What lens to invest next

[Robin Usagani]

Well I finally bought a 5D mk1 (havent received it yet). My initial thought was to invest money on 24-70mm f2.8L. But now I am starting to think to buy a prime 35mm instead (smaller, lighter compared to the monster 24-70). What do you guys think? I was thinking to get only the EF 35mm/f2.0 not the f/1.4L. Or just save for more money and get a used 24-70mm. Decision decision decision! See my sig for my current lenses.

 

[rpm]

im assuming your gear list is up to date? why dont you sell the EF-S 55-250mm IS? unless you need that extra reach? and put that money into one lens and still get the other?

 

[MohaimenK]

Thats why I never bought any EF-S lenses because I knew I'd upgrade my body and they'd be useless. Get the 24-70 since you have the 50 1.4
IMO you'll need that more than a 35mm and again you have the 50 mm prime
Once you have those then invest in some primes down the road.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I am keeping my EF-S so that it will be eaier to sell my 500D when I get a second full frame body. Besides, I will hardly get that much money out of it.

 

[bigtwinky]

As with all lens purchases, depends on what you plan on shooting. Primes are really great lenses to have, but i find they end up being more specialty lenses as I prefer using high end zooms.

If I were in your shoes, I'd go with the 24-70. I'd wait a little bit to see if the new 24-70 comes out and if it does, the current model will be lower in price and more available in the used market

 

[Derrel]

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Autofocus Lens for Can AF09C700 - B&H

Maybe?

 

[Robin Usagani]

I want to do weddings.. Ill check it out Derrel. If you recommend it, it must be good (and it is not an L lens! ). I had bad experience with Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. Are you sure Tamron will be better?

 

[bigtwinky]

I have the Tammie 28-75... its an awesome lens for the price. At 5.6 and above, based on my test shots with a used Canon 24-70, it has better image quality. It is lighter. The downfall is the slightly noisy AF and slightly slower AF in low light.

I was going to buy a 24-70 for the low light performance (its better at 2.8 than the tammie). My camera store dude loaned me one for the weekend. I shot a dance show with both lenses. I kept the Tamron.

Took me a few tries to get a good copy, but once I did, I was really happy.

I've shot weddings with it, concerts... if you check out my blog (link below) my latest maternity shoots were done with this lens.

 

[robbie_vlad]

35mm f/1.4 is what I'd go after with a vengeance.

 

[Robin Usagani]

robbie.. the price seems too extreme? Right now I can only do either the 2.0 or get 24-70

 

[table1349]

If weddings are what you want to do then you might consider the 16-35 f2.8L instead. Gives you the low end for wide group shots, the 35 you are looking at, you have a good 50 and the 70-200. Once you save some more cash you could ge the 24-70 and have the trifecta.

 

[invisible]

Only you know what you're planning on shooting with your next lens, so without that info it'd be difficult to help you choose

If you're after a lens in the 24-70 range, then I agree with the suggestion above: go for the Tamron 28-75. It's fast, sharp, light, affordable, has a sweet bokeh, and is a full-frame lens (i.e., future-proof). I use one on my D700 and love it (except when I shoot wide open, 'cause it vignettes a bit). On my D300 it was awesome at every aperture.

Its only problem is that it's not built like a tank (but this is not really an issue if you take good care of your gear).

Took me a few tries to get a good copy, but once I did, I was really happy.

^^^^This is good info. I was lucky to get a good copy, but I've heard that there are plenty bad copies out there. Maybe you should try and buy it at your local camera store, so you can return it the next day if your copy sucks.