# Help Choosing My Next Lens? :)



## samueljay (Jul 18, 2012)

Just for a bit of fun, I thought I'd ask around to see what people would recommend as my next lens. You can see the lenses I currently own below  I was going to get the 85mm ƒ/1.2L USM II, however I have been thinking lately that the 50mm might have me covered for a while, and I should get something drastically different to add more variety in my line-up.

Should I get a macro? Or Maybe a tilt-shift (If so, what focal length? I've read that the longer a tilt shift lens the more exaggerated the effect, however only the 17 and 24mm's are L series), Wait for the new 24-70? Or get something a bit longer 135 or 300mm prime?

Any suggestions are welcome! Budget is around $2,500  Go nuts! And thank you in advance!

Also worth noting that 300mm was one of my favourite lengths on film, and I'd love to have that focal length, however I don't think I'll be able to afford the ƒ/2.8 version, is the ƒ/4L still a good lens? Or is it aging now? How does it compare to the new 70-300? (despite the obvious lack of a stop)


----------



## remsy_atassi (Jul 18, 2012)

If you want TS I say wider is better. The 17mm is a crazy good lens.

You are also missing the something like a 16-35 range. The 2.8 L 16-35 is amazing.

If you want a long zoom you could go with the 100-300L 4.5-5.6 IS, but it's not that much of an addition to your 70-200 and is slower.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2012)

> I have $500 budget to spend at Home Depot. Please recommend what power tool I should buy.



Get a snow blower. Oh wait, you didn't mention that you live in San Diego...

What I'm saying we need more information. You want to buy a lens...*to shoot what???*


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 18, 2012)

I'd consider the 16-35L and the 100L. The 16-35 is a nice UWA zoom and the the 100L opens you to macro photography. Both would open areas of different types of photography for you to explore. I wouldn't consider the TS lenses unless you are serious about landscape/architecture and have a good tripod system. Wider TS (17 and 24) are generally more useful for landscape/architecture esp. indoor. The TS 45 and 90 are typically more used for product photography. All TS lenses are manual focus only.

I'd skip getting a prime 300mm or longer -- it doesn't sound like it's a pressing need. If you want to extend your reach, you could consider getting an extender or two.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 18, 2012)

ok, so here we are:

1. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html - 779$
2. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/727169-USA/Sigma_320101_85mm_f_1_4_EX_DG.html - 969$
3. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/647011-GREY/Canon_3554B002_EF_100mm_f_2_8L_Macro.html - 979$

When you digg deeper, you'll get into your budget and have fun with new equipment until the end of this summer


----------



## distant.star (Jul 18, 2012)

.
Send me the $2500. I'll send you a lens.

Surprises are such fun!!

Seriously, as Big Brain intimates, if you're just a lens collector, it really doesn't make much difference. One fancy lens is as good as the next. If you're a photographer, you'll choose a lens because it will help you create a particular image that reflects your vision.

Perhaps you want to explore your vision before exploring the lens market.

Sorry to intrude on the fantasy.


----------



## bp (Jul 18, 2012)

ah, I miss the days of lens lust - having those lenses you eyeball for months and then finally buy and check the tracking number 10 times a day... nowadays, I've only got like ONE I might like to get at some point. boring

if I had your bag, and 2500 to blow, I'd probably pick up the 24L II and the 135L

or if I really wanted to toss some high mm telephoto in there and some macro, maybe the 100L and a 100-400L

...so many possibilities


----------



## mathino (Jul 18, 2012)

With your gear...

...I would get:

1.) 35L + 135L to have 35L / 50L / 135L prime "trinity"
2.) 16-35L + 100L macro - you have no UWA (expect fishy zoom)
3.) wait for 24-70 Mk II to be available, sell 24-105 L in favour of 24-70 Mk II and get 17-40L

These are my 3 scenarios/recomendations for you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2012)

mathino said:


> 1.) 35L + 135L to have 35L / 50L / 135L prime "trinity"



Actually, the 'holy trinity' of primes is generally stated as 35L, 85L II, and 135L.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

Agreed! The 50L is certainly not in the class of the prime trinity.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Agreed! The 50L is certainly not in the class of the prime trinity.



Does adding EF 200 F2 to them make it the holy quadrity?


----------



## mathino (Jul 18, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> mathino said:
> 
> 
> > 1.) 35L + 135L to have 35L / 50L / 135L prime "trinity"
> ...



I know that "holy trinity" is generally 35L / 85L / 135L  But in this case, OP could have his own. Seen his gear and budget, 85L will certainly come in future


----------



## mathino (Jul 18, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed! The 50L is certainly not in the class of the prime trinity.
> ...



Could be  But average mortal have to sell a kidney to get one


----------



## bp (Jul 18, 2012)

mathino said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Ooof, yeah, the 200 f/2 takes the "trinity" to a whole new level of awesome. drool
And, if you're immortal, you wouldn't need your kidney, so definitely sell that #$%&


----------



## mathino (Jul 18, 2012)

bp said:


> mathino said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...




Sorry, I ment mortal    Corrected


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 18, 2012)

mathino said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Oh, come on - it's cheaper than 1DX. I'm not looking for the fifth in the row - 400 f2.8 II  This one should be offered with an extra trip to Japan


----------



## mathino (Jul 18, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> mathino said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...



Yeah and with a trip to Canon factories to see how stuff is made


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 18, 2012)

mathino said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > mathino said:
> ...



That's exactly what I meant. The more practical, that probably all the buyers could fit into one plane


----------



## drjlo (Jul 18, 2012)

I'll vote for 85L II on the 5D III. I have the 50L, too, but when push comes to shove and I *need* absolutely sterling and unmatched results in studio and portraits, the 85L II is the one.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> mathino said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...


Yeah and with a free selection of a second similar big white lens ;D


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 18, 2012)

base on your gear information, i guess that suggest you to buy the following:

1. 16-35mm
2. 100mm Macro

note: another thing that i need to mention that you probably do not need 24-70mm since you already have 24-105mm. you probably ask me why? first, you are having 5d mark III. second, i see there is no need to get extra stop in aperture to give up 3 IS stop when you are holding a good low light support in your hand. third, you are having lens with large aperture 50mm and 85mm. if you want more shallow depth of field with 24-105, try to get closer to your subject with both your feet and zoom 

assuming that you do not interested in shooting bird. as if you do, $2500 is not enough


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Agreed! The 50L is certainly not in the class of the prime trinity.



+1...I'm waiting for version II L, but whennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn?


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 19, 2012)

+1 for 100L Macro, it's relatively cheap for L glass and a lot of fun to use, plus you'd still have +/- $1500 left over for something else. Maybe the 16-35L if you wanted something ultra wide, or the 24L II if you use that focal length a lot. 

I saw you mentioned the 85L and 135L, but considering you have the 70-200 II already i have trouble recommending those, that lens is a freak for a zoom, ridiculously sharp. Then again the 85 would give you a few extra stops and the bokeh is out of this world, but I don't see it getting much use with the other lenses you have.


----------



## samueljay (Jul 19, 2012)

remsy_atassi said:


> If you want TS I say wider is better. The 17mm is a crazy good lens.
> 
> You are also missing the something like a 16-35 range. The 2.8 L 16-35 is amazing.
> 
> If you want a long zoom you could go with the 100-300L 4.5-5.6 IS, but it's not that much of an addition to your 70-200 and is slower.


Thanks remsy, it's cool to hear that about the 17mm, I'll definitely be checking it out! The only thing that worries me about that lens is the front element, like the fisheye it protrudes (albiet quite a bit more  ) I know I'd be paranoid about not damaging it  Cool! Yeah that is an area I'm missing too, however with rumours of a 14-24 I might hold off just a bit longer to see if anything eventuates there 


neuroanatomist said:


> > I have $500 budget to spend at Home Depot. Please recommend what power tool I should buy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry Neuro, I thought I mentioned that I was after something to add a bit of variety to the lenses I currently own. I have no specific subject that I want to shoot, I have my camera on me most of the time, and just shoot whatever takes my interest. Basically, I'm just asking what lens would you recommend that is not too similar to what I currently own. Hence why I mentioned Macro as a possibility, or Tilt Shift.


Random Orbits said:


> I'd consider the 16-35L and the 100L. The 16-35 is a nice UWA zoom and the the 100L opens you to macro photography. Both would open areas of different types of photography for you to explore. I wouldn't consider the TS lenses unless you are serious about landscape/architecture and have a good tripod system. Wider TS (17 and 24) are generally more useful for landscape/architecture esp. indoor. The TS 45 and 90 are typically more used for product photography. All TS lenses are manual focus only.
> 
> I'd skip getting a prime 300mm or longer -- it doesn't sound like it's a pressing need. If you want to extend your reach, you could consider getting an extender or two.


Thanks Random Orbits! The 100L does look great, it's a must get for me, the question is when though  I've been wanting to do some macro stuff for a long time, and I've never owned a proper Macro lens (had trouble finding one for the minolta system a while back when I was looking), it's definitely on the list to get  Awesome, thanks for the advice re: tilt shifts, I'd love to try a bit more landscape stuff, especially when I start to travel! No dramas on manual focus only, I've come from manual-only 

Yeah, well I love taking my camera to the football (Australian Rules Football), and having something longer would be nice, but extenders is a good idea too! 


marekjoz said:


> ok, so here we are:
> 
> 1. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html - 779$
> 2. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/727169-USA/Sigma_320101_85mm_f_1_4_EX_DG.html - 969$
> ...


Thanks marekjoz!  All cool options, and the 100L is definitely on the list to get  17-40 is a good option too! Definitely going to get one of the UWA zooms (16-35, 17-40 or the rumoured 14-24) 


distant.star said:


> .
> Send me the $2500. I'll send you a lens.
> 
> Surprises are such fun!!
> ...


Hahaha nice one distant star  No, not a lens collector by any stretch, just trying to build up a nice kit. I've just started buying a few lenses, and just wanted to gauge whether there was an obvious must-have lens that I should be getting next. If you want to see what sort of stuff I do take photos of feel free to check out my tumblr, I may not be a photographer by your standards, I just take photos of things that catch my eye day to day, a bit of street, bit of portrait, some landscape, animals, sports, anything really.

www.samueljmitchell.tumblr.com


bp said:


> ah, I miss the days of lens lust - having those lenses you eyeball for months and then finally buy and check the tracking number 10 times a day... nowadays, I've only got like ONE I might like to get at some point. boring
> 
> if I had your bag, and 2500 to blow, I'd probably pick up the 24L II and the 135L
> 
> ...


Haha tell me about it, having so little lenses, there's so many amazing ones to lust over  I'm really happy with the ones I've chosen so far though, the 24-105 was great as a kit lens to start with, good range, and IQ. The 70-200 has been amazing for sports, the 50 I adore as a walk around and for people, and the 8-15 is just all kinds of awesome fun  Thanks for the tips bp!


mathino said:


> With your gear...
> 
> ...I would get:
> 
> ...


Thanks Mathino! All three are very appealing options!  And all contain lenses I'd love to own at some stage or another!


drjlo said:


> I'll vote for 85L II on the 5D III. I have the 50L, too, but when push comes to shove and I *need* absolutely sterling and unmatched results in studio and portraits, the 85L II is the one.


Thanks drjlo! It's what I originally had in mind, as I love taking portraits, just didn't know whether it was worth getting it when I already have the 50mm, nice to know you have both, and grab the 85 over the 50 for portraits 


ishdakuteb said:


> base on your gear information, i guess that suggest you to buy the following:
> 
> 1. 16-35mm
> 2. 100mm Macro
> ...


Hey ishdakuteb! Thanks for your post, and taking the time  Both are lenses I want to own at some time, thanks heaps! Also, re: 24-105 and 24-70, while I do like the 24-105, and don't miss / find myself wishing for an extra stop, I find that it lacks a bit on the long end. It's just not quite as sharp as I'd like it to be, it could be my copy too, not sure, but I like the idea of the new 25-70 having such amazing image quality  haha who wouldn't?


Axilrod said:


> +1 for 100L Macro, it's relatively cheap for L glass and a lot of fun to use, plus you'd still have +/- $1500 left over for something else. Maybe the 16-35L if you wanted something ultra wide, or the 24L II if you use that focal length a lot.
> 
> I saw you mentioned the 85L and 135L, but considering you have the 70-200 II already i have trouble recommending those, that lens is a freak for a zoom, ridiculously sharp. Then again the 85 would give you a few extra stops and the bokeh is out of this world, but I don't see it getting much use with the other lenses you have.


Thanks Axilrod! As for having money left over, the plan is to just get one lens at a time, and use it for a minimum of one month before getting something else. The 100L Macro is definitely up the top with the 85mm  Also the 40mm ƒ/2.8 pancake is one that I really want  Thanks for your suggestions, and comments, true RE: the 70-200mm, that lens never ceases to impress me, it's just a massive lens to cart around 

Thanks again everyone, tossing up between the 100L Macro and the 85L which is sort of where I was at the start, but thanks again, really appreciate you all taking the time!
Cheers,
Sam.


----------



## nairfotografia (Jul 19, 2012)

i d totally get the 16-35 mm f2.8 L 
totally awesome lens
you are lacking the focal length in that range...the 8-15 is nice but i really don't like the vignetting at 8-14 mm....


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 19, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed! The 50L is certainly not in the class of the prime trinity.
> ...



-1. The 50L is the best part of my Prime trinity. 8)


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 19, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> You want to see how the silicon powder turns to a super telephoto in Canon factory? You don't even need a trip to the factory, Here is one on youtube:



Yes, but it's like seeing others' lenses instead of having them own


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jul 23, 2012)

samueljay said:


> Just for a bit of fun, I thought I'd ask around to see what people would recommend as my next lens. You can see the lenses I currently own below  I was going to get the 85mm ƒ/1.2L USM II, however I have been thinking lately that the 50mm might have me covered for a while... Any suggestions are welcome! Budget is around $2,500  Go nuts! And thank you in advance!



The 85 f1.2L or 135 f2L provide results you just can not get from any zoom contains the same focal length. My preference is the 135, but you should evaluate both.






135 f2 1/5,000 @ f2



samueljay said:


> Also worth noting that 300mm was one of my favourite lengths on film, and I'd love to have that focal length, however I don't think I'll be able to afford the ƒ/2.8 version, is the ƒ/4L still a good lens?



On the 5D3, the 300 f4 is very good, very fast focusing and provides excellent results and better reach than with a 200mm. With your budget, you could get both the 135 and 300 and greatly enhance your kit.





300 f4 1/3,200 @ f4

I loved the results from the 300 f4, but just last week I picked up a used 300 f2.8L IS and am selling the f4 (on eBay this week). With the new 300 f2.8L IS 2 out there are a lot of good used lens opportunities out there right now.


----------

