I'm done - I have all the lenses I need

[tron]

There is no treatment for G.A.S yet. It tends to spread to bigger, faster, better and of course more $$$ in the future.

Since Neuro is a Dr., he can explain this better I'm ;D

I see that you have succumbed to it again with the 400. The 300 wasn't long enough, eh? I can understand but still prefer the smaller size & lighter weight of the 300. My plan is to start saving for the 800 5.6 II ;D

So you admit: It is not over. The only temporary refrain from lens acquisition is to get money for the biggest of all lenses
After that I officially declare this thread as a humorous one ;D ;D ;D

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Every time I buy a new lens, I say the same thing. I've probably said it a hundred times. : Will likely say it again.

This.....

Although I have slowed down and don't have my eye on anything right now.

Good to see the thread continued and reality set in for Mackguyver.

I think and hope I am pretty much finished - at least with Canon's current line up. We'll see what 2014 brings, but the only lens I'm really wanting is a better 16-35, and I'd happily sell the one I have to upgrade.

The 50 1.2 was the one I didn't want to sell but did. I quickly realized that f/2.8 is way to far a bridge and with the double-dip, well, as we all know, I HAD to buy it

I don't really understand why the 16-35IIL gets such a bad rap. It's a really good lens and is very versatile. For landscapes, I see better results than the 24-70IIL...which is a lens every one seems to go nuts over.

 

[mackguyver]

Every time I buy a new lens, I say the same thing. I've probably said it a hundred times. : Will likely say it again.

This.....

Although I have slowed down and don't have my eye on anything right now.

Good to see the thread continued and reality set in for Mackguyver.

I think and hope I am pretty much finished - at least with Canon's current line up. We'll see what 2014 brings, but the only lens I'm really wanting is a better 16-35, and I'd happily sell the one I have to upgrade.

The 50 1.2 was the one I didn't want to sell but did. I quickly realized that f/2.8 is way to far a bridge and with the double-dip, well, as we all know, I HAD to buy it

I don't really understand why the 16-35IIL gets such a bad rap. It's a really good lens and is very versatile. For landscapes, I see better results than the 24-70IIL...which is a lens every one seems to go nuts over.

I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls. I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II. All the same, I use it a lot for my architectural work and landscapes and I'm typically happy with the results, but I'm never ecstatic with them. To me, it's sort of like the old 24-70 - a very good lens, but not a great one. I'd love to see that level of improvement (like the 24-70 to 24-70II) in a new 16-36, but I am certainly content with the 16-35II.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls. I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II.

Agreed. At 24mm, my preference is TS-E 24L II > 24-70/2.8L II > 16-35L II.

 

[Eldar]

I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls. I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II.

Agreed. At 24mm, my preference is TS-E 24L II > 24-70/2.8L II > 16-35L II.

+1 And there is a fairly wide gap between the 24-70 and the 16-35.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I'm typically happy with the results, but I'm never ecstatic with them. To me, it's sort of like the old 24-70 - a very good lens, but not a great one.

You description exactly fits how I felt about my 24-70 Mk I. It's a professionals tool, nothing more. I replaced it with a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 that does thrill me

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls. I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II.

Agreed. At 24mm, my preference is TS-E 24L II > 24-70/2.8L II > 16-35L II.

+1 And there is a fairly wide gap between the 24-70 and the 16-35.

Only in sharpness....not in any other metric or concearn.

 

[tron]

I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls. I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II.

Agreed. At 24mm, my preference is TS-E 24L II > 24-70/2.8L II > 16-35L II.

+1 And there is a fairly wide gap between the 24-70 and the 16-35.

Only in sharpness....not in any other metric or concearn.

I guess sharpness is an important metric and since the 2 lenses have different focal range they cannot be compared outside the 24-35mm range.

 

[mackguyver]

Let's hope I don't have re-buyer's remorse with the new Sigma:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/06/sigma-announces-all-new-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_6

 

[Eldar]

Let's hope I don't have re-buyer's remorse with the new Sigma:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/06/sigma-announces-all-new-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_6

This lens may be a challenge Canon need to take seriously!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Let's hope I don't have re-buyer's remorse with the new Sigma:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/06/sigma-announces-all-new-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_6

It's about time some one made a really good 50mm....I just hope Sigma have nailed their AF and QA issues. It sure looks like a pretty lens!

 

[danimon]

i've compared 85L and 135L, and for me i'd say 85L is THE lens; for portraiture..it's true that 135L a nice lens but she lack the ability to shot in dimmer ambient light. i shot city crowd at the evening and nothing's more pleasing than the 85L result.it was so damn bright and everything is visible, u get what you see(in term of luminance). i'm also agree with u that 85mm is more versatile in portraiture department since 85mm has the natural and classic type of FOV.
i think you have a good combination there with your 24-85-300mm eventhough for me i would like 35-85-200L in my lineup

 

[neuroanatomist]

I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls. I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II.

Agreed. At 24mm, my preference is TS-E 24L II > 24-70/2.8L II > 16-35L II.

+1 And there is a fairly wide gap between the 24-70 and the 16-35.

Only in sharpness....not in any other metric or concearn.

That, and the 24-70 II has a 1/3-stop faster T-stop than the 16-35 II. Sometimes every bit of light counts...

 

[mackguyver]

i've compared 85L and 135L, and for me i'd say 85L is THE lens; for portraiture..it's true that 135L a nice lens but she lack the ability to shot in dimmer ambient light. i shot city crowd at the evening and nothing's more pleasing than the 85L result.it was so damn bright and everything is visible, u get what you see(in term of luminance). i'm also agree with u that 85mm is more versatile in portraiture department since 85mm has the natural and classic type of FOV.
i think you have a good combination there with your 24-85-300mm eventhough for me i would like 35-85-200L in my lineup

I loved the 135, too, but it was always a bit tight for indoor portraits, even on FF. The big thing that made me rethink the lens was reading a blog by wedding photographer Jeff Ascough who was talking about how the combination of high ISO bodies and the 70-200 2.8 IS II was allowing him to get shots he'd never dreamed of with the 135. Obviously that doesn't overcome slow shutter speeds in extremely low light, but even then the 1 stop difference isn't huge.

 

[mackguyver]

That, and the 24-70 II has a 1/3-stop faster T-stop than the 16-35 II. Sometimes every bit of light counts...

Very true 8)

 

[Digbydriver]

That's what I keep saying about my firearms, too. But it's never true.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

i've compared 85L and 135L, and for me i'd say 85L is THE lens; for portraiture..it's true that 135L a nice lens but she lack the ability to shot in dimmer ambient light. i shot city crowd at the evening and nothing's more pleasing than the 85L result.it was so damn bright and everything is visible, u get what you see(in term of luminance). i'm also agree with u that 85mm is more versatile in portraiture department since 85mm has the natural and classic type of FOV.
i think you have a good combination there with your 24-85-300mm eventhough for me i would like 35-85-200L in my lineup

I loved the 135, too, but it was always a bit tight for indoor portraits, even on FF. The big thing that made me rethink the lens was reading a blog by wedding photographer Jeff Ascough who was talking about how the combination of high ISO bodies and the 70-200 2.8 IS II was allowing him to get shots he'd never dreamed of with the 135. Obviously that doesn't overcome slow shutter speeds in extremely low light, but even then the 1 stop difference isn't huge.

I like the 135L a lot...but I use my 85IIL a lot more. I like the look I get from it and it's amazingly bright. It almost creates light. I use a 70-200 f2.8 II L a lot too, it's a fantastic lens and offers a great set of benefits; focal range, fast AF, bright f2.8, weather sealing and that great 4 stop IS unit....and it's great with teleconverters. But the 135L and 85IIL do offer a slightly better look in my opinion.
There's a lot to like about all three lenses!

 

[J.R.]

i've compared 85L and 135L, and for me i'd say 85L is THE lens; for portraiture..it's true that 135L a nice lens but she lack the ability to shot in dimmer ambient light. i shot city crowd at the evening and nothing's more pleasing than the 85L result.it was so damn bright and everything is visible, u get what you see(in term of luminance). i'm also agree with u that 85mm is more versatile in portraiture department since 85mm has the natural and classic type of FOV.
i think you have a good combination there with your 24-85-300mm eventhough for me i would like 35-85-200L in my lineup

I loved the 135, too, but it was always a bit tight for indoor portraits, even on FF. The big thing that made me rethink the lens was reading a blog by wedding photographer Jeff Ascough who was talking about how the combination of high ISO bodies and the 70-200 2.8 IS II was allowing him to get shots he'd never dreamed of with the 135. Obviously that doesn't overcome slow shutter speeds in extremely low light, but even then the 1 stop difference isn't huge.

I like the 135L a lot...but I use my 85IIL a lot more. I like the look I get from it and it's amazingly bright. It almost creates light. I use a 70-200 f2.8 II L a lot too, it's a fantastic lens and offers a great set of benefits; focal range, fast AF, bright f2.8, weather sealing and that great 4 stop IS unit....and it's great with teleconverters. But the 135L and 85IIL do offer a slightly better look in my opinion.
There's a lot to like about all three lenses!

+1 same here. I share the sentiment

 

[kirispupis]

I am basically in the same boat in terms of lenses.

70-200/2.8 II - While I do not have a specific use for this lens, I find it is my most often used lens on many trips. It is versatile for everything - from portraits to landscapes.

TS-E 24 II - My second most used lens. I use it for architecture exteriors and landscapes.

TS-E 17 - Used for interiors and landscapes.

24-105/4 IS - My "I don't care lens". The sharpness is not up to snuff but it serves well when I just want some casual photo of the kids.

MP-E 65 - Used for insects

100L macro - Used for small things larger than insects, or for big insects

TS-E 90 - Used for product photography and flowers

16-35 2.8 II - Not often in my bag except for hikes

8-15 fisheye - Great nifty lens when used in moderation

200-400/1.4x - For wildlife and some landscapes

I say "almost" because ideally I would replace the 24-105 with a 24-70/2.8 II and would add a 600/4 II, but those are minor tidbits. I generally do not miss them and am unlikely to buy them within the next few years.

 

[Eldar]

Zeiss is releasing two more Otus lenses, 85/1.4 in 2014, followed by a "wide angel"/1.4. Having seen the exceptional performance from the 55/1.4, these may be very difficult to resist ... :