-200 or a 70-300 will match a 85 well.

 

[growler]

How much do you think you'll need a telezoom in the future. If you get a 70-200 or a 70-300, you will end up with a fast 85. If you decide that you don't need a telezoom, you could go with the 135L and 1.4x III. I think in many ways the idea lens does not ideally fit your landscape/portrait concentrations.

If you decide to go prime, then the 85, 135 and 1.4x III make sense. If you decide to go zoom, then a 70-200 or a 70-300 will match a 85 well.

Thanks Random. I agree that the above suggestion for an all prime kit would make a lot of sense. For the price of the 1.4x III, I could almost buy the 200 f2.8L. I guess the reason I'm interested in a tele-zoom for landscape is that being able to frame things how I want them at those focal lengths can save a lot of hiking to get a shot. Seeing your response, it is now clear to me that it would be most useful for me to get the 70-200 f4L IS zoom and one of the following portrait lenses: 85 f1.8 or 100 f2. The 135L, while very alluring, doesn't really fit the need as well. Now I should determine whether the portrait lens or the zoom will be needed more over the next several months.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I think traveling with full frame, the extra reach of the 70-300L gives you more good shots on a sunny day.
About the portrait lens, I recommend Canon 100mm F2, I have and like a lot, or 135L. The 85mm you mentioned has problems with purple fringing (Canon), and Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration LOCAS (Sigma).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thanks Mt Spokane. While 14 - 24 seems like a big gap, I'm actually happy with the wide end of my kit. It is the lack of a portrait lens capable of nice bokeh and a high quality tele-zoom that is limiting. I know that many people think highly of the 70-300L. It is more expensive than the 70-200 f4L IS, but maybe if I get more than I think for the Sigma 70-200 + teleconverter....

OK. I had locked on to the lens for hiking part, and somehow read telephoto into that and not portrait. A zoom is definitely not going to have high end Bokeh, its just something that doesn't happen, except maybe in $40-100K cinema lenses. I had the 70-200mm f/4 IS, and it was absolutely wonderful, but its not going to contest a prime lens in the bokeh department.

 

[NancyP]

I'd consider adding the fast prime, either the 100 or 135mm, depending on your typical portrait interest. As for the teleextender, for 1.4x, the version II, used, should be fine. The value of the version III is highest for users of newer lenses, where the lens AF and the TC mesh better. I have the old v. II 1.4x TC, and it is fine on my older telephoto lenses (180 macro, 400 f/5.6, and 70-200 f/4LIS).

Just add up your lens weights and see what you will be happy to carry. It could be better to carry a kit zoom and get to your target spot than to carry a full kit and peter out after a few hundred feet elevation. And, don't forget that you can CROP. BTW, the 70-200 f/4 NON-IS is a bargain lens. You are considering other non-IS telephotos. The zoom is not ideal for portraits, though. And the 100mm macro IS is worth thinking about, it can double as a portrait lens.

 

[skitron]

One question I'd ask is do you really want/need a fast prime for portrait? I'm not a portrait shooter but have read (mainly here) how pro portrait shooters are often stopping down to get enough dof to keep the model's features all in reasonable focus. In that situation the 24-105 and the 70-200 may both be worth consideration for that application.