# Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?



## rmfagan (Dec 21, 2014)

Title says it all... I'm planning to purchase another lens and I wanted to get opinions on where I might gain the most. 

At present: 

1Dx
5D3
Rokinon 14
Rokinon 24
16-35L IS
24-70L II
70-200 IS II
50 1.4
100L Macro
TC III 1.4 and 2.0
600EX-RT x 3 and SR-E3-RT

I had a 17 TS-E but sold it as I felt it lacked the sharpness I'd hoped for and while shift was great, tilt wasn't as noticeable at 17. 

I recognize a gap in telephoto coverage at the long end, and debated the 500 II, but got a 1Dx instead, and will get the 500 next fall, and rent that for now when needed.

I'm most strongly considering the 85L II and the 24 TS-E. The 70-200 is great for portraits, but can be unwieldy for more intimate settings or when my primary focus is portrait. Also, 1.2 would be sweet. As for the TS-E, I love landscape, and this is bread and butter for the TS-E. I also have enjoyed playing with architecture, but mostly outdoor thus far. 

Is having so much wide coverage contraindicating the TS-E? Is the 100L and 70-200 a knock on the 85? Would there be other suggestions? Basically, where does my gear stand to gain the most?

Before it's suggested, I have 2 Gitzo tripods, RRS Gimbal/Pano/Macro set ups.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 22, 2014)

Normally, I'd purchase gear for a purpose rather than just having it sit.

In your case, focal lengths above 200mm are missing, but if you would not use them, don't buy any. I love my new 100-400mm L MK II.


----------



## rmfagan (Dec 22, 2014)

Thanks for the input. I'm a bit confused though by the first half of your response. 

I enjoy photography, I'm not half bad, I have high expectations of my gear, I can afford to buy what I want for the most part, and I make a small bit of money on the side at it--hopefully more in the future. Is that not purpose enough?

In any case, none of my gear "just sits". I do 6 or so trips a year, and photograph locally for small businesses, and some rec leagues, as well as some portraits.

I'm certainly not a "pro" by any means, and my experience and results pale in comparison to many on this forum, hence my appeal to the collective knowledge of you and others.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 22, 2014)

You were asking what holes you had in your gear. 

What I was trying to say, is that you should not purchase gear just to cover every possiblity. You should purchase it because you will use it. You don't list the Canon EF 1200mm lens which goes for ~$100,000. If you have the money and want bragging rights, you could buy one, but actually having a use for it would justify the expense.


----------



## CaptainZero (Dec 22, 2014)

I'd go with the 100-400 ii. You don't seem to have any long lenses. But, like Mt Spokane said, don't buy something you won't use.


----------



## dcm (Dec 22, 2014)

Its a pretty wide open question and the answer is - it depends. What can't you do with your current gear that you want to go out and do/try? Where is your current gear holding you back from getting better results? Canon has quite a list of gear to choose from but without some idea of the intended use, it's hard to make a suggestion.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 22, 2014)

You must buy 24L II, 35L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 200 f2L, 300 2.8L, 400 2.8L, 500 4L, 600 4L, 800 5.6L, that ought do it.


----------



## rmfagan (Dec 22, 2014)

Ok. Rephrased, I get it. What I suppose I should have asked is given my present gear, which lens would increase my utility the most, ignoring superteles bc I intend to buy later.


----------



## rmfagan (Dec 22, 2014)

dcm- fair question. I'd appreciate the ability to create portraits that truly pop, which is what leads me to the 85L. I like narrow DOF, but mostly I love the color, contrast, and (relative) light weight and size compared to my only other portrait alternative.

With the 24TS-E, I'm curious to experiment with the darn near infinite DOF that tilt provides for landscapes, especially on my trip to Iceland in February. I could, I suppose, focus stack the 16-35. But that sharpness! And living near NYC grants extra utility to architecture shots.

I'd also entertain other options, but those are the two areas I isolated as biggest areas of need. 

As far long, I'm set on the 500 II, when I get it next fall, and have and will continue to rent it until then.


----------



## Patak (Dec 22, 2014)

135 f2 L would fit nicely to your combo. Portraits (outside) are great and AF is fast and accurate. 85L II could be a good choice as well if you do not mind slow focus.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 22, 2014)

rmfagan said:


> Ok. Rephrased, I get it. What I suppose I should have asked is given my present gear, which lens would increase my utility the most, ignoring superteles bc I intend to buy later.



What do you want to do with your supposed new gear?

Landscape? Sport? Portait? Bird? Underwater? They are all valid 'utility' yet the gears required are vastly different.


----------



## rmfagan (Dec 22, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> rmfagan said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. Rephrased, I get it. What I suppose I should have asked is given my present gear, which lens would increase my utility the most, ignoring superteles bc I intend to buy later.
> ...



Sport I feel I have fairly well covered, as well as bird. Portrait and landscape are areas of my kit I'd like to see improved upon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 22, 2014)

rmfagan said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > rmfagan said:
> ...


 
A 85mm wide aperture lens (lots of choices here when you add in 3rd party lenses). The Canon 135mm f/2 L is wonderful, but only for half body shots unless you can get way back. I love mine, but its for sale because my 70-200mm MK II handles almost everything in that range and I'm not into portraits.


----------



## rmfagan (Dec 22, 2014)

I'll admit the 135 is darn tempting, given it's comparative price advantage over the 85, and it's ability for indoor sports, and potentially street. No one yet seems to think my landscape capability is lacking. How are straight up comparisons between 16-35 IS vs 24 TSE, negating tilt/shift?

But then again, there's tilt and shift...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 22, 2014)

rmfagan said:


> I'll admit the 135 is darn tempting, given it's comparative price advantage over the 85, and it's ability for indoor sports, and potentially street. No one yet seems to think my landscape capability is lacking. How are straight up comparisons between 16-35 IS vs 24 TSE, negating tilt/shift?
> 
> But then again, there's tilt and shift...


 

Funny thing, while I was posting, someone called about my 135mmL I had for sale. 

I'm not good with ultra wide angles, I just sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 for lack of use, and sold my 90mm TS-E some time ago for lack of use. The 16-35mm IS is on my radar, but I'm waiting for a new body next.

I'd say the 24mm TS-E II is going to be better than the 16-35mm IS, it has a stellar reputation. My eyes are too old to do manual focus though.


----------



## Khufu (Dec 22, 2014)

From reading your initial post I was thinking the 135L is going to be your next purchase and assumed it wouldn't be too many posts before someone nudged you in it's direction... It's almost certainly my next lens purchase, should be yours too! Now stop playing on the internets and go get yourself that new toy ;D
Also, do yourself a favour and grab yourself the 400mm f/5.6L prime as a lightweight "for now" toy whilst you're waiting for Santa to drop off that much less portable 500mm. You might just fall in love with it ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 22, 2014)

I don't see a fast standard lens for low light, such as the 35L, in your arsenal...


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 22, 2014)

rmfagan said:


> I'll admit the 135 is darn tempting, given it's comparative price advantage over the 85, and it's ability for indoor sports, and potentially street. No one yet seems to think my landscape capability is lacking. How are straight up comparisons between 16-35 IS vs 24 TSE, negating tilt/shift?
> 
> But then again, there's tilt and shift...


I have tempted about the 135L and the 85L but when I see that I have the 70-200L II and the 100L I drop the option and rather think on something else like a new body. I am aware that these two are in a different league for bokeh and IQ but for my purposes the 70-200L II and the 100L cover my needs.
I think the with the two Rokinon lenses and the 16-35L IS you are quite covered for landscape and astrophotography. 24 TSE is a lot more useful if you shoot architecture but otherwise the lenses you have can do the job very well.
As others have suggested I would go for the long telephoto, like the new 100-400L II, even though you have the 1.4xTC and 2xTC, because TC's make slower the AF on my 70-200L II. Also consider a fast (f/1.2-1.4)standard prime in the 35-50mm focal range.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 22, 2014)

I really do not understand this. You sold the 17 TS-E because it was not sharp enough? You buy a 1Dx for what purpose? You owe Gear for 20.000€ and you do not know what to buy next?


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 22, 2014)

since money doesn't seem to be much of a stumbling block here i really think you should go and have good hard look at the 200-400 f4L IS with built in TC. 

sure the new 100-400 looks sweet too but i dont think there is too much that can match the 200-400

i also second the 135 (since i got mine my use of the 70-200 dropped alot) however again if money is no real object i would go for the 200 F2L and the 85 f1.2 L II for a less tight portrait lens 

really depends which option you will use more...


----------



## adhocphotographer (Dec 23, 2014)

35L (or Art)
85L
135L
200-400L
500/600L

But unless you are lacking something for a specific purpose, I tend to throw my money into photo opportunities! 

Pick up the 500L and go on Safari somewhere?

If i felt some serious GAS building up, i would release it on a 135L... great value, easy re-sale if you want to, fantastic quality.


----------



## e17paul (Dec 23, 2014)

If you have a pretty full set of lenses already, what about a fisheye? It's a lot of fun under the right (occasional) circumstances, either shooting upwards or in very confined spaces. 

My personal preference is for the old school 15/2.8 over the 8-15/4 L.


----------



## tron (Dec 23, 2014)

My 17 TS-E is SHARP!

On the other hand I have some reservations about my 24TS-E extreme corners... (I admit thought I do not remember if it was shifted or not)


----------



## tron (Dec 23, 2014)

rmfagan said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > rmfagan said:
> ...


So you have no big tele's and you say you are well covered for sport and bird!! Plus, you have 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and you say you have to improve on landscape and portrait?


----------



## rmfagan (Dec 23, 2014)

As already stated, when needing a big tele, I rent the 500 II, and will continue to do so until I buy one next fall. Considering most sports I shoot don't require a $10k tele, because I'm shooting hockey, basketball, and the like, then yes, I consider myself set for sports and birds. 

Would the 100-400 be useful? Yes, no doubt it would. But when I shoot wildlife it is either birds (rent 500II) or large mammals (in which case the 70-200 is often sufficient, occasionally with 1.4x). I don't like the notion of giving up 2.8 as I do a lot of shooting at dusk and dawn for these animals, and can't see myself carrying both a 70-200 AND 100-400. And since 70-200 is useful for other things, I wouldn't sell it. 

While I do have a lot of coverage at wide focal lengths, they are fairly task specific. The Rokinons I use almost exclusively for wide-field starscape or Milky Way photography. The 16-35 is great, no argument. As is the 24-70, though I find for my purposes, I'd simply bring the 16-35 as I prefer wider and don't often go past 35 on the 24-70 for landscape. So yes, I am limited in that the 16-35 is my "landscape lens". I was hoping to ascertain whether the 24 TS-E might be a viable candidate to augment my capabilities for that use.


----------



## rmfagan (Dec 23, 2014)

tron said:


> My 17 TS-E is SHARP!
> 
> On the other hand I have some reservations about my 24TS-E extreme corners... (I admit thought I do not remember if it was shifted or not)



I'll admit, I might be being unfair to the 17 TS-E. Its not like it wasn't sharp...it was. Partly, I'd expected a little more, closer to the legendary sharpness of the 24 TS-E, and partly, I probably should have purchased the 24 TS-E to begin with. I found 17 was wider than I really needed, and that the effects of tilt weren't as noticeable as I'd hoped. So that's on my poor choice, and not on the lens.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

Mine will be the 35mm f2 IS.

Rented it twice, its a nice lens. Definitely not L quality rendering (fringing, agrhgrgh), but does well on both FF and crop. But not a 600 dollar nice lens, so waiting for a deal.

A fun backup would be the 8-15. Its FANTASTIC....i try to rent it every time i get a chance. I actually prefer it on a ccrop, because circle photos are useless for me (atm)


----------



## NancyP (Dec 23, 2014)

If you currently focus stack your landscapes and would prefer to not have to do so (because of grass/leaves waving in the breeze, or other moving elements), then the TS-E 24 is for you. People have to want that tilt/shift function badly, because the lens is heavy and all manual.

If you want to do a lot of head shot portraiture at f/1.2 with the famous f/1.2 bokeh, and don't care about fast AF, get the 85 mm f/1.2L. If you want to do head shot portraiture AND short tele action shots (indoor sports), get the 85 f/1.8 for its fast AF. You will get 90% of the bokeh, and good action shots to boot.


----------



## tayassu (Dec 23, 2014)

I do not see a 'gap' in your setup, but I would try new things in your situation. 

Maybe invest in the 8-15/4L for that unique fisheye look.
Maybe get the 24 TS-E for its unique capabilities.
Or maybe get a MF lens, e.g. for portraits, maybe the Zeiss 135/2 or, if you have some money to spend, the Otus 85mm...
Also, I find long, portable teles to be extremely important for landscapes... Think about the 100-400II. 

But until then, have fun shooting with your gapless gear!


----------



## FEBS (Dec 23, 2014)

For portrait I would go for the 85L 1.2. I know it's not the fastest but such a nice bokeh and sharpness. You need to practice that lens as f/1.2 is not that easy to handle. This lens will give you some real supplement compared to the 70-200II you already have. A 135L would not create the same surplus as the 85L would do compared to the 70-200II.

For landscape, I would definitely go for the 24TS-Eii. Great lens. Still experimenting a lot with it. When I compare that lens with the 24Lii, just give me the 24TS-E. Yes, it's manual, but the results are really great. It's even better then the 16-35L f4, which is another great lens.

I had the same feeling about a half year ago and bought the 85L and the 24TS-Eii at that moment and never regretted. Those are really a supplemental in you current gear list.


----------



## dcm (Dec 23, 2014)

rmfagan said:


> dcm- fair question. I'd appreciate the ability to create portraits that truly pop, which is what leads me to the 85L. I like narrow DOF, but mostly I love the color, contrast, and (relative) light weight and size compared to my only other portrait alternative.
> 
> With the 24TS-E, I'm curious to experiment with the darn near infinite DOF that tilt provides for landscapes, especially on my trip to Iceland in February. I could, I suppose, focus stack the 16-35. But that sharpness! And living near NYC grants extra utility to architecture shots.
> 
> ...



I'm surprised nobody already suggested these. For portraits that truly pop you might consider the Otus 85 f/1.4 or Zeiss 135 f/2 that Eldar and Dustin highly recommend. You seem to have some manual focus experience already with TSEs and Rokinons so this shouldn't be much of a stretch. I've not had the pleasure of using these myself yet, but they are on the bucket list.


----------

