What will be your next lens - and can you post a photo to explain why?

[Deva]

We all have different reasons for the lenses we choose to buy - some prefer fast lenses, some image stabilised, some go for weight - and some for price. We all have in our minds what our "next lens" will be - but I was wondering what is determining your choice - and whether you can illustrate your reason with an existing photo, and explain why your next lens would have made it so much better/easier/sharper/etc.

To kick things off, my choices of lens so far have mainly been driven by widening my available focal lengths - in other words, increasing my options. Now I can cover the range from 8mm to 300mm, my next lens will be one of the TS-E's, primarily to help straighten out my converging verticals, as you can see from the photo.

So what will be your next lens - and can you post a photo (possibly by definition one you're not happy with) to explain why?

 

[archiea]

TOUGHIE because I'm not getting a new lens (hear that heart, the brain is telling you NO MORE NEW LENSES!) because I don't need a new one... However, it I were to get a new lens based on what I WANT.... well, I'll give you three.. hehe...

Ok OK, lets get the obvious out of the way... we all want to date a supermodel, drive a super car, and yes, own a super telephoto.. well.. THE super telephoto.. the current star of Glass 200-400.. Why? mainly because of Photographer Andy Rouse's fantastic review (his review was fantastic, not just the lens) of the new 200-400:
http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174

Specifically these two photos that he would have missed had he not had a lever to switch on the 1.4x converter, and instead had to swap lenses.

Again these images belong to ANDY ROUSE and he claims he would had missed these two images because a 600mm would have been too tight or swapping lenses he would have missed he moment. again, the flick of a switch you get a 1.4x converted that is optically superior to an external extender.

The other would be the 85mm f1.2. There's plenty of images online that show its merits... no need to repeat the obvious!

 

[bycostello]

wide angle for landscapes maybe.... i'll post the pic when i get the lens!!

 

[Grumbaki]

Exactly the same as you OP!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Most likely the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. I've moved beyond expanding my focal range (coverage for 16mm to 600mm, or 1200mm if you count extenders), faster apertures (have f/1.2), dedicated macro (100L and MP-E 65mm), tilt/shift (TS-E 24L II). Now it's mostly about having the right tool for the job. The 24-70 II and 70-200 II make a wonderful combination, but the 70-200 II is big and heavy (as is the 100-400L) and on trips I generally need longer than 200mm, need f/2.8 less at the long end, and don't have time to fiddle with TCs. I have the 28-300L, and IMO, its IQ is equivalent to the 24-105L through the respective ranges - very good, but not the best possible. Since getting the 24-70 II, the 24-105 sat untouched...until I picked it up today to sell it off (which I did). Having upped the IQ at the wide end of the range, I'm looking to do the same at the long end, albeit by trading the convenience of a one-lens solution. I'd also gain the benefit of f/2.8 in the standard range, vs. f/4-4.5 for a good chunk of that. The 24-70 II and 70-300 L together are only ~2 oz more than the 28-300L, and either will fit in a Lowepro Lens Exchange 100 AW (meaning camera and one lens on a Spider Holster on the right side of the belt, the Lens Exchange with the other lens on the left, and easy mid-air changes).

So, no pics to show - the 28-300L is serviceable, delivers very good IQ in a convenient package, just looking to trade a little of that convenience for better IQ.

 

[expatinasia]

I will be getting the 400 f/2.8 ii, though I must admit that I do have my eye on the 200-400 but as it is not f/2.8 I doubt I will be swayed away from my original plan. I am getting it as I need the reach, speed an IQ for shooting sports. It won't be used for much else.

 

[vbi]

The 200-400L as it suits my style of shooting wildlife better than a 400L, 500L or 600L as one can't control the distance to wild animals. I have a 100-400 and while it is quite good I have always wanted that big white clarity and bokeh.

 

[birtembuk]

I think my next lens is (and providing it lives up to those high expectations) ... a 7D2. I hate to swap lens when outdoors. There's always mist, rain, dust, and never enough time. Having a solid APS-C performer together with a FF offer lots of possible combinations to cover most my focal needs on a specific photo trip. I find my current 60D fine but a bit limited for that matter.

 

[Pi]

I will probably get a TSE lens as well but ... have you tried software geometric corrections? I am not saying that this is as good as a TSE lens (it is not) but you might be surprised how well it works. I am more interested in the ability of the TSE lenses to change the plane of focus. Well, there is a software solution for that, too, focus stacking.

 

[dslrdummy]

It would be a choice between the 300 2.8ii and the 400 2.8ii with a leaning toward the latter.

 

[Deva]

I find it interesting that all the responses so far seem largely to be based on rationale (thinking/logical) rather than emotional (feeling/heartfelt) arguments - the abililty to change focal lengths quickly, to reduce weight/improve IQ over a particular focal range, to avoid having to swap lenses, etc.

Given how much advertising money is spent on appealing to both head and heart, I'm wondering what this says about the average Canon rumors respondent? I find that however logical I may be in my reasons for wanting a lens, ultimately I find it is an emotional decision ("I really want (not need) that lens") that will trigger the actual purchase.

 

[Sporgon]

I will probably get a TSE lens as well but ... have you tried software geometric corrections? I am not saying that this is as good as a TSE lens (it is not) but you might be surprised how well it works. I am more interested in the ability of the TSE lenses to change the plane of focus. Well, there is a software solution for that, too, focus stacking.

Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.

At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.

To keep in the spirit of the thread, mine would be a 50mm f1.4 IS because I like the neutral perspective from the 50mm on FF, and I'm a lazy git who inevitably arrives late and has to shoot in a panic as the sun is rapidly descending below the horizon, without time to set up the tripod..........

 

[Click]

The 600 f4 L II ...to get more reach.

 

[vbi]

I find it interesting that all the responses so far seem largely to be based on rationale (thinking/logical) rather than emotional (feeling/heartfelt) arguments - the abililty to change focal lengths quickly, to reduce weight/improve IQ over a particular focal range, to avoid having to swap lenses, etc.

I think we are just rationalising our emotions. Will the 200-400 be 7,000 GBP better than my 100-400? Probably not...but I want one and so I say that I am looking for better IQ and bokeh.

 

[Deva]

Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.

At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.

Having looked at your website, I can only say that I aspire to be able to take pictures as beautiful as yours. If you hadn't said, I would have assumed almost all of the building pictures were taken with a TS lens, so I'm intrigued that you don't. What do you use to correct the perspective?

Am I right in thinking that most make use of (carefully managed) HDR as well?

 

[Mr Bean]

Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.

At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.

Having looked at your website, I can only say that I aspire to be able to take pictures as beautiful as yours. If you hadn't said, I would have assumed almost all of the building pictures were taken with a TS lens, so I'm intrigued that you don't. What do you use to correct the perspective?

+1. Stunning images

 

[Sporgon]

Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.

At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.

Having looked at your website, I can only say that I aspire to be able to take pictures as beautiful as yours. If you hadn't said, I would have assumed almost all of the building pictures were taken with a TS lens, so I'm intrigued that you don't. What do you use to correct the perspective?

Am I right in thinking that most make use of (carefully managed) HDR as well?

Many thanks, Deva and Mr Bean. We use photoshop CS6 most of the time to correct perspective. You are absolutely right; all our images are just as you describe, carefully managed bracketed exposures hand blended in photoshop. We do not use an HDR program.

 

[Mr Bean]

My next lens will hopefully be a 24mm f1.4 as my current range jumps from 35mm to 15mm. A bit of a leap there

While the Canon 24mm has some softness wide open, I don't mind that, when used appropriately.

 

[JonAustin]

My wife and I do a lot of hiking in venues like national parks, and I typically carry two bodies, one with a wide/normal zoom (17-40 or 24-105) and the other with a telephoto zoom (70-200/2.8IS), along with a 1.4xII.

The 70-200's fixed length takes up a lot of space in the backpack, and mounting/removing the 1.4x as needed is cumbersome and time-consuming, and only adds to the length of the rig.

I would buy a 70-300L today to replace the 70-200/1.4x combo for this application (I would keep the two optics for other purposes), but the "reversed" placement of its zoom and focus rings puts me off.

For the life of me, I can't understand why Canon chose to design it this way. Weird. There may have been a technical reason, but couldn't they have figured out a way around it? They might as well have reversed the action of the zoom ring, while they were at it. I know that if I were to buy one, I would constantly be reaching for the focus ring when I wanted to zoom.

This is also the first Canon white (to my knowledge) that doesn't include the tripod ring with the lens. Again, weird.

Anyway, I'm going to wait a while longer, and see if Canon releases an updated 100-400. then I'll compare that to the 70-300L, and pull the trigger on one of them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is also the first Canon white (to my knowledge) that doesn't include the tripod ring with the lens. Again, weird.

FWIW, neither the 70-200/4L nor the 70-200/4L IS come with a tripod ring, the Canon Tripod Mount Ring A II (W) must be purchased separately.