# Difficulties choosing next L series



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Dec 16, 2012)

Just bought my first FF, and I am torn on my third L lens to purchase. As of now I have three lens: 50mm f/1.2, 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 100mm 2.8 macro.

As of now, my love seems to be anything dealing with long exposures. 

What to do, what to do?!?!

I am a sucker for sharpness, and don't mind pretending like my credit card is fake money, and then crying about it once I get bill.

I'm renting the 14mm 2.8 ii but unfortunately haven't been able to test it to my liking due to the continuous rain..

I guess what I'm asking is..what L series would you get that's under 24mm focal range?

I'm aware this question has probably been answered multiple times on here, but I'd rather someone on here repeat themselves over the same passion I possess than watch my girlfriend roll her eyes again with disinterest.

Thank you!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2012)

For sky/astro, the 24/1.4L II. For landscape/architecture, the TS-E 24/3.5L II.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 16, 2012)

For sharpness you should go for 70-200mm IS II - Really brilliant.
But in the focal length you are talking about I like the 17-40mm for it's quality at it's price.
17mm TS-E L is a wonderful lens too but the bulbous front always makes me nervous.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> For sky/astro, the 24/1.4L II. For landscape/architecture, the TS-E 24/3.5L II.


+1

Also if you want the versatility of a zoom, the 16-35 does a decent job (I'm not going to make it sound big though because I haven't had enough usage of this lens). 

The 17mm TS-E is a lovely option too.


----------



## pwp (Dec 17, 2012)

You need a practical response. You need a practical lens. Hopefully your 24-70 f2.8 is the MkII version, in which case you have a brilliant quality 24mm lens. Getting a 24 f/1.4II or 24 TS-E would be very nice, but until special needs reveal themselves, stick with the 24mm end of your zoom. 

Wider? The 14L is a brilliant piece of glass, but like the astounding 17TS-E it's somewhat limited for general use. Really, the 16-35 f/2.8LII is going to be a far more useful, robust lens than any of the lenses mentioned so far. The other lens to flesh out your collection is the lens that a great number of photographers consider their most used, best loved and almost standard lens...the 70-200 f/2.8isII. 

Sorry but here's the Dad in me....While you say you don't mind giving the credit card a good beating and say _"what the heck I'll worry about it later"_, keep your feet on the ground and spend responsibly. Most photographers add lenses as the need arises, not for what they think they may need at some future date. 

-PW


----------



## dswatson83 (Dec 17, 2012)

You should consider the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (very sharp lens) or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It is equivalent to an L lens in terms of build quality and the sharpness blows away anything else in that category. Just check out the sharpness tests in the reviews...Amazing so far: 

http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review


----------



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Dec 17, 2012)

After using the 14mm mk ii, I did realize how limited I was by it...even though seeing your frame that wide was impressive. I, of course, would like the 70-200, but I think as of now I'd get more from a wide angle lens. I might have to wait and hope the 14-24 is announced sooner than later...hopefully, if that lens does come out it'll be on par, sharpness wise, with the new 24-70...I'd really like to only have prime, but I guess I could settle for a little less sharpness for a little more general use.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 17, 2012)

GoodVendettaPhotography said:


> Just bought my first FF, and I am torn on my third L lens to purchase. As of now I have three lens: 50mm f/1.2, 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 100mm 2.8 macro.
> 
> As of now, my love seems to be anything dealing with long exposures.
> 
> ...



Hope you are not paying min on your credit card :-[.......if that is the case, I rather have no lens. Just my 2cents.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 17, 2012)

GoodVendettaPhotography said:


> Just bought my first FF, and I am torn on my third L lens to purchase. As of now I have three lens: 50mm f/1.2, 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 100mm 2.8 macro.
> 
> As of now, my love seems to be anything dealing with long exposures.
> 
> ...



For sub 24mm I'd be looking at one of the TSE lenses and the Zeiss 21mm. And for those kind of toys I only pay cash. Don't buy anything that you can't afford and don't need. Just saying.


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 17, 2012)

If you don't know what you need, chances are you really don't need it. I'd hold off until you feel like your creativity is being limited by your tools.

Since you said you like long exposures, I'm assuming you are using a smaller aperture: The 17-40 is very affordable, small, sharp stopped down and great for wide-angle landscape work. Another benefit is that using filters is easier with that lens since it's not all bulbous.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 17, 2012)

+1 for 16-35 II ...versatile, fills your wide angle needs, reasonably priced for the quality it delivers. Waiting for future 14-24mm based on rumors and even when true waiting for canon to deliver it on the shelves is rather silly. Having said that, Looking at your current lens lineup you can already do really high quality work through medium tele range, without further taxing your credit cards... Something to think about


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 17, 2012)

If you like autofocus, the 16-35mmL, otherwise the Carl Zeiss 15mm or the Canon 17mm TS-E are the finest lenses available for Canon DSLR's in the ultra wide range. I'm not a huge fan of manual focus, but reports and images from the 15mm Zeiss are amazing.is quite amazing. If I were in the market for a prime like this, I'd be wanting one of the two lenses above. However, I bought the 16-35mmL recently so I'll be keeping it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/850101-REG/Zeiss_1964831_Distagon_T_15mm_f_2_8.html

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-15mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 17, 2012)

GoodVendettaPhotography said:


> I guess what I'm asking is..what L series would you get that's under 24mm focal range?


The 14L. Or the 17TS-E. Or the 8-15L fisheye. Well, those are all of the L series under 24mm. And there are a couple of zooms that start under 24mm. Actually ... how do we give advice without knowing what you photograph? I agree with the comment that "If you don't know what you need, chances are you really don't need it."


----------



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Dec 17, 2012)

Thank you for your responses...it's a lot to think about! 16-35 ii seems like a good option...I'd still like to probably wait until spring to see what's coming down the pipeline. I know technology will continue to push forward in a speedy manner, but waiting a tad seems like a good idea since I bought the 1st version of the 24-70 3 months prior to the announcement of its newer improved second version. Thanks again.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 19, 2012)

I love my 16-35 for its versatility as a travel lens
non extending, weather sealed with filter quite light and compact
however I love the 20mm focal length for landscapes and have long been considering the 
zeiss 21mm which by all accounts is the king of sharpness
http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx


----------

