Lens suggestions requested

[bglanzbe]

I currently have the following lenses and looking for advice on "what's next"...welcome thoughts of the group

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
Canon EF 24-105 f/4
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC

The Tamron lens is an OK lens but I am finding limitations from an image quality perspective.  I typically use the 24-105 as more of my everyday lens now that I have a started to become a stronger photographer. 

So what do folks think I should consider next?  My problem with choosing is that I love taking portrait shots  but landscape is a lot of what I shoot as well. 

So what say you wise ones? 

[Studio1930]

You will get a million different answers, but since you already have the wide angle covered with a good lens and your telephoto lens is not that great, I would suggest the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  It is very sharp, focuses fast and is weather sealed.  It is generally considered a must have for most photographers, especially ones who have general interests rather than focused subject matters.

Also, what body are you using (crop or no crop)?

[cabe]

I agree with the above poster that your telephoto lens would be the one to replace; you should probably go with one of the 70-200 L. Or, if you're using full frame and/or want to have more telephoto, the 70-300 L.

[bholliman]

Assuming you have a crop body camera. 

You have the wide to medium tele region nicely covered.  I'd recommend the 70/200mm 4.0 for wildlife and sports.  And the 85 1.8 prime for portraits.

[cabe]

I'd recommend the 70/200mm 4.0 for wildlife and sports.

If using it for that, I'd definitely say to get the IS version. F/4 with no IS for sports would probably not be ideal.

[wayno]

+1 for some variant of the 70-200
Good for landscapes and portrait although a bit long on the crop sensor for the all round usefulness I get with mine.

[SPL]

+1 on the 70-200 f2.8 IS II! it is a beast but the IQ is awesome!

[7enderbender]

I currently have the following lenses and looking for advice on "what's next"...welcome thoughts of the group

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
Canon EF 24-105 f/4
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC

The Tamron lens is an OK lens but I am finding limitations from an image quality perspective.  I typically use the 24-105 as more of my everyday lens now that I have a started to become a stronger photographer. 

So what do folks think I should consider next?  My problem with choosing is that I love taking portrait shots  but landscape is a lot of what I shoot as well. 

So what say you wise ones?

That really depends on what exactly you want to achieve and what you feel you're currently lacking. You have good lenses there for both landscapes and portraits. In fact, the 24-105 should cover that to great extent right there. And you have something on the wider end as well.

If you want to introduce more of natural light with "bokeh" approach you might think about getting a better 50mm lens or perhaps the 85 1.8 instead (which would be more like a 135mm lens on your crop camera).
If the first interest is landscapes then there are many high quality wide angle primes that could add some value.

So it's really hard to say what makes sense for you next. Maybe you don't even need a new lens if you're not sure. Not to worry: there are plenty of other photography gizmos. How are you doing in the flash department? How about a new bag? Investing in a really good tripod is always something to consider for landscape photgraphy. Etc etc etc.

[bseitz234]

I'd recommend the 70/200mm 4.0 for wildlife and sports.

If using it for that, I'd definitely say to get the IS version. F/4 with no IS for sports would probably not be ideal.

I definitely disagree with this. I have a 70-200 2.8 non-is and have not once found myself missing IS. Shutter speeds required for stopping anything moving are far faster than the limits of handholding this lens.... with the f4 being lighter, I assume it's even easier to handhold.

Also worth considering the 100-400, depending how much tele you might want. Apertures aren't as wide, but it'll give you some extra reach. It has less overlap with the 24-105, meaning you'd have to change lenses to get the 70-100 range (which is nice for portraits, even on crop), but like people are saying, that depends on exactly what your needs are.

[Canada]

35L, Sigma 35 or 135L all three awesome primes. When i first got my 135L it stayed on my camera for months. I couldn't use anything else. Weight, size, colors bokeh EVERYTHING about it is AMAZING....

I also have the 70-200 2.8IS very nice lens but SO HEAVY to lug around I find myself almost never using it since I got the 135 but it is a killer Sports/Fast action lens.

[Don Haines]

I'd take a look at the 100-400, or if on a budget the Sigma 120-400....you will find the quality of their newer lenses to be surprisingly good.

[verysimplejason]

I'm guessing you're an APS-C user.  If you have the budget, a 70-200 L/70-300 L/100-400 L lens would be nice.  If you don't have a budget, you're not planning to move to FF soon, and you're not into sports that much, a 55-250mm would be very nice.  It's colors and focusing is surprisingly good especially in good light.  That 18-270mm isn't that good a performer especially that you have a 10-22 and a 24-105 lens but if I were you, I'll not dispose of it.  It's still usable when you want to bring only one lens.  But just the same, if I were in your shoes, I'll bring the 10-22 and 24-105 if I really like to travel light.

[robbymack]

Get a 85 1.8 for portraits. Any of the 70-200 zooms would be nice or the 70-300. 100-400 is cool if you ever think you'll need 400. Actually I'd sell the 24-105 and buy a used 17-55 2.8 but that's just me, I like a fast stabilized standard zoom over the extra reach of the 24-105 especially if you get one of the tele zooms.

[mb66energy]

Some decision routes as suggestion - I think the first step might be to decide
between a true macro lens (prime), a prime or a zoom.

2.8/60 MACRO:
Interesting if you do not plan to switch to FF too soon
+ good equiv focal length (roughly 100 in 35mm language)
+ very good IQ
+ very flexible prime lens (for me for landscape, macro, portrait)
+ true macro design, 1:1 reproduction ratio
+ compact
+ moderate price
- f/2.8 as max aperture but ... strong vignetting at standard distances at 2.8!
   To be stopped down for landscape to at least f/4

2.8/100 MACRO (w/ or w/o IS):
FF compatible
+ very good IQ (I have 100 without IS)
+ f/2.8 max aperture
+ true macro design, 1:1 reproduction ratio
+ very flexible medium telephoto on APS-C
+ moderate price
o  a little longer focal length, depends on your style of portrait photography
- a little bit larger

2.0/100:
FF compatible
+ very good IQ straigth from f/2.0, excellent from f/4.0
+ f/2.0 max aperture
+ very flexible medium telephoto on APS-C
+ very compact, nearly like a standard lens
+ moderate price
o  moderate close focus range
o  a little longer focal length, depends on your style of portrait photography
o  no macro lens, for me a disadvantage, but if you are not interested in macro ...

[koolman]

I currently have the following lenses and looking for advice on "what's next"...welcome thoughts of the group

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
Canon EF 24-105 f/4
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC

The Tamron lens is an OK lens but I am finding limitations from an image quality perspective.  I typically use the 24-105 as more of my everyday lens now that I have a started to become a stronger photographer. 

So what do folks think I should consider next?  My problem with choosing is that I love taking portrait shots  but landscape is a lot of what I shoot as well. 

So what say you wise ones?

1) Trade 24-105 for canon 17-55 2.8 as a "walk around" lens.

2)
Purchase canon 50mm 1.4 - this will be a step up into another league of IQ for portraits
   OR
Purchase canon 100mm 2.8 macro L IS - as you have a crop and you need the IS. This will be a long telephoto + interesting portrait lens + macro ability.