For a landscape photographer who is going to do any kind of hiking, Canon's 16-35mm f/4L IS definitely deserves a place on the list. It is very lightweight, tack-sharp and remarkably affordable. It is half the weight of the 11-24mm, which I have also shot with - that is a remarkable lens, but I wouldn't want to do a 10 mile hike with it either hanging off my harness, or stashed in a backpack.
I haven't felt a need for any of the ultra wide lenses personally. My kit consists of the 35mm 1.4L, 50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.2L, 135 f/2L, 100 2.8 Macro, 65mm Macro MPE, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L Is II, 300 2.8L IS, 500 f/4L IS, 500 F/4L IS, and the 600 f/4L IS. I also have the 1.4x and 2x tele converters. I haven't run into anything I can't deal with yet... Love the channel Jared!
Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM (wide angle landscape) Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM (low light photography) Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM (general purpose use, video) Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS macro USM (portrait, macro) Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II USM (sport, landscape)
my ultimate kit is 1) 24mm IS USM, 2) 35 f/2.0 IS USM, 3) 85 f/1.2 4) 100mm Macro IS USM. The 35mm being my daily driver as I can turn it to a 50mm with an APS-C. The 100mm Macro doubles as a 160mm sport/ portrait shooter. 85 for low light and because it's very forgiving. I don't shoot wider than 24mm, and the 24 can double as a 35-40mm equiv on APS-C. I love the plastic 35mm IS USM, it was made to permanently attach on a DSLR body with superb ergonomics, much better to travel with than the L series 35, which I am not a fan of.
All L glass - 16-35 F4 IS, 24-105 F4 IS, and the superb 70-200 to complete the set. If your lenses have a common focal length / crossover there is less swapping required, and this is the best bang for your buck trinity. Just my opinion!
step 1: upgrade to a full frame camera step 2: realize your EF-S lenses won't fit step 3: Come to Jared to see what lens I need to buy now... step 4: kick yourself.
Bivash Biswas yup. In the sane situation. However, I just found the 85 1.8 (non L) and the 24-105 v1 L for a total of $650 on Adorama. Thinking about springing for them! Two lenses for the price of one basically.
@@glebgoryunov3408 That's exactly what I'm gonna face soon. Although, I havent purchased a full-frame yet. I already own the EF-S 55-250 which wont go well with canon eos rp. Probably gonna return the 55-250 soon and switch to an EF 75-300 which is a full-frame lens.
Just returned from a week in Barcelona and used the following combination of Canon glass which offered a very useful range of 11-300 mm focal length: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM; Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. Next time I'll bring my Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L USM to complete the range on the wider end.
7 หลายเดือนก่อน
I feel like this was golden age, the peak of whad canon had to offer.
Jared, you picked almost every L lens. 15mm f/2.8 fisheye 16-35 f/2.8 II 50mm f/1.2 100mm f/2.8 macro IS 70-200 f/2.8 IS II 500mm f/2.8 IS II 2.0x 1.4x With 2 camera bodies, charger and extra batteries it all fits in a carry on pack (the 50mm stays home, sometimes the 500mm too depending on where I am going). I couldn't do that with the 600mm f/4 (vice 500) or 11-24 f/4 (vice 16-35)
11 - 24mm f/4 24 - 70mm f/4 IS 70 - 200mm f/4 IS I think the f/4 trinity could be a better option, if you don't need to blow out the background in your style of shooting. Your only sacrificing 1 stop of light with that f/4 aperture and your getting Image stabilization on 2 of the lens' + a macro mode on the 24 - 70mm f/4. The image quality coming out of these 3 lens is still professional grade and they all have weather sealing.
Great lineup of great lenses...my ultimate (not even close to affording this), but my ultimate lineup would be: 11-24+24-70 f2.8+70-200f2.8II - Then add these primes: 50 1.2, 35 1.4, 100 Macro, 300 f2.8, 600 f4. Would like the Tamron 85 VC as well.
I love Canon Lenses!! I have the 24 f1.4 35 f1.4 50 f1.2 85 f1.2 100 f2.8 135 f2.0 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 ...... love them all for different reasons .... Especially love the primes for the low light and Background Fuzz. The 70-200 is awesome for Weddings!!
11-24mm f/4L, 24-105 f/4L (or 24-70 f/2.8L Mark II if it had IS), 70-200mm f/2.8L Mark II (or Mark III maybe...) + 1.4x or 2x TC. only missing the first one, the TC and what’s in the brackets. Oh and a Full Frame body with the 5D Mark IV (sensor, af system) and the 6D Mark II (vari-angle touchscreen, connectivity) combined (currently shooting with an 80D).
What would be the right choice of 3 lenses to cover most situations? - definitely the 70-200 f2.8 - 50mm 1:1.4 for lower light situations / portray and which one below 50mm? -Sigma Art AF 24-35mm 2.0 DG HSM ?? There are certainly not many choices for zoom lenses below 50mm with low F values
I just want to share my under-12k canon cameras and lens kit. Cameras: 5DsR for portraits and landscape, 7Dmkii for sports and wildlife. Lenses: 16-35 f4L IS: Wild enough for landscape and milky way. The new 2.8 is better though, same sharpness, less noise. 35 f2: second sharpest lens from canon, 35MP from f2 - 5.6, almost twice sharper than 16-35 f4 IS 50 F1.2L: great for portraits and light enough for walking around, and covers the focal range I am missing 70-200 F2.8L IS ii: Well, everyone knows it is best zoom lens ever been built. Sharpe enough for pretty much everything 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS ii: Best wildlife lens affordable for me, light, sharp, and long enough for everything except distant birds. I uses the extension tube on 70-200 for macro and works great. Note: I do photography only for fun, and I used GH5 for filming. So I didn't need those professional portrait lenses or 24-105 for video.
My personal Canon full frame lens kit 11-24mm F4, Tamron 45mm 1.8, 85mm F1.2, 135mm F2, 70-200 2.8 NON IS Perfect balance for me, hoping to soon add the 24-70 IS II
I have the 85 F1.2 MKII, 8-16F4.0, 24-70 F2.8 MKII, 100 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS MKII, 11-24F4.0, 100-400 MKII and 17 F4.0 TiltShift. Love all those lenses - the only other lens I would like is the 135 F2.0. I shoot with the 1DX MKII
Ive only just started out in photography and picked myself up a Canon 80D with a 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM Lens as a walkaround and I have on order the Canon 100mm macro 2.8 as I want to focus on mainly landscapes and macro work. Are these two lenses a good start or is there something else I should be looking at?
I am looking forward to buying a L lens after my graduation! I currently have 35mm 2.0 which I have used for 2 years. I am so excited but I don't know which lens I should go for. I not only have so many expectations for my next lens but also I am having trouble choosing one. 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.2, or 70-200mm 2.8. I know pros-and-cons of each lenses since I already have googled about them for weeks. I couldn't make a decision yet. I will use my next lens for daily usage and travel. Which one should I get? Need someone else's insight!!
FRO! Quick question... I currently have a 5D Mark iii and really only a 50mm 1.8 I'm looking for another lens, it will be my main lens. I shoot a lot of lifestyle, occasional events, and sometimes portraits... I was convinced this lens with such a broad range and IS would be a good fit. I was previously considering the 24-70 2.8 which i know is a good lens, but do you think the 24-105 would be more fit for me, at least for now?
My Ultimate Canon FF kit (i own): Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, Canon 24-105 F4 L, Tarmon 70-200 f2.8 VC, Canon 300mm F4L IS I would love to get the new Sigma 12-24 F4 ART (the Canon 11-24 is just too expensive), the new Sigma 85 F1.8 Art and Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3 VC Gen.2. I have some other lenses that i love but they are manual focus so I use them only sometimes: Samyang 14mm F2.8, Samyang 35mm F1.4, Samyang 85 f1.4 I Also have the Canon 17-40 F4L which i love but if i have to choose i just love the reach of the 12-24 more then the 17-40. I have the Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 but i want to change it for the new Tamron and i ave the Canon 400mm f5.6L but i know i take the 300 more often because i find it much sharper even with a 1.4 extender which make it 420mm
In MY kit : EF 11-24L, EF 15mm FE f/2.8 (the old one), EF 24-70L II, EF 35mm f/2IS, EF 50L, EF 50STM, EF 85 f/1.8 (waiting for L 1.4...), EF 100mm Macro USM, EF 135L, EF 70-200L II, EF 100-400L II, EF 500mm f/4L IS (mkI). I ditched the EF 24-105L and EF 200mm f/2.8L (mkI). If the new EF 85mm f/1.4L does hit the mark, I'll probably ditch the 85mm 1.8 USM at some point. My all time FAVs are EF 24-70L II and EF 15mm fisheye :D
I was literally drooling over those lenses. What a line up. I would add either the Canon 100-400mm or the 400mm f/5.6 prime lens which has been around for years. The latter is a fantastic lens, and the one I use all the time.
Id add the 100-400 L Mark-II to your lens line up. Especially if you shoot sports or wildlife. Incredibly sharp and fast focusing lens. Can be used hand held. Otherwise, I agree with your set.
Hey Jared,, great videos. i have a problem and would love ur opinion.... i have been asked to a group photo of 70 people outdoors. I currently shoot with a CANON 7D MARK II, with a Canon 17-85mm f4. i plan on having 4 rows of back row consisting of 22 people and go smaller as i go down the row... so im wondering what is the best settings to use on a photo like this, to keep everyone in focus is my main concern. i watched a video u shot of over 400 people and u used f9 at 1/60sec and iso1600... any help would be appreciated
Just got back from 3 weeks in Europe with my new16-35 f2.8L and it was a great. Is the 11-24 really worth more than double the price? If so, it must be fantastic lens! I mean one could get a 24-70 f2.8 II for the difference. Thoughts?
i'm thinking of buying a " real camera " for the futur. For now, i'm okay to try hard with my smartphone and focus of what or who i'm shooting ( i'm currently in street portrait ). Would you suggest me to take a crop sensor relatively new like 77d or 70d, or saving a little to directly get something like a canon 5d mark I or II ( depend if i'm into video ) ?
Hi Jared, love the channel! I got a question for ya. I'm at a crossroads right now, I've got a brand-spanking new EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM but I also have my trusty old workhorse EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (first gen, no IS); one gets to go home with me forever and the other stays in the office at work. I'm torn between the speed of my original lens vs the newer, shinier, longer, stabilized but slower lens; was hoping to hear from you and see what your opinions is. At work it's mostly properly lit product photography with a tripod shot very slow alongside the occasional video. While not at work, I mostly shoot run-n-gun style, wide open using natural light; (very occasionally I'll use a single-off-camera flash) with a good mix of indoor and out. Which would you keep and why?
What do you think is the best wide angle lense for canon. I do biking and skateboarding photography and trying to find a good wide angle lense to get closer and capture and freeze action. Please advise!! Help will be greatly appreciated. RC.
Mine is the 16-35mm f4 IS, 24-70mm f2.8, 50mm 1.4, 100mm macro IS, 70-200mm 2.8 II. And 24-105mm f4 IS for backup. I have the 50 1.2 and want to get rid of it. Dof is too thin and the 1.4 produces nicer photos. Just got rid of the 16-35 2.8 version 1 for the f4 IS because I like the IS for video and shooting landscapes it's actually better with f4.
I would say 16-35 F4L IS (end of the month purchase), 24-70 F2.8L II, Tamron 150-600 G2, Sigma/Tamron/Canon 105/90mm Macro (bought), Tamron 45 1.8 VC (bought).
I love my 24-70 f/4L IS because it has IS (just like the 24-105), and has a macro mode that can go up to 0.7x crop, which is almost the same as a full-on macro lens. That one lens for me, can substitute the 24-105 f/4L, 24-70 2.8L, and 100mm 2.8L Macro. It's just SO versatile.
I don't get why people get that. It's the same aperture as the 24-105 and both have IS so why not go with the one with a wider range, and I believe it's cheaper too.
For my personal shooting style, I would go with the Zooms: Canon EF 11-24 f/4L USM Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L ii USM IS Primes: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
I would definitely go with the 16-35 over the 11-24 I mean f/2.8 vs f/4 and 16mm is more useful than 11mm. Your point about wider for video does sound legit though.
11-24 is $3000 though, that's twice as much! Staying within the canon lineup i'd still go with the 16-35 f2.8. Outside Canon I'd go with the Tamron 15-30 and would only trade for the 16-35 so I could sell it and buy another 15-30 having made a little cash. A common problem with most of Canon's lenses is coma when wide open small light sources become UFOs and seagulls.
Try the 16-35mm f/2.8L III. It's vastly improved in edge sharpness and now smokes the Nikon equivalent 17-35mm f/2.8 and bests the Canon f4 in sharpness, including edge. Best of all, it still gives you gorgeous sunstar, improved even over the legendary one from the II. After a weekend rental, I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II, and am putting coins in the piggy bank to pick up a III. However, don't take my word check out DXOoptics and DPreview where it got a Gold award. My Canon "Hebrew Trinity": 16-35mm f/2.8L III 24-70mm f/2.8L II 70-200mm f/2.8L II If it were a "quadrinity", I'd throw in the 24-105mm f/4 IS II primarily for video.
The fact that he excluded the 16-35mm f/2.8 shows me that he actually put thought into this list. Obviously, the 11-24 is way outside most people's price range though, so I'd pick the 16-35mm f/4 IS, which in my opinion is a far superior lens to the 2.8 version.
Gotcha, yeah, there are certain criteria they use for L lenses, apparently it didn't qualify for one of them. A lot of people feel that way about the 17-55 f2.8 IS, but it's my understanding they don't do L for EF-s period....only Canon knows.
Agreed the 135 f2 L should definitely be there. Not sure about the MP-E 65mm though, its a very specialized lens for macro shooting only from 1:1, cannot be used for anything else.
my list if no budget : 16-35 f/2.8 mk iii 35mm f/1.4 mk ii 200-400 with 1.4 extender integrated 1200mm f/5.6 + Zeiss Otus 50 Zeiss Otus 85 maybe one 135mm (Canon or Zeiss or... Pentacon Bokeh Monster)
I'll add two more. 50mm 1.8 and 17mm tilt-shift. The 50 1.8, why? Because delivers results for a very, very, good price. Now let's imagine your going to a gueto, war zone, or you gonna try some tricky photos where your lens might be in danger, also it's super light and compact. It's a good and cheap backup too. And the 17mm tilt-shift. Because your line up does not have a tilt-shift, so this one offers unique and useful features, also I've have tried it and I found it sharp "head to toe". No problem with chromatic aberration, fringe or whatever, it was all good.
which L lens shot I get for Antelope Canyon, Horseshoe bend and for shooting portraits? f4 on a full frame is not goi g to be enough for a good bokeh when compared to 2.8?
My Ultimate EF kit would consisit of the following lenses.... 11-24mm f/4L 24-70mm f/2.8L II 70-200mm f/2.8L III 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II 50mm f/1.2L 85mm f/1.4L and finally I would include the EF2x extender for use with the 100-400 lenses occasionally.
My actual Canon kit, not a fantasy but for real is a follows, Canon 11-24 f/4L, Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II, Canon 35 f/1.4L II, Canon 50 f/1.2L, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 100 f/2.8L Macro, Canon 135 f/2L. I also have some specialty lenses from Lensbaby like the Velvet 56 and some others from this brand. Additionally, I have a russian 85mm lens that gives an insanely beautiful bokeh. I do have a crop sensor Canon 7dMKII with a 17-55 f/2.8 and two full frame Canon Cameras the 5DMKIII and Canon 1DXMKII.
Not fair if you went to 300mm with your Nikon stuff, but no 300mm option here. Also I hear Canon has a 500mm prime that is affordable and is absolutely stunning as well as light.
The Canon 200-400mm is an amazing lens and costs a hell of a lot more than the Nikkor but with the flip in 1.4x converter is amazing as a sports and motorsports photographer
just to add something different to the mix, I think I'd throw in the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Lens. I just love the different aspects you can get with this. Thanks for all of the videos you've made, keep up the great work. Regards, Paul from Adelaide, South Australia.
my lens kit has grown up from a Sigma mid-quality lens 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 when I purchased my first DSLR Canon T2i, to the following with my 5D mkIII: Primes: 50mm f/1.4 (Portrait, street photography) 40mm f/2.8 (street photography) 85mm f/1.4 (portrait) 135mm f/2 (portrait) 12mm f/2.8 fisheye (Rokinon) - (Architecture, landscapes, action, etc.) Zoom: 16-35mm f/2.8 L II (architecture, street photography, group portrait) 20-70mm f/2.8 L (all around photography) 24-105mm f/4 L (all around photography) 70-200mm f/2.8 L II (portrait, product) Lens that I would love to own are the 35mm f/1.4, the new 11-24 f/4 L, the 100mm f/2.8 macro, one tilt shit L series. if wanna follow me on instagram go to @angduque
Hey Jarod, what is the best format for printing images? I've done some research but all the websites I visited were either confusing or had a lot of irrelevant material. What format(s) do you use for printing?
I'd love to have that 11-24, but the 16-35 f4 is sharp, image stabilized, and a third of the price. I DO get you point with the cropped video though. What a pain.
Hi, I was just checking out the sharpness of the new canon 24-105 f/4 Mark 2 lens on Dxo Mark, it seems it performs worse than its Mark 1 version, is it true ?? shud i just buy ita Mark 1 version rather than its Mark 2 version??
While I absolutely love Canon glass, for a 50mm lens I would choose the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A over the Canon f/1.2. It is both sharper and less expensive. And although I hate having some non-Canon glass in my bag, this is just too logical a choice.
For portraits i used 9 out of 10 the prime lens 105mm f/2D from Nikon. But why have Canon don't have it. The only prime lens i used on my Canon 1DX is the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. The Canon 135mm f/2 is to far for my to talk to pose the model. Got for Canon: Canon EOS 1DX x2 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. X2 For Nikon: Nikon D3. x2 Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4D IF Nikon AF DC 105mm f/2D Nikon AF DC 135mm f/2D There are not so many metal prime lenses for heavy use outdoor for portraits.
alkaid14: Yes, I am a Canon shooter and own (besides many others) the 70-200 2.8L IS II and the 135 f/2L. When shooting a controlled portrait, especially outdoors, my favorite is the 135mm f/2L! And Jamie, I shot with the 200 f/2 once. Not knocking it, INCREDIBLE lens, however LARGE, HEAVY, and paying almost 6 times the price for perhaps 5-10% image IQ (that is only noticeable if zoomed 100% on computer or printed on a billboard) so more than a little steep in value department. Not to mention people complain of the 135mm "being too long", a fixed focal length of 200mm not as versatile.
Obviously the 24-105 is not a F1.4 and should have said F4.
I wasnt sure if I hadnt been paying enough attention to photo news when you said f1.4. Just about crapped myself. lol
Wouldn't that be the game changer
Imagine if it was real, maybe some day
I was going to be like where has that lens/fstop combo been my whole life!!!!
Imagine how massive and heavy it would be if it was a 1.4? haha
My Canon lens collection : 50mm 1.8 aka nifty fifty
SAME (until this thursday)
Love the $100 lens.
all you need at the end of the day..
SAME.
Canon shooter here. Mostly birds. Your selection is spot on and for the right reasons. You know you want to switch. I won't tell anyone.
We all wish the 24-105 was f/1.4. We all do.
I think the 135 f2 definitely deserved to be in a professional kit.
I agree.
for sure
200mm f/2.8 is a great lens also!
João Maria Vasconcelos Fontes de Barros Taveira That's right but you don't need it that much if you have the 70-200mm 2.8... ;)
70-200 f2.8 is ii is sharper than the 200 f/2.8
For a landscape photographer who is going to do any kind of hiking, Canon's 16-35mm f/4L IS definitely deserves a place on the list. It is very lightweight, tack-sharp and remarkably affordable. It is half the weight of the 11-24mm, which I have also shot with - that is a remarkable lens, but I wouldn't want to do a 10 mile hike with it either hanging off my harness, or stashed in a backpack.
16-35 might be the best lenser that canon ever made, in my opinion
A 24-105 f1.4 would be amazing if it existed! Too bad it's just f4.
that lens would be the size of your leg and the cost of your house
i will never take it off my camera
hahaha derek hilarious
if it would exist it would probably also be only about t/1.9 :-D because the f/4 version is really dark at t/5.2 :-D
Lofote haha i had to read that a few times! finally clicked when i noticed you were honorable enough to use t-stops. marry me?
I haven't felt a need for any of the ultra wide lenses personally. My kit consists of the 35mm 1.4L, 50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.2L, 135 f/2L, 100 2.8 Macro, 65mm Macro MPE, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L Is II, 300 2.8L IS, 500 f/4L IS, 500 F/4L IS, and the 600 f/4L IS. I also have the 1.4x and 2x tele converters. I haven't run into anything I can't deal with yet... Love the channel Jared!
Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM (wide angle landscape)
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM (low light photography)
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM (general purpose use, video)
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS macro USM (portrait, macro)
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II USM (sport, landscape)
why not the 35 f/1.4L mark 2 when u have 24-105 mark 2 on? :)
yes, II have much better corrected optik... only mistake
35mm f1.4 L II is sweet, clean and sharp. 200-400 f4 with 1.4x extender is super versatile. 400 f2.8 is a definite for sports.
my ultimate kit is 1) 24mm IS USM, 2) 35 f/2.0 IS USM, 3) 85 f/1.2 4) 100mm Macro IS USM. The 35mm being my daily driver as I can turn it to a 50mm with an APS-C. The 100mm Macro doubles as a 160mm sport/ portrait shooter. 85 for low light and because it's very forgiving. I don't shoot wider than 24mm, and the 24 can double as a 35-40mm equiv on APS-C. I love the plastic 35mm IS USM, it was made to permanently attach on a DSLR body with superb ergonomics, much better to travel with than the L series 35, which I am not a fan of.
135mm f/2 is an awesome lens! It has to be included in the kit.
All L glass - 16-35 F4 IS, 24-105 F4 IS, and the superb 70-200 to complete the set. If your lenses have a common focal length / crossover there is less swapping required, and this is the best bang for your buck trinity. Just my opinion!
I picked up the older 17-35 2.8L, and it's still my favorite lens.
step 1: upgrade to a full frame camera
step 2: realize your EF-S lenses won't fit
step 3: Come to Jared to see what lens I need to buy now...
step 4: kick yourself.
What about adapters?
sem. gonna pass the next few months with my trusty nifty fifty before i can afford a tamron 24-70 :/
Bivash Biswas yup. In the sane situation. However, I just found the 85 1.8 (non L) and the 24-105 v1 L for a total of $650 on Adorama. Thinking about springing for them! Two lenses for the price of one basically.
Me irl! Bought a 5d III and when I got home, I figured out my EF-S 55-250 wont fit. Bummer.
@@glebgoryunov3408 That's exactly what I'm gonna face soon. Although, I havent purchased a full-frame yet. I already own the EF-S 55-250 which wont go well with canon eos rp. Probably gonna return the 55-250 soon and switch to an EF 75-300 which is a full-frame lens.
I have 200-400 1.4x this to Me is the ultimate birding/ wildlife lens....versatility and sharpness= no regrets and still owe a little on it.
Just returned from a week in Barcelona and used the following combination of Canon glass which offered a very useful range of 11-300 mm focal length: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM; Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. Next time I'll bring my Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L USM to complete the range on the wider end.
I feel like this was golden age, the peak of whad canon had to offer.
1:37 Diddnt knew there is a 24-105 f1.4 x)
I would like that... :D
Jere Heimonen
´Hahah yeah me too would be the only lens I would ever need :D
I take very seriously your reviews on Canon and their glass, and to me you have been right on point. Thank you.
Would like you to do an update to this video. Thank you.
I have them all and a few more beauties. I could not agree more!
Jared, you picked almost every L lens.
15mm f/2.8 fisheye
16-35 f/2.8 II
50mm f/1.2
100mm f/2.8 macro IS
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
500mm f/2.8 IS II
2.0x
1.4x
With 2 camera bodies, charger and extra batteries it all fits in a carry on pack (the 50mm stays home, sometimes the 500mm too depending on where I am going).
I couldn't do that with the 600mm f/4 (vice 500) or 11-24 f/4 (vice 16-35)
11 - 24mm f/4
24 - 70mm f/4 IS
70 - 200mm f/4 IS
I think the f/4 trinity could be a better option, if you don't need to blow out the background in your style of shooting. Your only sacrificing 1 stop of light with that f/4 aperture and your getting Image stabilization on 2 of the lens' + a macro mode on the 24 - 70mm f/4. The image quality coming out of these 3 lens is still professional grade and they all have weather sealing.
Great lineup of great lenses...my ultimate (not even close to affording this), but my ultimate lineup would be:
11-24+24-70 f2.8+70-200f2.8II - Then add these primes: 50 1.2, 35 1.4, 100 Macro, 300 f2.8, 600 f4. Would like the Tamron 85 VC as well.
I love Canon Lenses!! I have the 24 f1.4 35 f1.4 50 f1.2 85 f1.2 100 f2.8 135 f2.0 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 ...... love them all for different reasons .... Especially love the primes for the low light and Background Fuzz. The 70-200 is awesome for Weddings!!
11-24mm f/4L, 24-105 f/4L (or 24-70 f/2.8L Mark II if it had IS), 70-200mm f/2.8L Mark II (or Mark III maybe...) + 1.4x or 2x TC. only missing the first one, the TC and what’s in the brackets. Oh and a Full Frame body with the 5D Mark IV (sensor, af system) and the 6D Mark II (vari-angle touchscreen, connectivity) combined (currently shooting with an 80D).
What would be the right choice of 3 lenses to cover most situations?
- definitely the 70-200 f2.8
- 50mm 1:1.4 for lower light situations / portray
and which one below 50mm?
-Sigma Art AF 24-35mm 2.0 DG HSM ??
There are certainly not many choices for zoom lenses below 50mm with low F values
I just want to share my under-12k canon cameras and lens kit.
Cameras: 5DsR for portraits and landscape, 7Dmkii for sports and wildlife.
Lenses: 16-35 f4L IS: Wild enough for landscape and milky way. The new 2.8 is better though, same sharpness, less noise.
35 f2: second sharpest lens from canon, 35MP from f2 - 5.6, almost twice sharper than 16-35 f4 IS
50 F1.2L: great for portraits and light enough for walking around, and covers the focal range I am missing
70-200 F2.8L IS ii: Well, everyone knows it is best zoom lens ever been built. Sharpe enough for pretty much everything
100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS ii: Best wildlife lens affordable for me, light, sharp, and long enough for everything except distant birds.
I uses the extension tube on 70-200 for macro and works great.
Note: I do photography only for fun, and I used GH5 for filming. So I didn't need those professional portrait lenses or 24-105 for video.
My personal Canon full frame lens kit
11-24mm F4, Tamron 45mm 1.8, 85mm F1.2, 135mm F2, 70-200 2.8 NON IS
Perfect balance for me, hoping to soon add the 24-70 IS II
I have the 85 F1.2 MKII, 8-16F4.0, 24-70 F2.8 MKII, 100 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS MKII, 11-24F4.0, 100-400 MKII and 17 F4.0 TiltShift. Love all those lenses - the only other lens I would like is the 135 F2.0. I shoot with the 1DX MKII
Ive only just started out in photography and picked myself up a Canon 80D with a 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM Lens as a walkaround and I have on order the Canon 100mm macro 2.8 as I want to focus on mainly landscapes and macro work. Are these two lenses a good start or is there something else I should be looking at?
90mm tilt shift is a very unique lens that I would want in a Canon kit.
I am looking forward to buying a L lens after my graduation! I currently have 35mm 2.0 which I have used for 2 years. I am so excited but I don't know which lens I should go for. I not only have so many expectations for my next lens but also I am having trouble choosing one. 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.2, or 70-200mm 2.8. I know pros-and-cons of each lenses since I already have googled about them for weeks. I couldn't make a decision yet. I will use my next lens for daily usage and travel. Which one should I get? Need someone else's insight!!
Thanks for the info - though the 17mm - 40mm F4 is very good value for money if you want to shoot wide.
17-55 2.8 for everything
FRO!
Quick question...
I currently have a 5D Mark iii and really only a 50mm 1.8
I'm looking for another lens, it will be my main lens. I shoot a lot of lifestyle, occasional events, and sometimes portraits...
I was convinced this lens with such a broad range and IS would be a good fit.
I was previously considering the 24-70 2.8 which i know is a good lens, but do you think the 24-105 would be more fit for me, at least for now?
My Ultimate Canon FF kit (i own): Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, Canon 24-105 F4 L, Tarmon 70-200 f2.8 VC, Canon 300mm F4L IS
I would love to get the new Sigma 12-24 F4 ART (the Canon 11-24 is just too expensive), the new Sigma 85 F1.8 Art and Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3 VC Gen.2.
I have some other lenses that i love but they are manual focus so I use them only sometimes: Samyang 14mm F2.8, Samyang 35mm F1.4, Samyang 85 f1.4
I Also have the Canon 17-40 F4L which i love but if i have to choose i just love the reach of the 12-24 more then the 17-40. I have the Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 but i want to change it for the new Tamron and i ave the Canon 400mm f5.6L but i know i take the 300 more often because i find it much sharper even with a 1.4 extender which make it 420mm
Jared you are the best, my lense choice is always the 24-70 nicest lense I ever used !!!
In MY kit : EF 11-24L, EF 15mm FE f/2.8 (the old one), EF 24-70L II, EF 35mm f/2IS, EF 50L, EF 50STM, EF 85 f/1.8 (waiting for L 1.4...), EF 100mm Macro USM, EF 135L, EF 70-200L II, EF 100-400L II, EF 500mm f/4L IS (mkI).
I ditched the EF 24-105L and EF 200mm f/2.8L (mkI). If the new EF 85mm f/1.4L does hit the mark, I'll probably ditch the 85mm 1.8 USM at some point.
My all time FAVs are EF 24-70L II and EF 15mm fisheye :D
I was literally drooling over those lenses. What a line up. I would add either the Canon 100-400mm or the 400mm f/5.6 prime lens which has been around for years. The latter is a fantastic lens, and the one I use all the time.
Id add the 100-400 L Mark-II to your lens line up. Especially if you shoot sports or wildlife. Incredibly sharp and fast focusing lens. Can be used hand held. Otherwise, I agree with your set.
135mm f2 deserves to have a spot in the list
Hey Jared,, great videos. i have a problem and would love ur opinion.... i have been asked to a group photo of 70 people outdoors. I currently shoot with a CANON 7D MARK II, with a Canon 17-85mm f4. i plan on having 4 rows of back row consisting of 22 people and go smaller as i go down the row... so im wondering what is the best settings to use on a photo like this, to keep everyone in focus is my main concern. i watched a video u shot of over 400 people and u used f9 at 1/60sec and iso1600... any help would be appreciated
Great picks, all fantastic lenses. If you were going to pick one Canon EF lens, which one would you pick as your ultimate all-arounder?
I love my 16-35mm f2.8 that would be a must have for this lens kit!
I just picked up the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. Takes in much more light than the Canon super wide and at less than half the price. Albeit, not as wide.
Just got back from 3 weeks in Europe with my new16-35 f2.8L and it was a great. Is the 11-24 really worth more than double the price? If so, it must be fantastic lens! I mean one could get a 24-70 f2.8 II for the difference. Thoughts?
i'm thinking of buying a " real camera " for the futur. For now, i'm okay to try hard with my smartphone and focus of what or who i'm shooting ( i'm currently in street portrait ). Would you suggest me to take a crop sensor relatively new like 77d or 70d, or saving a little to directly get something like a canon 5d mark I or II ( depend if i'm into video ) ?
Hi Jared, love the channel! I got a question for ya. I'm at a crossroads right now, I've got a brand-spanking new EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM but I also have my trusty old workhorse EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (first gen, no IS); one gets to go home with me forever and the other stays in the office at work. I'm torn between the speed of my original lens vs the newer, shinier, longer, stabilized but slower lens; was hoping to hear from you and see what your opinions is.
At work it's mostly properly lit product photography with a tripod shot very slow alongside the occasional video. While not at work, I mostly shoot run-n-gun style, wide open using natural light; (very occasionally I'll use a single-off-camera flash) with a good mix of indoor and out. Which would you keep and why?
Love the 70-200
What do you think is the best wide angle lense for canon. I do biking and skateboarding photography and trying to find a good wide angle lense to get closer and capture and freeze action. Please advise!! Help will be greatly appreciated.
RC.
Nice set - no argument, if I'd add one lens it is the 135/2 which I love as much as the 85/1.2
The Canon 135mm f/2L USM I love as well on the 5D Mark III
Mine is the 16-35mm f4 IS, 24-70mm f2.8, 50mm 1.4, 100mm macro IS, 70-200mm 2.8 II. And 24-105mm f4 IS for backup. I have the 50 1.2 and want to get rid of it. Dof is too thin and the 1.4 produces nicer photos. Just got rid of the 16-35 2.8 version 1 for the f4 IS because I like the IS for video and shooting landscapes it's actually better with f4.
I would say 16-35 F4L IS (end of the month purchase), 24-70 F2.8L II, Tamron 150-600 G2, Sigma/Tamron/Canon 105/90mm Macro (bought), Tamron 45 1.8 VC (bought).
I love my 24-70 f/4L IS because it has IS (just like the 24-105), and has a macro mode that can go up to 0.7x crop, which is almost the same as a full-on macro lens. That one lens for me, can substitute the 24-105 f/4L, 24-70 2.8L, and 100mm 2.8L Macro. It's just SO versatile.
Agree with its versatility but it can't quite match the 100mmm f/2.8 macro though. So I would include both.
I don't get why people get that. It's the same aperture as the 24-105 and both have IS so why not go with the one with a wider range, and I believe it's cheaper too.
135mm f/2 !!! the best
70-200 f2.8 ii gotta be my fav lens. Have the 2x conv and the combo performs well. Sigma 20mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 also good.
For my personal shooting style, I would go with the
Zooms:
Canon EF 11-24 f/4L USM
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L ii USM IS
Primes:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
Hey man! Brand new mark 1 24-105 F4 or second hand 24-70 F2.8 mark 1 ??
Hello. I'm thinking of investing in a Sigma 12-24mm for my wide angle lens (not the ART version). I use a Canon 5D iii. Please advise
Why both 24-70mm and 24-105mm?
24-105 for video, 24-70 for crisp images
The 24-70 mm is a f2.8 and the 24-105 is f4 The 24-70 mm will perform a lot better in low light
I would definitely go with the 16-35 over the 11-24 I mean f/2.8 vs f/4 and 16mm is more useful than 11mm. Your point about wider for video does sound legit though.
16-35mm is really expensive and not that great though :/ as does 24-105, but as least its good for video
11-24 is $3000 though, that's twice as much! Staying within the canon lineup i'd still go with the 16-35 f2.8. Outside Canon I'd go with the Tamron 15-30 and would only trade for the 16-35 so I could sell it and buy another 15-30 having made a little cash. A common problem with most of Canon's lenses is coma when wide open small light sources become UFOs and seagulls.
The 16-36 II f2.8 is unusably soft around the edges and shouldn't really be an L lens. The f4 version is infinitely sharper.
Try the 16-35mm f/2.8L III. It's vastly improved in edge sharpness and now smokes the Nikon equivalent 17-35mm f/2.8 and bests the Canon f4 in sharpness, including edge. Best of all, it still gives you gorgeous sunstar, improved even over the legendary one from the II.
After a weekend rental, I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II, and am putting coins in the piggy bank to pick up a III. However, don't take my word check out DXOoptics and DPreview where it got a Gold award.
My Canon "Hebrew Trinity":
16-35mm f/2.8L III
24-70mm f/2.8L II
70-200mm f/2.8L II
If it were a "quadrinity", I'd throw in the 24-105mm f/4 IS II primarily for video.
The fact that he excluded the 16-35mm f/2.8 shows me that he actually put thought into this list. Obviously, the 11-24 is way outside most people's price range though, so I'd pick the 16-35mm f/4 IS, which in my opinion is a far superior lens to the 2.8 version.
love that 11-24lens. any ultimate kit for the APSC guys in the near future?
24-70 F2.8 L, 70-200 F2.8 II, 17-40mm F4. These are enough for most situations. Oh yeah and a 85 1.2L if I get rich someday lol
Excellent point, the EF 135mm f/2.0L is still one of the finest despite no being revised in years. I am certain one is in the works.
Missed my personal fav L lens, 135 f2 L. Also the mp-e 65 is amazing.
MP-E surprisingly isn't an L though.
The label to this video doesn't say it has to be a L lens, just "full frame", ie EF mount. :)
Keith Leonard
Yes, I know that, just surprised that they didn't give it a red ring.
Gotcha, yeah, there are certain criteria they use for L lenses, apparently it didn't qualify for one of them. A lot of people feel that way about the 17-55 f2.8 IS, but it's my understanding they don't do L for EF-s period....only Canon knows.
Agreed the 135 f2 L should definitely be there. Not sure about the MP-E 65mm though, its a very specialized lens for macro shooting only from 1:1, cannot be used for anything else.
which one should I get ? as I have 2 options 24-70mm f2.8 & 70-200mm f2.8 ....
please let me know...
my list if no budget :
16-35 f/2.8 mk iii
35mm f/1.4 mk ii
200-400 with 1.4 extender integrated
1200mm f/5.6
+
Zeiss Otus 50
Zeiss Otus 85
maybe one 135mm (Canon or Zeiss or... Pentacon Bokeh Monster)
Hey fro what lens would you use to shoot and combinations of people, landscape and sports. I'm looking for something well rounded for a canon 5D
I'll add two more. 50mm 1.8 and 17mm tilt-shift.
The 50 1.8, why? Because delivers results for a very, very, good price. Now let's imagine your going to a gueto, war zone, or you gonna try some tricky photos where your lens might be in danger, also it's super light and compact. It's a good and cheap backup too.
And the 17mm tilt-shift. Because your line up does not have a tilt-shift, so this one offers unique and useful features, also I've have tried it and I found it sharp "head to toe". No problem with chromatic aberration, fringe or whatever, it was all good.
which L lens shot I get for Antelope Canyon, Horseshoe bend and for shooting portraits? f4 on a full frame is not goi g to be enough for a good bokeh when compared to 2.8?
My Ultimate EF kit would consisit of the following lenses....
11-24mm f/4L
24-70mm f/2.8L II
70-200mm f/2.8L III
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II
50mm f/1.2L
85mm f/1.4L
and finally I would include the EF2x extender for use with the 100-400 lenses occasionally.
his hair is giving me life what a bush😍😍
My actual Canon kit, not a fantasy but for real is a follows, Canon 11-24 f/4L, Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II, Canon 35 f/1.4L II, Canon 50 f/1.2L, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 100 f/2.8L Macro, Canon 135 f/2L. I also have some specialty lenses from Lensbaby like the Velvet 56 and some others from this brand. Additionally, I have a russian 85mm lens that gives an insanely beautiful bokeh. I do have a crop sensor Canon 7dMKII with a 17-55 f/2.8 and two full frame Canon Cameras the 5DMKIII and Canon 1DXMKII.
Not fair if you went to 300mm with your Nikon stuff, but no 300mm option here. Also I hear Canon has a 500mm prime that is affordable and is absolutely stunning as well as light.
What would you say about the canon 85 mm F 1.8 Jared ???
The Canon 200-400mm is an amazing lens and costs a hell of a lot more than the Nikkor but with the flip in 1.4x converter is amazing as a sports and motorsports photographer
In my bag
50 mm f1.5
24-70 mm f2.8L
100 mm f2.8L Macro
70-200 mm f2.8L II
I would like to round out the kit with:
85 mm f2.8L
16-35 mm f2.8L
just to add something different to the mix, I think I'd throw in the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Lens. I just love the different aspects you can get with this. Thanks for all of the videos you've made, keep up the great work.
Regards, Paul from Adelaide, South Australia.
Which one is best for portraits?
my lens kit has grown up from a Sigma mid-quality lens 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 when I purchased my first DSLR Canon T2i, to the following with my 5D mkIII:
Primes:
50mm f/1.4 (Portrait, street photography)
40mm f/2.8 (street photography)
85mm f/1.4 (portrait)
135mm f/2 (portrait)
12mm f/2.8 fisheye (Rokinon) - (Architecture, landscapes, action, etc.)
Zoom:
16-35mm f/2.8 L II (architecture, street photography, group portrait)
20-70mm f/2.8 L (all around photography)
24-105mm f/4 L (all around photography)
70-200mm f/2.8 L II (portrait, product)
Lens that I would love to own are the 35mm f/1.4, the new 11-24 f/4 L, the 100mm f/2.8 macro, one tilt shit L series.
if wanna follow me on instagram go to @angduque
Hey Jarod, what is the best format for printing images? I've done some research but all the websites I visited were either confusing or had a lot of irrelevant material. What format(s) do you use for printing?
Chag sameach, Jared. I enjoy your videos.
I definately want 24-105 f/1.4L in my bag ))
I would die to have all those lenses in my bag!
What lenses would you recommend for the Canon 7D mark 1? Since it is a cropped sensor.
24-70 mm f/4L IS II is a good lens too!
I'd also take the Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake just because of the form factor.
Canon is the best!
I'd love to have that 11-24, but the 16-35 f4 is sharp, image stabilized, and a third of the price. I DO get you point with the cropped video though. What a pain.
can't leave out 24L ii and 135L. I would just go with 24, 50, 85, 135, and the 16-35L iii.
Hi, I was just checking out the sharpness of the new canon 24-105 f/4 Mark 2 lens on Dxo Mark, it seems it performs worse than its Mark 1 version, is it true ?? shud i just buy ita Mark 1 version rather than its Mark 2 version??
For the man who has everything...
While I absolutely love Canon glass, for a 50mm lens I would choose the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A over the Canon f/1.2. It is both sharper and less expensive. And although I hate having some non-Canon glass in my bag, this is just too logical a choice.
That 1.2L is incredibly expensive roughly $1.4k for just a 50mm and no IS. I'm sure some folks can justify it, but that's a lot for a 50mm prime.
For portraits i used 9 out of 10 the prime lens 105mm f/2D from Nikon. But why have Canon don't have it. The only prime lens i used on my Canon 1DX is the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. The Canon 135mm f/2 is to far for my to talk to pose the model.
Got for Canon:
Canon EOS 1DX x2
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. X2
For Nikon:
Nikon D3. x2
Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4D IF
Nikon AF DC 105mm f/2D
Nikon AF DC 135mm f/2D
There are not so many metal prime lenses for heavy use outdoor for portraits.
What about the 135 f/2 ???
Love your videos. I shoot with a canon 77D. What type of lenses would you recommend for this camera? Thanks, and keep making those awesome videos.
which is the difference between a professional camera canon, and smart phones'm confused. could explain please?
135 f2 L is a great glass too.. :)
yea, i didn't think about it.
+Jared Polin no need, you mentioned 200 f2, way better, I have both 😍😍😍
alkaid14: Yes, I am a Canon shooter and own (besides many others) the 70-200 2.8L IS II and the 135 f/2L. When shooting a controlled portrait, especially outdoors, my favorite is the 135mm f/2L!
And Jamie, I shot with the 200 f/2 once. Not knocking it, INCREDIBLE lens, however LARGE, HEAVY, and paying almost 6 times the price for perhaps 5-10% image IQ (that is only noticeable if zoomed 100% on computer or printed on a billboard) so more than a little steep in value department. Not to mention people complain of the 135mm "being too long", a fixed focal length of 200mm not as versatile.