Looking at a new lens, which...?


No longer a newbie, moving up!
Oct 5, 2016
Reaction score
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hey guys. I shoot mostly with my 5D IV but also own an 80D. I have the 70-200 III, 100-400 II, 50mm f1.8 STM, 24mm STM, 1.4x III Tele.

I shoot baseball games and birds, both in flight and stationary. I'll occasionally shoot an event or a portrait/group shot.

I've got on my list the...

16-35 2.8 III L
24-70 2.8 II L
35 1.4 II L
85 1.4 L
100 2.8 L macro

What would be my next smart purchase? I mostly use the 70-200 for baseball, 100-400 for birds with the 1.4x sometimes. The 50mm I use for portraits when I need to but indoors I find them all not wide enough. Shooting gatherings and indoors is what this lens would mostly be used for or up close stuff like products, etc
If your 24mm isn't wide enough for what you are looking for the 16-35mm sounds like the best option. I've got one in the f4 flavour and it's a cracking lens. Saying all that, the wide focal length squishes the verticals in the centre of the frame, so worth bearing in mind. The 24-70 f2.8 is a cracking lens, that would be my first choice, but if it's not wide enough it's not realistically, an option. For product photography I think the 24-70 is pretty good, an mfd of 0.48m is ok, but if you shoot small objects a macro lens may be required.

The 100mm is great for macro, but it would pretty much be a dedicated macro lens with your existing setup, so if that's not the priority I'd discount it.

So it all depends on your priorities; choose the 16-35mm if you need to be that wide, if you don't then the 24-70 unless you really want to shoot macro (but you'd be giving up the wide end) then the 100mm.
Ignore most of what I'm about to write if your objective really is to go wider. But ...

I never thought I'd say this: you might want to consider a body instead. You have excellent glass We overlap a lot and I have the 70-200 and the 100-400 with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC. I got the R6 for several reasons. I too like to shoot sports and wildlife (mostly) birds.

Bottom line, it enabled me to get much more out of the investment in glass I'd already made.

My 6D Mark II autofocuses down to F8 or so (it goes much lower in live view) but the R6 can go to F16. It can track (track!) a bird in flight or moving althete, hand held, with the 100-400 and the 2x TC. That's 800mm at F11.

The high ISO performance is stunning. When I shoot the 800mm F 11 combo on a sunny day I'll set auto ISO to 1/2500 min and 25600 max. It never gets close to 25600 on a sunny day but on my first outing I tracked an Osprey to a perch in a shady tree. The shots of it eating the fish it had caught were great considering I was hand holding from a paddle boat in lake. Only later did I go back and check. The shots were between 16000 and 20000 ISO.

IBIS. I have two non IS lenses but now, effectively, they are. And it provides a little extra stabilization on the lenses that already have it.

If you didn't already have excellent glass I would not have suggested this path.

But if you really prefer to go wide for say portraits I'd get the 24-70 F 2.8. I have it's sister, 24-105 F 4 and it is a great lens. With the R6 I could likely use it indoors for portraits but with Covid have not had a chance to test that idea and the subject isolation would not be as good as the F 2.8 lens.

Most reactions