# What will be your next lens - and can you post a photo to explain why?



## Deva (Jun 3, 2013)

We all have different reasons for the lenses we choose to buy - some prefer fast lenses, some image stabilised, some go for weight - and some for price. We all have in our minds what our "next lens" will be - but I was wondering what is determining your choice - and whether you can illustrate your reason with an existing photo, and explain why your next lens would have made it so much better/easier/sharper/etc.

To kick things off, my choices of lens so far have mainly been driven by widening my available focal lengths - in other words, increasing my options. Now I can cover the range from 8mm to 300mm, my next lens will be one of the TS-E's, primarily to help straighten out my converging verticals, as you can see from the photo.

So what will be your next lens - and can you post a photo (possibly by definition one you're not happy with) to explain why?


----------



## archiea (Jun 3, 2013)

TOUGHIE because I'm not getting a new lens (hear that heart, the brain is telling you NO MORE NEW LENSES!) because I don't need a new one... However, it I were to get a new lens based on what I WANT.... well, I'll give you three.. hehe... 

Ok OK, lets get the obvious out of the way... we all want to date a supermodel, drive a super car, and yes, own a super telephoto.. well.. THE super telephoto.. the current star of Glass 200-400.. Why? mainly because of Photographer Andy Rouse's fantastic review (his review was fantastic, not just the lens) of the new 200-400:
http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174

Specifically these two photos that he would have missed had he not had a lever to switch on the 1.4x converter, and instead had to swap lenses. 










Again these images belong to ANDY ROUSE and he claims he would had missed these two images because a 600mm would have been too tight or swapping lenses he would have missed he moment. again, the flick of a switch you get a 1.4x converted that is optically superior to an external extender. 

The other would be the 85mm f1.2. There's plenty of images online that show its merits... no need to repeat the obvious!


----------



## bycostello (Jun 4, 2013)

wide angle for landscapes maybe.... i'll post the pic when i get the lens!!


----------



## Grumbaki (Jun 4, 2013)

Exactly the same as you OP!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2013)

Most likely the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. I've moved beyond expanding my focal range (coverage for 16mm to 600mm, or 1200mm if you count extenders), faster apertures (have f/1.2), dedicated macro (100L and MP-E 65mm), tilt/shift (TS-E 24L II). Now it's mostly about having the right tool for the job. The 24-70 II and 70-200 II make a wonderful combination, but the 70-200 II is big and heavy (as is the 100-400L) and on trips I generally need longer than 200mm, need f/2.8 less at the long end, and don't have time to fiddle with TCs. I have the 28-300L, and IMO, its IQ is equivalent to the 24-105L through the respective ranges - very good, but not the best possible. Since getting the 24-70 II, the 24-105 sat untouched...until I picked it up today to sell it off (which I did). Having upped the IQ at the wide end of the range, I'm looking to do the same at the long end, albeit by trading the convenience of a one-lens solution. I'd also gain the benefit of f/2.8 in the standard range, vs. f/4-4.5 for a good chunk of that. The 24-70 II and 70-300 L together are only ~2 oz more than the 28-300L, and either will fit in a Lowepro Lens Exchange 100 AW (meaning camera and one lens on a Spider Holster on the right side of the belt, the Lens Exchange with the other lens on the left, and easy mid-air changes).

So, no pics to show - the 28-300L is serviceable, delivers very good IQ in a convenient package, just looking to trade a little of that convenience for better IQ.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 4, 2013)

I will be getting the 400 f/2.8 ii, though I must admit that I do have my eye on the 200-400 but as it is not f/2.8 I doubt I will be swayed away from my original plan. I am getting it as I need the reach, speed an IQ for shooting sports. It won't be used for much else.


----------



## vbi (Jun 4, 2013)

The 200-400L as it suits my style of shooting wildlife better than a 400L, 500L or 600L as one can't control the distance to wild animals. I have a 100-400 and while it is quite good I have always wanted that big white clarity and bokeh.


----------



## birtembuk (Jun 4, 2013)

I think my next lens is (and providing it lives up to those high expectations) ... a 7D2. I hate to swap lens when outdoors. There's always mist, rain, dust, and never enough time. Having a solid APS-C performer together with a FF offer lots of possible combinations to cover most my focal needs on a specific photo trip. I find my current 60D fine but a bit limited for that matter.


----------



## Pi (Jun 4, 2013)

I will probably get a TSE lens as well but ... have you tried software geometric corrections? I am not saying that this is as good as a TSE lens (it is not) but you might be surprised how well it works. I am more interested in the ability of the TSE lenses to change the plane of focus. Well, there is a software solution for that, too, focus stacking.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jun 4, 2013)

It would be a choice between the 300 2.8ii and the 400 2.8ii with a leaning toward the latter.


----------



## Deva (Jun 4, 2013)

I find it interesting that all the responses so far seem largely to be based on rationale (thinking/logical) rather than emotional (feeling/heartfelt) arguments - the abililty to change focal lengths quickly, to reduce weight/improve IQ over a particular focal range, to avoid having to swap lenses, etc.

Given how much advertising money is spent on appealing to both head and heart, I'm wondering what this says about the average Canon rumors respondent? I find that however logical I may be in my reasons for wanting a lens, ultimately I find it is an emotional decision ("I really want (_not need_) that lens") that will trigger the actual purchase.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> I will probably get a TSE lens as well but ... have you tried software geometric corrections? I am not saying that this is as good as a TSE lens (it is not) but you might be surprised how well it works. I am more interested in the ability of the TSE lenses to change the plane of focus. Well, there is a software solution for that, too, focus stacking.




Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.

At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.

To keep in the spirit of the thread, mine would be a 50mm f1.4 IS because I like the neutral perspective from the 50mm on FF, and I'm a lazy git who inevitably arrives late and has to shoot in a panic as the sun is rapidly descending below the horizon, without time to set up the tripod..........


----------



## Click (Jun 4, 2013)

The 600 f4 L II ...to get more reach.


----------



## vbi (Jun 4, 2013)

Deva said:


> I find it interesting that all the responses so far seem largely to be based on rationale (thinking/logical) rather than emotional (feeling/heartfelt) arguments - the abililty to change focal lengths quickly, to reduce weight/improve IQ over a particular focal range, to avoid having to swap lenses, etc.



I think we are just rationalising our emotions. Will the 200-400 be 7,000 GBP better than my 100-400? Probably not...but I want one and so I say that I am looking for better IQ and bokeh.


----------



## Deva (Jun 4, 2013)

> Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.
> 
> At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.



Having looked at your website, I can only say that I aspire to be able to take pictures as beautiful as yours. If you hadn't said, I would have assumed almost all of the building pictures were taken with a TS lens, so I'm intrigued that you don't. What do you use to correct the perspective?

Am I right in thinking that most make use of (carefully managed) HDR as well?


----------



## Mr Bean (Jun 4, 2013)

Deva said:


> > Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.
> >
> > At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.
> 
> ...


+1. Stunning images


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 4, 2013)

Deva said:


> > Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.
> >
> > At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.
> 
> ...




Many thanks, Deva and Mr Bean. We use photoshop CS6 most of the time to correct perspective. You are absolutely right; all our images are just as you describe, carefully managed bracketed exposures hand blended in photoshop. We do not use an HDR program.


----------



## Mr Bean (Jun 4, 2013)

My next lens will hopefully be a 24mm f1.4 as my current range jumps from 35mm to 15mm. A bit of a leap there 

While the Canon 24mm has some softness wide open, I don't mind that, when used appropriately.


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 4, 2013)

My wife and I do a lot of hiking in venues like national parks, and I typically carry two bodies, one with a wide/normal zoom (17-40 or 24-105) and the other with a telephoto zoom (70-200/2.8IS), along with a 1.4xII.

The 70-200's fixed length takes up a lot of space in the backpack, and mounting/removing the 1.4x as needed is cumbersome and time-consuming, and only adds to the length of the rig. 

I would buy a 70-300L today to replace the 70-200/1.4x combo for this application (I would keep the two optics for other purposes), but the "reversed" placement of its zoom and focus rings puts me off. 

For the life of me, I can't understand why Canon chose to design it this way. Weird. There may have been a technical reason, but couldn't they have figured out a way around it? They might as well have reversed the action of the zoom ring, while they were at it. I know that if I were to buy one, I would constantly be reaching for the focus ring when I wanted to zoom.

This is also the first Canon white (to my knowledge) that doesn't include the tripod ring with the lens. Again, weird.

Anyway, I'm going to wait a while longer, and see if Canon releases an updated 100-400. then I'll compare that to the 70-300L, and pull the trigger on one of them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> This is also the first Canon white (to my knowledge) that doesn't include the tripod ring with the lens. Again, weird.



FWIW, neither the 70-200/4L nor the 70-200/4L IS come with a tripod ring, the Canon Tripod Mount Ring A II (W) must be purchased separately.


----------



## Steb (Jun 4, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> I would buy a 70-300L today to replace the 70-200/1.4x combo for this application (I would keep the two optics for other purposes), but the "reversed" placement of its zoom and focus rings puts me off.



Have you actually tried it? I have both lenses and I find it quite easy and instant to switch between both placements. Anyway I love the 70-200/2.8 so much that I accept carrying more size and weight most of the time and my 70-300 gets much less use.



> This is also the first Canon white (to my knowledge) that doesn't include the tripod ring with the lens. Again, weird.



As far as I know it is the same for other more lightweight whites, like the 70-200 f/4.


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 4, 2013)

Steb said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > This is also the first Canon white (to my knowledge) that doesn't include the tripod ring with the lens.
> ...



To Steb & Neuroanatomist : My mistake, re: the 70-200/4's also not shipping with tripod rings. I should know better, as I owned a 70-200/4 non-IS for about 3 years before upgrading to the 2.8 IS version.

Steb: Thanks for your feedback about your experience with the 70-300. I haven't counted it out entirely; as I mentioned, I'm waiting for the anticipated release of the 100-400. If I do spring for the 70-300, the first thing I will do is test its performance vs. the 70-200+1.4x, to see how the image quality compares.


----------



## Click (Jun 5, 2013)

Click said:


> The 600 f4 L II ...to get more reach.




Stand by for the picture, I just ordered the lens today.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 5, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> If I do spring for the 70-300, the first thing I will do is test its performance vs. the 70-200+1.4x, to see how the image quality compares.



I hope that's the Kenko 1.4x you are talking about as the Canon does not* work with that lens.

*Disclaimer. Some will tell you the lens does work with the 1.4X Canon, but that is ONLY if you first push the lens out to 300. It is not advisable to use it this way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > If I do spring for the 70-300, the first thing I will do is test its performance vs. the 70-200+1.4x, to see how the image quality compares.
> ...



Re-read...he's talking about comparing the 70-300 vs. the *70-200 + 1.4x*, and the Canon 70-200 lenses are compatible with Canon TCs.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Re-read...he's talking about comparing the 70-300 vs. the *70-200 + 1.4x*, and the Canon 70-200 lenses are compatible with Canon TCs.



Very true. My mistake, I had misread it to mean adding the 70-300 to the 1.4X, I have no idea how that happened. It's been a crazy few weeks. Thanks for pointing my mistake out though.


----------



## aj1575 (Jun 5, 2013)

My next lens will probably be the new Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 IS Macro. I still have an old Sigma 18-125 from when I bought my 350D, but is used very seldom because the lens is not really good. I will upgrade my body this year, and with the body I will also buy a new standard-zoom. The EF-S 15-85 is also nice, but the lower price and weight of the Sigma together with the faster aperture and macro capabilities make it the better choice for a everyday lens.

Also on my list for new lenses are the Sigma 30mm f1.4, as a replacement for the EF 35mm f2. Sigma improved the minimum focusing distance for the 2nd generation, which was a killer to me in the first one.

Then there is also 8-16mm again from Sigma which looks interesting, I just have the feeling that I need something wider than the EF-S 10-22. But I will wait with this one until Sigma rolls out the second generation. There are always some nice improvements, and I think it can't be that long until they upgrade it.


----------



## tofik (Jun 5, 2013)

My next lens will be 24-105 or 24-70 (i don't know which canon 2.8 or 4, tamron). Why ? Bacause I don't have universal lens like this. For street photo will be the best (i think).


----------



## AmbientLight (Jun 5, 2013)

The next lens for me will most likely be Canon's fish eye zoom. Sometimes even a 14mm is not wide enough, so that's my reason.

What you do not see in that shot of a small hotel in Muscat is that the building surrounds the pool on all sites with the same kind of Arabian architecture style. The latter is what got me to take the shot in the first place, because that pool plus building setup goes back to very ancient roots.


----------



## Deva (Jun 5, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> The next lens for me will most likely be Canon's fish eye zoom. Sometimes even a 14mm is not wide enough, so that's my reason.



Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.

As an example, in the shot below, I was slightly off, and so I got a curved horizon.


----------



## Zv (Jun 5, 2013)

Most likely it will be the Sigma 35 1.4, just waiting to sell my 85 1.8 and then I'll use the money towards the siggy. I need something for low light situations. Sorry no pics.


----------



## Mr Bean (Jun 5, 2013)

Click said:


> The 600 f4 L II ...to get more reach.


Actually, ask me this question in 12 months and this will be my answer


----------



## Deva (Jun 5, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Deva said:
> 
> 
> > > Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.
> ...



I have always read that software correction of perspective does not produce a good a result as a TS lens - which makes intuit sense, as by definition any stretching will have to involve interpolation. This, indeed, is why my lens shopping list has a TS at the top - which could start to look like a shaky choice if you haven't found the need (I recognise that TS lenses also bring benefits in terms of DOF which, at least in terms of an increase, software cannot (as far as I know) compensate for).

Does this mean that in your experience, modern software perspective correction produces results as good using a TS lens? Is that the only reason why you don't use them anymore?


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 5, 2013)

Deva said:


> Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.
> 
> As an example, in the shot below, I was slightly off, and so I got a curved horizon.


Deva: I get your point, but in your sample photo, I actually _like_ the curved horizon.


----------



## Deva (Jun 5, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> Deva said:
> 
> 
> > Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.
> ...



I think sometimes it works better than others - I agree with you that in this case, I quite like it myself, possibly because it picks up on the curves of the flowers, and is slightly masked by the curve of the bay (so the far distant horizon isn't smiling/frowning). The fisheye demands careful composition to get it to work well - but when it does, it gives a very different perspective which I very much enjoy using.


----------



## AmbientLight (Jun 7, 2013)

Deva said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Deva said:
> ...



Actually I don't think it is a negative feature that you have to frame carefully with a fish-eye lens, as I do like to spend some time thinking about framing before I shoot anyway.

Thanks for all the positive comments regarding Deva's fish-eye sample picture and of course thanks to Deva, because these comments actually support my view that this lens provides some very nice creative options.


----------

