New Lends

[mhmcr]

I have been having a hard time deciding what lends to get for a quite a white. I currently have 5Dc 16-35L 24-70L and 70-200 F4 IS L. I have never owned any prime lenses and I am very interested in 35L 50L 135L. My budget is about $2000 so I can buy any of those lenses but I have thought about upgrading my body as well. Although my 5D is in great condition and I really enjoy shooting full frame. I understand that 35L, 50L and 135L are different lenses and often used in different occasions. I shoot a lot of city landscapes and darker indoor environment. All the research I have done I have never hear bad things about 135L. I understand this lens is ideal for portrait but I am not a professional and I do not shoot portrait often. For 50L i hear good and bad things about this lens. I am very interested in 35L and I hear also mix thing about this lens as well. Also I understand this lends is very old and I guess replacement is coming soon? I know that technology is always keep progressing but I was not sure if I should wait for new one for this lens. I really could use people's opinion and I also love to hear if you use any of those lenses please let me know what do you like to shoot the best for using those lenses. I know this is such an amateur question but I really appreciate your help. Thank you very much!

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My input is to buy a lens for a needed purpose.  You seem to have focal lenghts well covered, the 135mmL is wonderful, but doesn't fit what you say you do.
I'd consider a upgrade to your  body if you have no specific lens need, and the money needs to be spent.  A 5D MK II is a bargain right now at about $2,000, and fits your budget.  Otherwise, just sit tight and wait to see what other cameras and lenses are introduced this year.  The 24-70mm MK II looks like a huge improvement over the old lens, but wait and see.

[Videoshooter]

My advice would be that you don't really need the L lenses. If you want to dabble in primes you could try out a 50mm 1.4 for less than $400, and if you find that you really need the extra IQ/build quality of the 1.2L, you could upgrade. Same goes for the 35mm - try out the f/2 version and if you like the focal length, upgrade to the 1.4L if you feel you must.

[Random Orbits]

You mentioned that you shoot a lot of cityscapes and darker indoor environments (architecture?).  If so, did you consider a tilt shift lens?

If you plan on shooting people in darker indoor environments, then looking at fast primes makes sense and if you have the opportunity, try borrowing/renting the 35L.  Even though it is an older design, it still is a very good design and shooting at f/1.4 is a lot different than at f/2.8.  If the newer version of the 24-70 II is any indication, a redesigned 35L will be much more costly.  I find the 35L to be sharper than the 50L.  The 50L has more quirks but can deliver fantastic results if played to its strengths.  The 50L is known to have lower resolving power.  It provides comparable to slightly lower resolution at smaller apertures (f/2.8 and beyond) compared to the f/1.4 and f/1.8, but does the best at larger apertures.  It is made for portraiture.

[MaddScientiskt]

Its not amateur question, those lenses are a substantial investment.  I think the 35L would do you very well in a dark indoor environment.  Its nice and wide on the 5D, perfect to get small groups indoors.  What comes to mind is the perfect "party group" lens (3 or 4 people).  Its sharp and built very well.  Its nice outdoors for city as well.  With your current line up you have a feel for the focal length.  See if that image quality in low light will give you that "wow" factor.  I would rent it for a 4 days at $41.25.  Look at it like this, you spend $41 bucks for a weekend to know for sure about a $1379 lens.  That's what 3%, I wish I could do that on stocks  ! 

My 0.02 cents

Good Luck!

[RLPhoto]

If you want to dabble in canon primes, there is alot of choices. I'd get these first to see if you want to invest in primes.

28mm F/1.8
50mm F/1.4
100mm f/2

If you like these primes then great, no need to upgrade but if you dont, There is the L versions of this setup

24/35mm 1.4L's
50mm 1.2L
135mm f/2L

I own three awesome primes and haven't seen a need for any new glass since. Just awesome.

[Daniel Flather]

My advice would be that you don't really need the L lenses. If you want to dabble in primes you could try out a 50mm 1.4 for less than $400, and if you find that you really need the extra IQ/build quality of the 1.2L, you could upgrade. Same goes for the 35mm - try out the f/2 version and if you like the focal length, upgrade to the 1.4L if you feel you must.

After owing the 50, both the 1.8 mark1 and the 1.4, I'd never want them after using the 50L.  The 35L is an absolute winner too.  After you've used the L versions, the non-L stuff is hard to love.  The OP has some nice L zooms lenses, suggesting non L primes seems strange.   I've never used the 135L.

To the OP, for your budget you could also afford the ef 24mm L Mrk2, Another winner.

[Videoshooter]

My advice would be that you don't really need the L lenses. If you want to dabble in primes you could try out a 50mm 1.4 for less than $400, and if you find that you really need the extra IQ/build quality of the 1.2L, you could upgrade. Same goes for the 35mm - try out the f/2 version and if you like the focal length, upgrade to the 1.4L if you feel you must.

After owing the 50, both the 1.8 mark1 and the 1.4, I'd never want them after using the 50L.  The 35L is an absolute winner too.  After you've used the L versions, the non-L stuff is hard to love.  The OP has some nice L zooms lenses, suggesting non L primes seems strange.   I've never used the 135L.

To the OP, for your budget you could also afford the ef 24mm L Mrk2, Another winner.

I don't disagree with you, and I'm sure the L primes are much nicer than the non-L's. But given the OP stated it is not for professional use and he is not sure if he even needs a prime at that focal length, it seems a bit silly to throw $1500 on a lens he might never use. IMO it would be much wiser to buy the cheap one, test it out, see if he likes the focal length or not, and then consider upgrading if he likes it.

[briansquibb]

A TSE 17 or 24 might be suitable - great for buildings, great for landscapes

[smithy]

What is a lends?

Yeah, I went there.  You were all thinking it.

[Axilrod]

My advice would be that you don't really need the L lenses. If you want to dabble in primes you could try out a 50mm 1.4 for less than $400, and if you find that you really need the extra IQ/build quality of the 1.2L, you could upgrade. Same goes for the 35mm - try out the f/2 version and if you like the focal length, upgrade to the 1.4L if you feel you must.

The 35 f/2 is a pretty crummy lens and with the zooms he has he is not going to be impressed with it's performance at all.

[Axilrod]

My advice would be that you don't really need the L lenses. If you want to dabble in primes you could try out a 50mm 1.4 for less than $400, and if you find that you really need the extra IQ/build quality of the 1.2L, you could upgrade. Same goes for the 35mm - try out the f/2 version and if you like the focal length, upgrade to the 1.4L if you feel you must.

After owing the 50, both the 1.8 mark1 and the 1.4, I'd never want them after using the 50L.  The 35L is an absolute winner too.  After you've used the L versions, the non-L stuff is hard to love.  The OP has some nice L zooms lenses, suggesting non L primes seems strange.   I've never used the 135L.

To the OP, for your budget you could also afford the ef 24mm L Mrk2, Another winner.

I agree with Daniel, people can hate on the 50L all they want but it's an awesome lens.  But for OP's situation I think the 35L might be a good choice, it's probably the L lens I hear the least complaints about (24L is awesome too thought).  135L is stunningly sharp and great all-around, but I think it's a bit long for what you do and will feel somewhat limiting.

[Axilrod]

I don't disagree with you, and I'm sure the L primes are much nicer than the non-L's. But given the OP stated it is not for professional use and he is not sure if he even needs a prime at that focal length, it seems a bit silly to throw $1500 on a lens he might never use. IMO it would be much wiser to buy the cheap one, test it out, see if he likes the focal length or not, and then consider upgrading if he likes it.

Since when has not being a professional stopped people from buying expensive gear, tons of people bought 5DIII's as a FIRST DSLR (which I think is crazy, but it happened).  Canon glass holds it's value very well, he could buy a used 35L for $1100-$1200 and sell it without any loss.  Nothing to lose really.

[vuilang]

this is what i would do:
get 24LII... sell 16-35L
use extra fund for 5d2

[briansquibb]

I don't disagree with you, and I'm sure the L primes are much nicer than the non-L's. But given the OP stated it is not for professional use and he is not sure if he even needs a prime at that focal length, it seems a bit silly to throw $1500 on a lens he might never use. IMO it would be much wiser to buy the cheap one, test it out, see if he likes the focal length or not, and then consider upgrading if he likes it.

Since when has not being a professional stopped people from buying expensive gear, tons of people bought 5DIII's as a FIRST DSLR (which I think is crazy, but it happened).  Canon glass holds it's value very well, he could buy a used 35L for $1100-$1200 and sell it without any loss.  Nothing to lose really.

I agree - hobbyists buy because they want it not because it is a money earner.

I have a 600 which I have hardly used - but when I did I was very pleased with it.

If I was a pro I would probably only have the 24-105 and 70-200 with maybe the 200 f/2 as they are the ones that would earn the money