What is my next lens?

[Infinite_Day]

Ok - this has really turned into a bashing session. I think people need to look at this thing from both sides. The analogies are being taken as absolutes which is not necessarily the case but that doesn't mean they don't have some value.

Perhaps this will have more value: As for the motorcycle analogy - somebody who just bought a Ninja 250 and learned to ride now wants to upgrade to a better bike. He goes shopping and sees a Ducati 1198 R. He can afford it but his skills aren't good enough to even throw a leg over this bike without the likelihood of death. Should he get it? Probably not but that's his decision. It's an extreme example but it has it's relevance. The same goes for the SCUBA analogy. You don't need the best gear as a beginner and it isn't going to make you any better to start but that doesn't mean you won't grow into it.

People are just trying to impart that you don't have to have the best lens that money can buy to get good images. You're trying to explain that your view is if you can afford to buy better and grow into it then that's not a bad thing. To each his own!

Do you need to buy a 600mm f/4 lens at this point? Probably not but if you have a spare ten grand sitting around and want to buy it for wildlife then, hey, it's your money. Personally, I would suggest a 70-200 f/2.8 VRI or II or a used 80-200mm f/2.8 if you want something a little more budget friendly. Both are exceptional quality glass and will retain value while doing what I think you want.

EDIT: Crap, forgot you are shooting Canon and the lenses I suggested are Nikon. Canon has several equivalent variants of the 70-200 lens with IS and without that would all be good options. You can get a used 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS for less than a grand.

 

[Kerbouchard]

You mention several times that you are a SCUBA instructer. You wouldn't just hand somebody a top of the line regulator and assume they are ready to make deep dives, right?

You are right, I would not hand over the top of the line regulator and tell them to dive deep because if that is what they wanted to do, they still would need more equipment and I would answer their question and tell them what they needed plus the reasons why they can't make those dives without trying to be pretentious. Afterall, diving is a little more of an extreme sport than photography.

Some people here really try to make it hard for newbs to get started. It's a wonder there are any hobbiests here at all. Is the photo world really full of people like this?

Fine.

For wildlife, I recommend http://www.adorama.com/CA60042U.html
For landscape, I recommend http://www.adorama.com/CA1428AF2U.html

 

[memento]

For landscape, I would recommend an 'ultra-wide angle' 10mm-22mm. I myself am trying to justify buying one. I'm debating between Canon and Tokina.

The bigger and longer lenses typically used for sports and wildlife are extremely expensive.
The Canon 100-400 is a lens to consider.
Sigma's 'Bigma' may be something to consider or their 150-500.
70-200 with a 1.4 or 2 extender.

good luck in your search!

don't be scared of Craigs List. I have found some great deals there.

 

[Ballistics]

Absolutes or not, the analogy of riding a motorcycle and racing on a track does not work here. If you were talking about a drag race, then maybe that would be closer to it, but analogies suck in general so I tend to stay away from them. You are saying that an experienced rider on a slower bike would most likely beat an inexperienced rider on the faster bike. How about the same guy on both bikes? Then what?

This guy says he has the money, and says he is looking for an upgrade. Why not just tell him what the upgrades are instead of lecturing? There is no such thing as not ready for an upgrade. Not being limited by what you use now is not a reason to not upgrade, it just says that you have a larger ceiling with a new lens.

You are right, I would not hand over the top of the line regulator and tell them to dive deep because if that is what they wanted to do, they still would need more equipment and I would answer their question and tell them what they needed plus the reasons why they can't make those dives without trying to be pretentious. Afterall, diving is a little more of an extreme sport than photography.

Some people here really try to make it hard for newbs to get started. It's a wonder there are any hobbiests here at all. Is the photo world really full of people like this?

Yes. There is a lot of arrogance in this field. At a recent "how to get your photography business off the ground" seminar which was for photography students about to graduate in my area hosted by a local renown photographer, the host asked if there were any questions before he continued. A female student stood up and asked, how much she should charge for a specific type of shoot and it would be her first, and the photographer replied "I don't get out of bed for less than $1,800 a day. Next question." Needless to say, the school wasn't thrilled with the advice given. It was more like a "This is what I've accomplished" seminar.

 

[Destin]

Absolutes or not, the analogy of riding a motorcycle and racing on a track does not work here. If you were talking about a drag race, then maybe that would be closer to it, but analogies suck in general so I tend to stay away from them. You are saying that an experienced rider on a slower bike would most likely beat an inexperienced rider on the faster bike. How about the same guy on both bikes? Then what?

This guy says he has the money, and says he is looking for an upgrade. Why not just tell him what the upgrades are instead of lecturing? There is no such thing as not ready for an upgrade. Not being limited by what you use now is not a reason to not upgrade, it just says that you have a larger ceiling with a new lens.

Yes. There is a lot of arrogance in this field. At a recent "how to get your photography business off the ground" seminar which was for photography students about to graduate in my area hosted by a local renown photographer, the host asked if there were any questions before he continued. A female student stood up and asked, how much she should charge for a specific type of shoot and it would be her first, and the photographer replied "I don't get out of bed for less than $1,800 a day. Next question." Needless to say, the school wasn't thrilled with the advice given. It was more like a "This is what I've accomplished" seminar.

That was already done. I'm simply throwing out some advice from another angle to think about. It would be stupid to buy a new lens now, and realize that it isn't actually going to do what he wanted it to, because he didn't even know what he really wanted it to do. I'm not saying wait forever, but shoot with what you have for 3 or 4 months, get a feel for what focal lengths and apertures get used most on your current lenses, and then make an informed decision based on your personal needs as to what lens is best.

If in a few months your shooting at 18mm all the time, a wide angle is in order. If you find yourself in the long end more often, then upgrade there first. He hasn't been shooting long enough to know what he even wants an upgrade to do.

 

[Ballistics]

Absolutes or not, the analogy of riding a motorcycle and racing on a track does not work here. If you were talking about a drag race, then maybe that would be closer to it, but analogies suck in general so I tend to stay away from them. You are saying that an experienced rider on a slower bike would most likely beat an inexperienced rider on the faster bike. How about the same guy on both bikes? Then what?

This guy says he has the money, and says he is looking for an upgrade. Why not just tell him what the upgrades are instead of lecturing? There is no such thing as not ready for an upgrade. Not being limited by what you use now is not a reason to not upgrade, it just says that you have a larger ceiling with a new lens.

Yes. There is a lot of arrogance in this field. At a recent "how to get your photography business off the ground" seminar which was for photography students about to graduate in my area hosted by a local renown photographer, the host asked if there were any questions before he continued. A female student stood up and asked, how much she should charge for a specific type of shoot and it would be her first, and the photographer replied "I don't get out of bed for less than $1,800 a day. Next question." Needless to say, the school wasn't thrilled with the advice given. It was more like a "This is what I've accomplished" seminar.

That was already done. I'm simply throwing out some advice from another angle to think about. It would be stupid to buy a new lens now, and realize that it isn't actually going to do what he wanted it to, because he didn't even know what he really wanted it to do. I'm not saying wait forever, but shoot with what you have for 3 or 4 months, get a feel for what focal lengths and apertures get used most on your current lenses, and then make an informed decision based on your personal needs as to what lens is best.

If in a few months your shooting at 18mm all the time, a wide angle is in order. If you find yourself in the long end more often, then upgrade there first. He hasn't been shooting long enough to know what he even wants an upgrade to do.

You're right, it was done, but those who gave suggestions were not the target of my posts.
That's pretty much what my initial grounds for an upgrade was -

All it takes is the identification of what focal lengths you use and then if you have the money for it, go for the best you can afford.

He said he likes landscapes and wild life photography. A 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8 should suit his needs I would think.

 

[Destin]

Absolutes or not, the analogy of riding a motorcycle and racing on a track does not work here. If you were talking about a drag race, then maybe that would be closer to it, but analogies suck in general so I tend to stay away from them. You are saying that an experienced rider on a slower bike would most likely beat an inexperienced rider on the faster bike. How about the same guy on both bikes? Then what?

This guy says he has the money, and says he is looking for an upgrade. Why not just tell him what the upgrades are instead of lecturing? There is no such thing as not ready for an upgrade. Not being limited by what you use now is not a reason to not upgrade, it just says that you have a larger ceiling with a new lens.

Yes. There is a lot of arrogance in this field. At a recent "how to get your photography business off the ground" seminar which was for photography students about to graduate in my area hosted by a local renown photographer, the host asked if there were any questions before he continued. A female student stood up and asked, how much she should charge for a specific type of shoot and it would be her first, and the photographer replied "I don't get out of bed for less than $1,800 a day. Next question." Needless to say, the school wasn't thrilled with the advice given. It was more like a "This is what I've accomplished" seminar.

That was already done. I'm simply throwing out some advice from another angle to think about. It would be stupid to buy a new lens now, and realize that it isn't actually going to do what he wanted it to, because he didn't even know what he really wanted it to do. I'm not saying wait forever, but shoot with what you have for 3 or 4 months, get a feel for what focal lengths and apertures get used most on your current lenses, and then make an informed decision based on your personal needs as to what lens is best.

If in a few months your shooting at 18mm all the time, a wide angle is in order. If you find yourself in the long end more often, then upgrade there first. He hasn't been shooting long enough to know what he even wants an upgrade to do.

You're right, it was done, but those who gave suggestions were not the target of my posts.
That's pretty much what my initial grounds for an upgrade was -

All it takes is the identification of what focal lengths you use and then if you have the money for it, go for the best you can afford.

He said he likes landscapes and wild life photography. A 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8 should suit his needs I would think.

I'd add a tokina 11-16 into that group, as well as a 300 3.8, 400 2.8, 500 f/4, 600 f/4, and heck how about that 1200 5.6. Remember, money is no matter in this thread.

 

[Ballistics]

That was already done. I'm simply throwing out some advice from another angle to think about. It would be stupid to buy a new lens now, and realize that it isn't actually going to do what he wanted it to, because he didn't even know what he really wanted it to do. I'm not saying wait forever, but shoot with what you have for 3 or 4 months, get a feel for what focal lengths and apertures get used most on your current lenses, and then make an informed decision based on your personal needs as to what lens is best.

If in a few months your shooting at 18mm all the time, a wide angle is in order. If you find yourself in the long end more often, then upgrade there first. He hasn't been shooting long enough to know what he even wants an upgrade to do.

You're right, it was done, but those who gave suggestions were not the target of my posts.
That's pretty much what my initial grounds for an upgrade was -

All it takes is the identification of what focal lengths you use and then if you have the money for it, go for the best you can afford.

He said he likes landscapes and wild life photography. A 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8 should suit his needs I would think.

I'd add a tokina 11-16 into that group, as well as a 300 3.8, 400 2.8, 500 f/4, 600 f/4, and heck how about that 1200 5.6. Remember, money is no matter in this thread.

I prefer the realistic approach to the question. But to each it's own.

 

[Dao]

But wild life with 70-200mm maybe a little short. Zoo is fine though

 

[Ballistics]

But wild life with 70-200mm maybe a little short. Zoo is fine though

You are probably right. I've never shot wildlife so I'm speculating.

 

[Josh66]

Remember, money is no matter in this thread.

LOL. I don't get you guys.

Does the fact that the OP actually has a decent budget to work with that hard to swallow?

It seems like everyone was expecting him to ask for the moon, with a $100 budget. Once you found out that he can actually afford this stuff, you just suggest the most expensive stuff you can think of, just to "shove in his face" how expensive photography can get at times. I have news for you guys - every hobby is expensive. Photography is actually relatively cheap, if you think about it.

I don't shoot what the OP shoots, so I haven't made specific lens recommendations. If I did shoot what he shoots, I wouldn't hesitate to make a few recommendations though.

A lot of the advise being given in this thread is ridiculous. Now wonder TPF has a bad reputation...

 

[Kerbouchard]

Remember, money is no matter in this thread.

LOL. I don't get you guys.

Does the fact that the OP actually has a decent budget to work with that hard to swallow?

It seems like everyone was expecting him to ask for the moon, with a $100 budget. Once you found out that he can actually afford this stuff, you just suggest the most expensive stuff you can think of, just to "shove in his face" how expensive photography can get at times. I have news for you guys - every hobby is expensive. Photography is actually relatively cheap, if you think about it.

I don't shoot what the OP shoots, so I haven't made specific lens recommendations. If I did shoot what he shoots, I wouldn't hesitate to make a few recommendations though.

A lot of the advise being given in this thread is ridiculous. Now wonder TPF has a bad reputation...

See, that's the thing, the OP doesn't have a decent budget. Not for what he wants to do. He has a very limited budget.

With that said, if I were to get a lens in the next month or so, I could see myself spending $500-$800. If I were able to wait a few months, I could probably budget (and justify to the wife) $1500-$2000

In the next month or so, there is no upgrade worth making except in buying a tripod(which is what I recommended). If he were to wait a few months, he still can't afford a 70-200 2.8, a 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8, or really any lens that is a significant upgrade.

Basically, right now the OP has a tripod budget and wants to do a significant upgrade...well, he can't afford a significant upgrade. He has interests that are polar opposites and require different equipment(one of them being a wide angle lens and another being a long and fast lens).

Right now, the OP has had his camera for a 'month or so', and has basically said he likes to shoot everything and wants to upgrade. What possible advice could we give?

The best possible advice is to shoot the things he likes to shoot, post some pics for C&C, figure out where his main interests lie and what is limiting him, and then purchase something that he knows he can use.

I'm sorry that he, and you, just expected us to magically answer his question. We don't have enough information. In any case, the OP wants to do landscape photography but he doesn't have a tripod...That does allow us to give a magic answer...Buy a tripod.

 

[Josh66]

$2000 is a "decent" budget for me, if you just want another lens or maybe two. Long primes (300mm+) are probably outside of that budget, but on the wide end there are a lot of options.

All he has right now is the kit lens and a not-so-hot 75-300, so almost anything will be an upgrade. First thing I would do is replace that 75-300 with a 70-200L (whichever one fits the budget best). Even the non-IS f/4 version (the cheapest - around $600) would be a substantial upgrade. Maybe a fast wide prime for the landscape stuff - there are a few to choose from ranging in price from $500 to $1500.

A 35mm f/1.4L and a 70-200 f/4L would be right around $2000. That's what I would suggest to get started - but I haven't used that 35 (and don't really have any wide lenses at all). You can't really go wrong with a 70-200L. That would definitely be one of my recommendations, no matter what. It's the wide end that I'm not sure about.

I don't know if the OP has a tripod, or even needs one (I would argue that everyone needs one though). Set aside $500 or so for a good tripod that won't need replaced any time soon if that's something you think you need.

Then there's other stuff like a flash. I don't know if that's something the OP would want, but again - IMO that's something everyone should have in their kit.



If you were starting out with just two mediocre lenses, knowing what you know now about lens performance - you would at least know what the best replacements for the mediocre gear would be. You can pretty much make those recommendations without knowing anything else about the OP. Get the 'normal' stuff covered, then worry about the more exotic stuff. Like, a fast 50mm prime probably belongs in every bag. Can't go wrong there.

There are certain things that everybody can use, no matter what their primary interests are, even if they don't know what their interests are yet. When I bought most of my gear, I didn't know what the hell I was doing. I just knew that the lenses I had sucked and I needed better ones. Once you have a good solid base to build from, you can start fine tuning your kit.


IMO, I do not agree with the 'learn what you have' advice. If you already know that what you have is not all that great, figure out what the best replacements for it would be. Once you have that and have used it for a while, you will have a better idea of what you need next.

 

[Kerbouchard]

$2000 is a "decent" budget for me, if you just want another lens or maybe two. Long primes (300mm+) are probably outside of that budget, but on the wide end there are a lot of options.

All he has right now is the kit lens and a not-so-hot 75-300, so almost anything will be an upgrade. First thing I would do is replace that 75-300 with a 70-200L (whichever one fits the budget best). Even the non-IS f/4 version (the cheapest - around $600) would be a substantial upgrade. Maybe a fast wide prime for the landscape stuff - there are a few to choose from ranging in price from $500 to $1500.

A 35mm f/1.4L and a 70-200 f/4L would be right around $2000. That's what I would suggest to get started - but I haven't used that 35 (and don't really have any wide lenses at all). You can't really go wrong with a 70-200L. That would definitely be one of my recommendations, no matter what. It's the wide end that I'm not sure about.

I don't know if the OP has a tripod, or even needs one (I would argue that everyone needs one though). Set aside $500 or so for a good tripod that won't need replaced any time soon if that's something you think you need.

Then there's other stuff like a flash. I don't know if that's something the OP would want, but again - IMO that's something everyone should have in their kit.



If you were starting out with just two mediocre lenses, knowing what you know now about lens performance - you would at least know what the best replacements for the mediocre gear would be. You can pretty much make those recommendations without knowing anything else about the OP. Get the 'normal' stuff covered, then worry about the more exotic stuff. Like, a fast 50mm prime probably belongs in every bag. Can't go wrong there.

There are certain things that everybody can use, no matter what their primary interests are, even if they don't know what their interests are yet. When I bought most of my gear, I didn't know what the hell I was doing. I just knew that the lenses I had sucked and I needed better ones. Once you have a good solid base to build from, you can start fine tuning your kit.


IMO, I do not agree with the 'learn what you have' advise. If you already know that what you have is not all that great, figure out what the best replacements for it would be. Once you have that and have used it for a while, you will have a better idea of what you need next.

All in all, a pretty reasonable post. Only a few nits. His wide angle side is already covered. There is very little upside to upgrading on the wide angle side until he has a tripod and a sense of what he is doing. At f/8 to f/13 or so, you would be hard pressed to find a difference.

The telephoto side he can't afford, although as you mentioned, the 70-200 has been mentioned multiple times in this thread and would be a logical upgrade although it is a bit short for what the OP wants to do.

As far as a flash, I don't think it would help for landscape or wildlife, but I do agree that it should be a part of everybody's kit.

In any case, I still come back to the same thing I did before. IMO, the OP should buy a tripod, spend a bit of time shooting what he enjoys, post some pics, get some C&C, learn what is limiting him, and then purchase something that will help him overcome those limitations.

 

[Josh66]

OK, if the wide side is covered (for now), 70-200 + teleconverter would make sense, and probably use most, if not all of the budget. There *might* be enough budget left for a half-way decent tripod - I haven't priced teleconverters recently.

A slowish (f/4) 70-200 with teleconverter attached would almost necessitate a tripod though. And may prove too slow for wildlife once you factor in the stop or two you lose due to the teleconverter... I don't shoot wildlife, so I don't know how big of a deal that would be in the real world...