It's an excellent setup. There basically isn't much of anything that it shouldn't be able to do. If you have thoughts on where you want to go next, or questions about setup, the system, or photography in general, feel free to ask in another thread, or I guess just keep bumping this one.Well, I just ordered:
Godox Mini TT350S flash
A couple of tripods (one big and one small one with flexible legs)
B+W 77mm XS-Pro Ksm C Pol Nano filter
B+W 77mm XS-Pro UV Nano filter
Samsung 256gb EVO Plus
Lowepro ProTactic 450 AW bag
I was debating with myself if I should get Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 because it works with 77mm filters I ordered for my 24-105 lens. 12-24 doesn't accept screw-on filters. I don't like the huge square ones (and they are expensive).
But then I found out that I am a puritan and want Sony lens, not a bunch of random stuff. Guess I am getting myself into a Sony system now, eh?
This all cost me about €6000 excluding the bag. 300 euros more than I expected. Ebay and their currency conversion rates...
You're right I probably shelled out far more money than I needed, but I don't think I will regret it in the long run. I realized shortly after I made this thread that €1000-1500 ain't gonna cut it if I want to upgrade my camera.
Besides, in my opinion, I do not think that this is throwing away money. Sure I buy expensive stuff, but I am pretty careful about what I buy. I think gambing in Las Vegas or online is a far worse way to spend money
Sure. But you leave yourself open to retort!
We mostly agree. I would just say that generally I don't like Sigma for much of anything. Sigma is resolution generally at the cost of everything else. I'd rather have slightly less resolution and have much better rendering, boke, and color. The Sony Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 GM as an example has that 3D pop. The Sigma will never have it. On Canon I'd rather have the 35mm f1.4L II than the Sigma. But like all gear, it's preference.This is true when considering the lenses wide-open; however, the original 35/1.4L is still quite the performer stopped down, and it remains fairly light and compact for its type. The Sigma 35/1.4 | Art, Canon 35/2 IS and Tamron 35/1.8 VC are also all great alternatives, with the 35/2 IS being smallest and lightest and the 35/1.4 | Art being the sharpest (and largest and heaviest).
I'm not certain about this. I think the dxomark scores end up giving a nod more based upon the system it's on than purely just the glass. I'd say the big problem when comparing this lens and the 70-200mm below is that Nikon and Sony's sensors have more resolution, BSi, no AA filters, and just generally better image quality. Now, I could be entirely wrong, but I don't think that this offering from Sony here, or the Nikon 70-200mm listed below actually best what Canon offers. It's just that Canon's sensor tech isn't at parity. And while it's possible to test all of these lenses on Sony, most don't want to offer that sort of direct comparison due to system disadvantage.The 24-70/2.8L II is very good, and essentially second-best in the market behind Sony's latest 24-70/2.8GM, largely in terms of background rendering. For landscapes, the difference would likely be indiscernible.
I haven't seen anything on the 135L that isn't pin sharp wide open. I'm also not at all worried about distortion or CA. This stuff is corrected in camera these days or just as easily in software. If you want to buy a Zeiss 135 because it has more correction or a Cinema 135 for the same reason, great. But I think you'll run into diminishing returns incredibly quickly (that curve would drop steeply after the Canon 135L in my opinion in terms of additional dollars to performance). Especially when taking the Canon rendering into account.The 135L is compact and fast-focusing and plenty sharp, but it isn't pin-sharp on the latest bodies, and it still has significant longitudinal CA. A better example in this focal length is Sigma's 135/1.8 | Art, which is incredible, and their upcoming 105/1.4 | Art, which promises even better performance. Note that the Art lenses are large and heavy.
Is it possible to get other monster lenses of this type? Sure, the Sony 100mm STF GM is in this range, as is the Nikon 105 f/1.4, both of which have their advantages versus Canon's (albeit with different pros and cons, apertures etc). However this is all nerd talk. We can dive into "absolute numbers" but for me that is all besides the point. This is and continues to be a God lens because it has excellent character, beautiful boke, and amazing color wide open (and I will continue to be a contrarian and say it's plenty sharp). Are there other options, sharper options even? Sure, but once again I argue that that isn't the end-all-be-all. Sigma falls into this category to me. I think Sigma offers incredible bang-for-the-buck, and probably among the sharpest lenses of any system. But I don't like their rendering and color, etc, as I've already discussed. Other people have other preferences, hence why they buy Sigmas (like for that dollar to performance ratio).
Talked about a bit above. Long and the short the Nikon and Sony are great lenses, but I don't necessarily think they're better than the Canon, so much as I think their sensors are better than Canon's. I'm sure that each of the lenses trade blows in different areas (correction, stabilization, sharpness, vignetting, contrast, color, etc). But much like the discussion about 100's/135's above, I don't think there will be an absolute winner.It has been superseded in performance by Nikon's latest 70-200/2.8E VR, and the upcoming 'III' version will not make up that distance; however, that's not that big of a deal given how well the Canon already performs, and especially since it performs better than Sony's 70-200/2.8GM in the wild. Sony likely designed a better lens, but they shoved so much technology at such tight tolerances into the design that they can't actually make copies that live up to it. Also, if you have a 70-200/2.8, you don't really need the 135L, especially not for landscapes, unless you have a specific shot in mind and a hard weight limitation.
The 135L then is in that category, as the f/2 is something that the 70-200mm can't touch in terms of look. If you're a serious portrait guy, then having both lenses is totally valid. But it's NOT valid unless you're shooting the 135L wide open. If you're stopping it down, then I agree with you, you might as well just use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, because you're no longer getting the character that you wouldn't be able to get any other way.
I could also go onto a tangent about character of lenses as well, and get into some weird discussion about the Helios 44-2 58mm lens. But the long and the short, sharpness or other trumps in some areas to me never beat character and look. That's why people buy a Hasselblad/Zeiss, or Contax/Zeiss, or PhaseOne/Schneider, or Canon over a lot of the competitors.