# What should I upgrade? I can't be done, can I?



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

I have about *$870 in cash* (and that figure will grow with time) and I'd sell whatever lens I would upgrade... 

First things first - gear: 
Bodies:
I have a *5D mkiii* that I'm VERY happy with and as I have stated before, I don't think I would upgrade to the mkiv regardless of how much of an upgrade it is over the mkiii. I also picked up an *Xti* for my daughter for around $15 so I have a back up (Ferrari to a Pinto) if the mkiii temporarily dies on me. I doubt I'll ever use the xti, but it is good to have. 

Lenses in order of focal length:
*Rokinon 8mm fisheye lens*. I don't really do much fisheye photography... but it is fun to bend light from time to time. I'd actually like to get a extension tube so I can get MFD down to zero and also turn the fisheye from semi-circular to where the image covers the entire frame. I have zero interest in upgrading this lens to a better fisheye (Sigma or Canon).

*24-105mm f/4L IS USM*. I think this is the likely candidate for upgrade. 24mm is more than wide enough for my purposes and while I might be interested in doing some free-lance real-estate images (and 24mm isn't wide enough), I would do it if I could use their lenses but I don't want to invest in a *16-35 or a 17-40* because I WOULDN'T USE IT personally. I have zero interest in the *24-70 f/4L IS Macro*. I think the logical upgrade is to the *24-70mm f/2.8L mkii.* But I'm also interested in the new *Sigma 24-70mm f/2*... but maybe that isn't sharp wide open and you wind up having to stop it down to f/2.8 anyway. 

Here's the rub though... I don't use the 24-105 that often. Maybe it is because it isn't that sharp, maybe I just don't like the focal length, maybe it is because I don't want to have to bounce flash. It's a mystery and investing $2000 in a lens that I don't use that often seems like a poor use of resources. 

If I can sell the 24-105 for $700, then I'll have around $1600 which is spitting distance as far as I'm concerned.

*Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM*. This is the other option. I was thinking about getting the *135mm f/2L* before I found the 85mm for $275. I like portraiture a lot, but I also have a baby on the way and I think 135mm on the full frame will be too long. I'm not that fond of the near 3 ft I have to deal with in terms of minimum focusing distance, but I can work around that for the time being. I also have an itch for the *85mm f/1.2L mkii*. But if I sell the 85mm f/1.8 for $400 (which is a touch unlikely), then I'll be at $1200 and I wouldn't call that spitting distance. 

*Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii*. I love the lens... it is my favorite... it isn't going anywhere. Occasionally I think I might like a little bit more reach, maybe a *300mm f/4L or a 400mm f/5.6L*, but more likely than not, I'll just invest in a *Canon 1.4 teleconvertor, mkii*. So let's call that $250... so I'll be at $600ish cash and further away from either the 85mm f/1.2L or the 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii. 

2nd things second - What do I shoot:
I shoot a bit of everything. Mostly I shoot my daughter in candids and portraits, which is why the 24-70 would be nice as well as the 135mm and the 85 f/1.2. I also shoot sports and action photography, some of which is indoors. So I know the 135 is so much faster for auto focus than the 85, but I question whether I would go to the 135 over the 70-200... and yes it is an extra stop of light, but the iso performance of the mkiii is really quite good, and I can clean it up the grain in lightroom.

I also shoot different events like music recitals, birthday parties, and the like... most of which are indoors. 

I don't do real estate as I said before, but $50 for a house doesn't sound like a bad deal (I'm guessing at the pay). I don't do landscape as a focus... but if something looks nice, sure I'll throw the lens to 24mm and I'll take a few shots... maybe use bracketing to do some HDR and then use light room to fix the distortion. 

So there it is. Money is burning a hole in my pocket and I don't think I have a REAL need. So, where would the best bang for my buck upgrade be?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

No, you're not done. 

I'd get the 135L... (I did, in fact.)


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, you're not done.
> 
> I'd get the 135L... (I did, in fact.)



I can probably get the 1.4x and the 135L... but I had a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro that I sold because my everything from 100-200mm was now the responsibility of the 70-200mm. (I didn't do any macro worth mentioning). Ever since I had the Canon XS with a 18-55, a 75-300, and a 50mm f/1.8, I have heard about the magic bokeh of the 135L. Damn magic!


----------



## ahab1372 (Aug 7, 2013)

if you are not sure about a lens to upgrade, why not invest in a trip to a great location?


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> if you are not sure about a lens to upgrade, why not invest in a trip to a great location?



The wife decides the vacation itinerary. Here's my contribution, "We are going where? When? Ok."


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 7, 2013)

Your signature STILL show bunch of crap 

If I'm you:
XS -> 60D  -> 5d Mkiii : 18-55  -> 24-105L  : 75-300mm  -> 55-250mm  -> 70-300mm  -> 70-200mm f4L USM  -> 70-200mm f/2.8L USM  -> 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mkii : 50mm f/1.8 -> 50mm f/1.4 -> 100mm f/2.8L macro  -> 85mm f/1.8 USM  & 8mm fisheye for kicks.

Your new setup:
24-70 II - 70-200 f2.8 IS II - 85L II - 50 f1.4 - x2 III


----------



## BL (Aug 7, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I like portraiture a lot, but I also have a baby on the way and I think 135mm on the full frame will be too long. I'm not that fond of the near 3 ft I have to deal with in terms of minimum focusing distance, but I can work around that for the time being. I also have an itch for the *85mm f/1.2L mkii*.



if you like close focusing, you're going to be sorely disappointed with the 85 II.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Aug 7, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Your signature STILL show bunch of crap
> 
> If I'm you:
> XS -> 60D  -> 5d Mkiii : 18-55  -> 24-105L  : 75-300mm  -> 55-250mm  -> 70-300mm  -> 70-200mm f4L USM  -> 70-200mm f/2.8L USM  -> 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mkii : 50mm f/1.8 -> 50mm f/1.4 -> 100mm f/2.8L macro  -> 85mm f/1.8 USM  & 8mm fisheye for kicks.
> ...



agreed. 

If you want to upgrade something, first ask yourself what you CANNOT do with the gear you have. That should help you decide what's next. 

Personally, it sounds like you have too much gear but I do understand the desire to upgrade. I'm a gear head, too. Lately, I've been trying to slim down my arsenal.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 7, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> So there it is. Money is burning a hole in my pocket and I don't think I have a REAL need. So, where would the best bang for my buck upgrade be?



You have some excellent equipment. Not sure you really need to upgrade anything. That said, I'm in the same boat and am always asking the same question... 



jdramirez said:


> 24-105mm f/4L IS USM[/b]. I think this is the likely candidate for upgrade... 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii
> 
> 135mm f/2L[/b][/b] before I found the 85mm for $275. I like portraiture a lot, but I also have a baby on the way and I think 135mm on the full frame will be too long.



I purchased a 24-70 2.8 II roughly 6 weeks ago. My intent was to sell my 24-105 after I got the 24-70, but I've found I still use the 24-105 quite a bit. I use the 24-70 mostly indoors and in poor lighting and the 24-105 outdoors and for things like festivals and hiking expeditions. I've tried the 24-70 for these types of events, but I miss the reach and IS of the 105. I might add that I have a exceptionally sharp copy of the 24-105 lens, it is close to the 24-70 in sharpness from 35-70mm, but the 24-70 is quite a bit sharper with less distortion at 24mm.

I agree with those recommending a 135L. I also own a 70-200 2.8 II, and as much as I love it, I tend to use the 135L more. The 70-200 is a heavy beast and I tend to use it mostly indoors these days. I prefer the 135L as a carry around lens due to its small size and lack of white paint. The 135 and the 24-105 with a 1.4III extender have become my primary outdoor, day outing kit. 

I borrowed a 70-300L recently for a trip and really fell in love with that lens for travel. Its next on my personal lens wish list.


----------



## RC (Aug 7, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Your signature STILL show bunch of crap
> 
> If I'm you:
> XS -> 60D  -> 5d Mkiii : 18-55  -> 24-105L  : 75-300mm  -> 55-250mm  -> 70-300mm  -> 70-200mm f4L USM  -> 70-200mm f/2.8L USM  -> 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mkii : 50mm f/1.8 -> 50mm f/1.4 -> 100mm f/2.8L macro  -> 85mm f/1.8 USM  & 8mm fisheye for kicks.
> ...



What I would do too except I'd go with the 100L over the 85L II (and maybe the 1.4x over the 2x)


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Your signature STILL show bunch of crap
> 
> If I'm you:
> XS -> 60D  -> 5d Mkiii : 18-55  -> 24-105L  : 75-300mm  -> 55-250mm  -> 70-300mm  -> 70-200mm f4L USM  -> 70-200mm f/2.8L USM  -> 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mkii : 50mm f/1.8 -> 50mm f/1.4 -> 100mm f/2.8L macro  -> 85mm f/1.8 USM  & 8mm fisheye for kicks.
> ...



I guess my signature isn't as easy to read as I had hoped.

it shows my upgrade path... not what I presently have. 

I step up incrementally as can be seen.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

BL said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I like portraiture a lot, but I also have a baby on the way and I think 135mm on the full frame will be too long. I'm not that fond of the near 3 ft I have to deal with in terms of minimum focusing distance, but I can work around that for the time being. I also have an itch for the *85mm f/1.2L mkii*.
> ...


I saw that... 3 ft. I can live with it for the quality and then crop in post.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 7, 2013)

You know you want the 100L back. Just because it can go to 1:1 doesn't mean you have to use it at 1:1.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> You know you want the 100L back. Just because it can go to 1:1 doesn't mean you have to use it at 1:1.



I do miss it, but I think that is more because I develop an emotional attachment to my gear.


----------



## agierke (Aug 7, 2013)

I'm of the mind that you buy gear based on what you feel you can't do. I don't upgrade simply for the sake of upgrading.

So you have money burning a hole in your pocket but have you considered upgrading your savings account? Maybe upgrade your kids college tuition fund? Just a thought...maybe you have those things locked up already.

Of course there's always the keep what you have and upgrade your photography option. I don't recall ever seeing your work posted so I don't know if you need this option or not.

I'm not being facetious about this either. These should be serious considerations for us all.

I would recommend downgrading you sig though. It's confusing and not very useful to know what you used to have but don't have anymore. Just show what you currently have.


----------



## tog13 (Aug 7, 2013)

You could try something a little different: pick up another used Rebel for $400 and then get it converted to infrared. I did that with my 10D and I've had decent fun with it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 7, 2013)

A 24-70mm and perhaps a speedlite would finish your kit.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

tog13 said:


> You could try something a little different: pick up another used Rebel for $400 and then get it converted to infrared. I did that with my 10D and I've had decent fun with it.


 would I use it to hunt the deadliest prey, man?

I wouldn't mind the predator style dreadlocks, but the face leaves much to be desired.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

agierke said:


> I'm of the mind that you buy gear based on what you feel you can't do. I don't upgrade simply for the sake of upgrading.
> 
> So you have money burning a hole in your pocket but have you considered upgrading your savings account? Maybe upgrade your kids college tuition fund? Just a thought...maybe you have those things locked up already.
> 
> ...



I like learning piece meal. I'd be bored in a photography class though I openly admit I still have a great deal to learn. 

as for the signature... I think the path to the destination is far more intriguing than the destination... but we can just differ on that point.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> A 24-70mm and perhaps a speedlite would finish your kit.



I have a 580ex but I would like another two speedlites, but I can wait in those.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 7, 2013)

Ahhh you have got a classic case of gear acquisition syndrome.... This is what I tell my assistants who have the same issue... DONT BUY ANYTHING... Learn you gear and learn to make the absolute most of your gear... once you get to the point you absolutely without a doubt cannot get what you want because of your gear, then and only then at that point upgrade gear... but dont buy just to buy because you have money burning a hole in your pocket.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 7, 2013)

If the minimum focal distance of the 135L is too long, it's even worse with the 85L where you have the same mfd coupled with a shorter focal length. If you want to get in closer, and get similar blur/bokeh, you need your 100L back....


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Ahhh you have got a classic case of gear acquisition syndrome.... This is what I tell my assistants who have the same issue... DONT BUY ANYTHING... Learn you gear and learn to make the absolute most of your gear... once you get to the point you absolutely without a doubt cannot get what you want because of your gear, then and only then at that point upgrade gear... but dont buy just to buy because you have money burning a hole in your pocket.



if I don't spend it, then the wife will. what kind of mount is a luios voiton purse... I tell you, a worthless one.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 7, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh you have got a classic case of gear acquisition syndrome.... This is what I tell my assistants who have the same issue... DONT BUY ANYTHING... Learn you gear and learn to make the absolute most of your gear... once you get to the point you absolutely without a doubt cannot get what you want because of your gear, then and only then at that point upgrade gear... but dont buy just to buy because you have money burning a hole in your pocket.
> ...



lol.... gotcha... use it or lose it kinda thing... Just remember these words of wisdom... a happy wife leads to a happy life... a pissed off wife leads to hell. =) Happy spending lol


----------



## sawsedge (Aug 7, 2013)

1st, open another bank account and drop your extra cash in it so it can't be spent.

2nd, think long and hard about wants vs needs. As others have asked, what do you want to do that you CANNOT do now?


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 7, 2013)

sdsr said:


> If the minimum focal distance of the 135L is too long, it's even worse with the 85L where you have the same mfd coupled with a shorter focal length. If you want to get in closer, and get similar blur/bokeh, you need your 100L back....



Plus the 135 has no stabilization... i've had too many assistants blow shots because of camera shake with this lens... swap out my 100L and there's no camera shake... I've since banned my assistants from using that lens unless they have a monopod/tripod... not worth the risk.


----------



## agierke (Aug 7, 2013)

> a happy wife leads to a happy life



upgrade her dinner plans this weekend and maybe she will upgrade your goodnight kiss.

sry...couldnt resist.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 7, 2013)

I didn't read everything you posted, but I did not spot any mention of lighting. Lighting is a area where a huge improvement can be made. 

Think about lighting more than about new lenses.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 7, 2013)

agierke said:


> > a happy wife leads to a happy life
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hahaha... +100


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

sawsedge said:


> 1st, open another bank account and drop your extra cash in it so it can't be spent.
> 
> 2nd, think long and hard about wants vs needs. As others have asked, what do you want to do that you CANNOT do now?



are you Suzie Orman in disguise? 

some might say to invest in a 18-200 and that is the only lens I'll ever need. 

I say that I'm willing to pay for the best and there is no shame in doing so.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > > a happy wife leads to a happy life
> ...



she's preggo... and not the kind that makes her amorous...


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

sdsr said:


> If the minimum focal distance of the 135L is too long, it's even worse with the 85L where you have the same mfd coupled with a shorter focal length. If you want to get in closer, and get similar blur/bokeh, you need your 100L back....



where were you with that advice last month before I sold it? I really did like that lens. getting another copy isn't out of the question, but it would be like admitting a mistake... and I don't do that very well.


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 7, 2013)

As for your wish for more length, I intend to address that with a GOOD crop body. Either the 7D2, or maybe just a 70d if the 7d2 is not dramatically better than 70d.

I don't want to divert $9k or $12k into a long lens, and I don't want a compromise IQ long lens. I figure the 1.6 crop X my 1.4 teleconverter on the 70-20 2.8 IS mk 2 gives plenty reach (and zooming flexibility) for my girls' soccer. I have no interest in birds outside the aviary.

70d has the 7d AF so it might be the economy route.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> As for your wish for more length, I intend to address that with a GOOD crop body. Either the 7D2, or maybe just a 70d if the 7d2 is not dramatically better than 70d.
> 
> I don't want to divert $9k or $12k into a long lens, and I don't want a compromise IQ long lens. I figure the 1.6 crop X my 1.4 teleconverter on the 70-20 2.8 IS mk 2 gives plenty reach (and zooming flexibility) for my girls' soccer. I have no interest in birds outside the aviary.
> 
> 70d has the 7d AF so it might be the economy route.



I had a 60d and really liked it. and in good light the Canon 18mp sensor did as good of a job as the mkiii. I didn't like the lack of afma, but I have seen some 7d's sell for around 750 used... and I can definitely see getting one of those for outdoor day events. 

200x1.4x1.6= 448mm. Seems like a great option.


----------



## Dantana (Aug 7, 2013)

Do you shoot much with the 85mm f/1.8 USM? What about it makes you want to upgrade to the L? I haven't shot with the 1.2, but I love the 85 1.8, and I have read posts from many who have used both who still like the 1.8. Not saying it's better, just that maybe upgrading a different focal length first (like the 135) would be more beneficial.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 7, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> some might say to invest in a 18-200 and that is the only lens I'll ever need.



got one..... it really makes me appreciate my 70-200....


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 7, 2013)

Dantana said:


> Do you shoot much with the 85mm f/1.8 USM? What about it makes you want to upgrade to the L? I haven't shot with the 1.2, but I love the 85 1.8, and I have read posts from many who have used both who still like the 1.8. Not saying it's better, just that maybe upgrading a different focal length first (like the 135) would be more beneficial.



I picked up the 85mm f/1.8 about 2 weeks ago... so I really haven't had an opportunity to run it through its paces. I actually wanted it more as a portrait lens for when the baby finally arrives. Something sharp... nice shallow depth of field, etc. 

No baby... no subject other than dolls... and that is a touch boring. I looked at the reports, and I know the f/1.8 is really really nice and it basically compares with the f/1.2 at almost all apertures. So is it worth paying $1500ish for a stop of light, slower auto focus, and shallower depth of field. Kinda. I won't make money off the lens, but if I have it for 3 years and I sell it for about what I paid for it, then it will be like I rented it for free. The money is in an escrow account and I can tap into those funds whenever I want. 

I am not mesmerized by red rings (I'd never even consider a 50mm f/1.2L or a 17-40mm f/4L), but I can respect the fact that some of the lenses are that expensive for a reason. That is the same reason they hold their value well. 

I appreciate all of ya'lls help... but I'm not sure that I'm any closer to making a decision on the matter.


----------



## ahab1372 (Aug 8, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I appreciate all of ya'lls help... but I'm not sure that I'm any closer to making a decision on the matter.


Something entirely different maybe? Lensbaby?


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 8, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > You know you want the 100L back. Just because it can go to 1:1 doesn't mean you have to use it at 1:1.
> ...



Perhaps, but I find myself toting around the 100L a lot more often then just for macro shooting. The max mag spec for the 70-200 II and the 135L are low. A zoom gives you a form of compositional freedom, a fast prime gives you a DOF and low light freedoms, and a macro gives you magnification freedom. I've found quite a few instances where I'm framed a shot with the 135 or 70-200 and it wont' focus because I'm too close...


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 8, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I appreciate all of ya'lls help... but I'm not sure that I'm any closer to making a decision on the matter.
> ...



I see them occasionally on Craigslist... and I know people swear by tilt shifts... but I don't think it is something I would want unless they are practically giving them away.


----------



## Grumbaki (Aug 8, 2013)

Step out from home with your 860$ cash, gear, a bag for clothes and stuff, no car. Only come back when the cash is all spent on living expense wherever your pictures take you. Gonzo!


----------

