Sooo.... what Canon-compatible lens (or other gear) should I buy?

[Iron Flatline]

Hi all.

I am having a particularly good week (giant understatement) and have decided to treat myself. Those who have seen some of my posts know that I am considerably less price-sensitive than many. I just had some success, and have decided to reward myself with a ridiculously expensive piece of equipment. I thought some of you might want to help me make this decision. I know it's a good problem to have :mrgreen:

My budget is around $2,000.

Only caveat is that I want to pull the trigger on this by Friday noon NY time. I'm in the City, and want to walk into B&H and buy there before I head back on the road.

So, here's what I have already (and it is pretty good stuff) :

Canon 5D
Canon D60
Canon SD500 Digital Elph

Canon 16-35mm 1:2.8 L
Canon 24-70mm 1:2.8 L
Canon 28-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS (getting very old and abused after 5+ years and weeks in the desert)
Canon 100mm Macro 1:2.8
Lensbaby 2.0

Canon Speedlite 550 Flash
Canon Speedlite 220 Flash

Manfrotto Tri-Pod and Head
Lowepro Sling-Bag (but I'm about to get a bigger one for longer trips)
Epson P-2000 Storage Device
Epson Stylus R2400 Printer
Epson Photo 890 (for family snaps)
...and endless amounts of filters, supplies, cleaning materials, chargers and batteries, CF cards... all the stuff that actually makes photography expensive. Grrr.

Things I was thinking about:

EF 85mm f/1.2L II
ca. $2,100
I really REALLY want this lens. A lot.

EF 50mm f/1.4
ca. $300
I learned to shoot almost 20 years ago with a Canon AE-1 and a 50mm lens, so this might be fun. Also, my wife is enrolling in Beginner Photo class, and this might be a good lens for her... but I was hoping for a more irrational purchase than this

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
ca. $1,250
This would actually be a sensible lens for me to get. I do need to replace my 28-135 now that the kids are older and very active, but I think it is too close to the 24-70 that I already have. Comments anyone?

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
ca. $1,700
This actually fills the biggest hole in my collection, and would be the sensible lens to get.

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
ca. $580
Probably the reasonable option to the lens listed above.

Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L
ca. $1,000
It's a Tilt-Shift lens. I do a lot of architectural photography, and find that adjusting keystoning and other fixes in Photoshop is highly unsatisfactory. Not sure this would get a lot of travel time though.

Anyway, that's just Canon lenses. I bet there's lots of other cool stuff. Got any ideas?

 

[Digital Matt]

It all depends on what you shoot most. I agree that the 70-200 2.8 is lacking most in your setup.

 

[Big Mike]

I'd go for the EF 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM....mmm, just saying that out loud makes my skin shiver.

Or how about the EF 100-400 IS? I don't know the cost of that... :scratch:

 

[Iron Flatline]

It all depends on what you shoot most. I agree that the 70-200 2.8 is lacking most in your setup.

Well, I shoot my family a lot, which means parties, trips and general portraits. I also like to shoot architecture, and (urban) landscapes. I'm not really a forests and wildlife guy, mainly because I can't seem to get out of the city.

I have nice gear, so if I have a shooting day (or afternoon) for myself, I put on a lens, and go out looking for things that work with my gear. I don't like to lug around a lot of stuff if it's just me out looking for something fun to shoot. I often go out to a landmark or something I noticed in the course of the previous months, and shoot that (or there.)

 

[usayit]

50mm f1.4 - From what I can tell... it wouldn't be your most used lens. Spend the $65 and get the 50mm f1.8. Should be fine for your intended use as well as your wife's class. Put the rest of the $$ to something you will use more often. The 50mm f1.8 is still a VERY NICE lens.... I have had both... the 50mm f1.4's advantages are subtle .

85mm f1.2L - IMHO, its one of those overkill type lenses especially for the type of shooting you seem to do. On the other hand... its also on my list to purchase within the next year or so.

70-200 f2.8L IS USM - I love this lens. Its one of Canon's best zooms no doubt. If you got the cash.. it won't disappoint in the quality arena. The IS really works.

70-200 f4L - My cousin shoots with this one after borrowing my f2.8L for a few days. He likes it very much even though he would have liked to get the faster f2.8 and IS. Cost MUCH less (duh), its more compact, and significantly lighter weight than the f2.8. These were his reasons for taking the f4L instead. You mentioned that you didn't like lugging things around... My cousin is the same way and found the f2.8L too heavy.

24-105L vs 24-70 f2.8. Two very nice lenses... You can't go wrong with either but the 24-105L has a very different use (lots of discussion here and on other boards about these two). I like to think of the 24-105L as a luxury cruiser and the faster brother, 24-70 f2.8, as the sports car. The 24-105 has IS, more focal length, and is easier to carry.. a great walk around lens. The 24-70 is the faster, lets get it done sibling. I chose the 24-105L to fit my needs and pair it with my older 35-105 f2.8 Tamron. You have the 24-70 and the very light easy to pack 28-135mm IS lens (my cousin's fav). If you are happy with them.. no reason to replace it with the 24-105L.

Never tried the 24mm TS but judging from your love for architecture this is something you probably shouldn't pass up.

So ... 24mm TS-E $1000, 50mm f1.8 (or f1.4) $60-80, 70-200 f4L $580, 85mm f1.8 (always a good one for the $) $330. That should be just under or over $2000.

I personally would have a hard time passing up the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM. But the weight doesn't bother me too much and I don't really see my self spending $1000 on a 24mm TS-E lens.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Thank you, I really appreciate the lengthy and well thought-out response.

Hmmm... interesting comments on 24-70 vs 24-105. I can see what you mean. My personal take on the differences was always that the the former is more of an indoor lens, and the latter is a bit of an outdoor lens. Compensating the lower aperture speed by including Image Stabilization struck me as an interesting way to handle a paticular problem in distinctly different environments.

Regarding the two 70-200 lenses, I really need to go hold them in my hand. I can see that one is pretty darn heavy. I think I might need a tri-pod mount, but that's not how I want to use that lens.

So ... 24mm TS-E $1000, 50mm f1.8 (or f1.4) $60-80, 70-200 f4L $580, 85mm f1.8 (always a good one for the $) $330. That should be just under or over $2000.

Ya know.... it never occured to me to get more than one thing. Hehehehe... I might just have to do that.

 

[964]

Well, I think personally I would go for the 70-200 f2.8 IS...ask me why

The lens is astonishing and comes with a tripod collar included (so saves you around USD150 right there). The thing that I would consider though is actually whether you need the 24-70 focal range at f2.8. If you feel you don't I would sell the 24-70 and replace it with the 24-105 with IS. That way you could possibly look at a 50mm f1.4 (which I may add is also an astonishing lens, but is it worth the money over the f1.8?).

 

[Iron Flatline]

Well, I think personally I would go for the 70-200 f2.8 IS...ask me why

Why??

Hehehe... I see you have it, and I assume you're really loving it. Really, tell me a little about your experience. I've never really had a "long" lens like that, and there's been many times when I wish I had that kind of focal length.

Hmmm.... I love my 24-70. I do a lot of indoor photography and prefer having the speed over the IS - but maybe I will borrow the 24-105 and see if I can make it work for me.

 

[Johnboy2978]

Speaking of the 70-200mm, I just picked up the Sigma EX 70-200mm 2.8 EX IF APO and am quite happy with it. I read several reviews from Fredmiranda.com before getting it, and many said that it was just as good as the one you mentioned. I don't know since I am a pentax shooter. Anyway, may be another way to go. B&H sells it for about $850, so you could also pick up the 50mm and some other cool stuff with that $2K.

Just a thought

 

[markc]

So ... 24mm TS-E $1000, 50mm f1.8 (or f1.4) $60-80, 70-200 f4L $580, 85mm f1.8 (always a good one for the $) $330. That should be just under or over $2000.

That gets my vote, or something close. The 85/1.8 is a great portrait lens with wonderful bokeh. Depending on how much you would use it, I don't know if the 1.2 is really worth spending that much more on. The DOF is already really shallow at 1.8, so I'd only see you using 1.2 in emergency low-light situations. This was taken with the 85mm @ f1.8.
http://www.markcarpenter.com/gallery/MC-LW-Panel1/Gameboy

The 50/1.8 will seem a bit out of place in your kit compared to the 1.4, but it again depends on how much you will use it. My personal preference would be to spend the money on the 1.4 rather than the zoom, but that's me. I get a lot of use out of mine.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Those are very nice shots.

Point well taken on the 85mm...

This has got to be my favorite thread in months. It's like Hannukah for me, I just don't know what to get myself.

<grin>

 

[usayit]

That gets my vote, or something close. The 85/1.8 is a great portrait lens with wonderful bokeh. Depending on how much you would use it, I don't know if the 1.2 is really worth spending that much more on. The DOF is already really shallow at 1.8, so I'd only see you using 1.2 in emergency low-light situations. This was taken with the 85mm @ f1.8.
http://www.markcarpenter.com/gallery/MC-LW-Panel1/Gameboy

The 50/1.8 will seem a bit out of place in your kit compared to the 1.4, but it again depends on how much you will use it. My personal preference would be to spend the money on the 1.4 rather than the zoom, but that's me. I get a lot of use out of mine.

Oh BTW, my suggestion mimicks the primes I enjoy very much (just taylored to what you posted):
24mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2L
compared to what I suggested
24mm TS-E, 50mm (of your choice), 85mm f1.8, 70-200mm zoom.

If you don't see yourself shooting telelphoto out past 100mm much, you could always consider pairing a really nice fast zoom with a compatible teleconverter. So in the rarer times you do need it... you can with a teleconverter without spending the extra $$$ and having extra weight.

 

[John_05]

what i would do is go buy 2000 lotto tickets, win the jackpot and spend my millions on every lens Canon sells. :lmao:

but in the real world, if i had $2000 to spend, i would get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. i want to get that lens for 2 reasons. 1, theres a falcon near where i live that i would love to try to get some shots of. 2, i could buy tickets for the "cheap seats" at the next event here at the arena and get decent shots without getting trampled like everyone does in the first couple of rows.

good luck making up your mind. it looks like thats going to be difficult to do. the easy part will be enjoying what you eventually decide to buy.

 

[Iron Flatline]

A rumor going around today. I just posted this into another thread as well, but in this case I'm adding it here due to the comment about the possible new 70-200mm lens, as well as a new 50mm:

Canon US is still silent right this moment about the 400D DSLR, but it looks like Canon China's spilled the beans on their latest full-frame 35mm digital camera. Or at least we think it's full-frame 35mm, you never know with those translationbots that mention 35mm over and over; we also think it's got a 10.1 megapixel CMOS, 2.5-inch LCD, 9 point focus system, 1600 ISO setting, DIGIC II processor, ultrasonic dust removal, and, of course the Canon EF lens mount (for which they appeared to have announced two new lenses, the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, and the EF 70-200mm f/4L is USM).

 

[Digital Matt]

Imho, the 70-200 2.8 IS from Canon (if you can afford it) is well worth it, and I recommend it above the f/4 L, and the Sigma f/2.8.

I'll tell you why. 1 extra stop over the f/4 is an obvious plus, and while it seems there is no benefit over the Sigma, the addition of IS is like basically adding 3 stops of "handheld" f/stop. If you are like me, and cannot handheld anything below 1/focal length, then you can't shoot any slower than 1/200. Well, even in daylight, if you are shooting something in shade, that may require bumping up the ISO to 200, if not 400. With IS, (I have the f/4 so I can't attest personally) I've heard that you can handhold safely at 1/60, and still get a great sharp shot. That could make or break a great shot, in lowlight.

If I had it to do over again, I'd have saved a bit more and gotten the f/2.8 IS.

That's my $0.02.