remsy_atassi said:
If you want TS I say wider is better. The 17mm is a crazy good lens.
You are also missing the something like a 16-35 range. The 2.8 L 16-35 is amazing.
If you want a long zoom you could go with the 100-300L 4.5-5.6 IS, but it's not that much of an addition to your 70-200 and is slower.
Thanks remsy, it's cool to hear that about the 17mm, I'll definitely be checking it out! The only thing that worries me about that lens is the front element, like the fisheye it protrudes (albiet quite a bit more
) I know I'd be paranoid about not damaging it
Cool! Yeah that is an area I'm missing too, however with rumours of a 14-24 I might hold off just a bit longer to see if anything eventuates there
neuroanatomist said:
I have $500 budget to spend at Home Depot. Please recommend what power tool I should buy.
Get a snow blower. Oh wait, you didn't mention that you live in San Diego...
What I'm saying we need more information. You want to buy a lens...
to shoot what???
Sorry Neuro, I thought I mentioned that I was after something to add a bit of variety to the lenses I currently own. I have no specific subject that I want to shoot, I have my camera on me most of the time, and just shoot whatever takes my interest. Basically, I'm just asking what lens would you recommend that is not too similar to what I currently own. Hence why I mentioned Macro as a possibility, or Tilt Shift.
Random Orbits said:
I'd consider the 16-35L and the 100L. The 16-35 is a nice UWA zoom and the the 100L opens you to macro photography. Both would open areas of different types of photography for you to explore. I wouldn't consider the TS lenses unless you are serious about landscape/architecture and have a good tripod system. Wider TS (17 and 24) are generally more useful for landscape/architecture esp. indoor. The TS 45 and 90 are typically more used for product photography. All TS lenses are manual focus only.
I'd skip getting a prime 300mm or longer -- it doesn't sound like it's a pressing need. If you want to extend your reach, you could consider getting an extender or two.
Thanks Random Orbits! The 100L does look great, it's a must get for me, the question is when though
I've been wanting to do some macro stuff for a long time, and I've never owned a proper Macro lens (had trouble finding one for the minolta system a while back when I was looking), it's definitely on the list to get
Awesome, thanks for the advice re: tilt shifts, I'd love to try a bit more landscape stuff, especially when I start to travel! No dramas on manual focus only, I've come from manual-only
Yeah, well I love taking my camera to the football (Australian Rules Football), and having something longer would be nice, but extenders is a good idea too!
marekjoz said:
Thanks marekjoz!
All cool options, and the 100L is definitely on the list to get
17-40 is a good option too! Definitely going to get one of the UWA zooms (16-35, 17-40 or the rumoured 14-24)
distant.star said:
.
Send me the $2500. I'll send you a lens.
Surprises are such fun!!
Seriously, as Big Brain intimates, if you're just a lens collector, it really doesn't make much difference. One fancy lens is as good as the next. If you're a photographer, you'll choose a lens because it will help you create a particular image that reflects your vision.
Perhaps you want to explore your vision before exploring the lens market.
Sorry to intrude on the fantasy.
Hahaha nice one distant star
No, not a lens collector by any stretch, just trying to build up a nice kit. I've just started buying a few lenses, and just wanted to gauge whether there was an obvious must-have lens that I should be getting next. If you want to see what sort of stuff I do take photos of feel free to check out my tumblr, I may not be a photographer by your standards, I just take photos of things that catch my eye day to day, a bit of street, bit of portrait, some landscape, animals, sports, anything really.
www.samueljmitchell.tumblr.com
bp said:
ah, I miss the days of lens lust - having those lenses you eyeball for months and then finally buy and check the tracking number 10 times a day... nowadays, I've only got like ONE I might like to get at some point. boring
if I had your bag, and 2500 to blow, I'd probably pick up the 24L II and the 135L
or if I really wanted to toss some high mm telephoto in there and some macro, maybe the 100L and a 100-400L
...so many possibilities
Haha tell me about it, having so little lenses, there's so many amazing ones to lust over
I'm really happy with the ones I've chosen so far though, the 24-105 was great as a kit lens to start with, good range, and IQ. The 70-200 has been amazing for sports, the 50 I adore as a walk around and for people, and the 8-15 is just all kinds of awesome fun
Thanks for the tips bp!
mathino said:
With your gear...
...I would get:
1.) 35L + 135L to have 35L / 50L / 135L prime "trinity"
2.) 16-35L + 100L macro - you have no UWA (expect fishy zoom)
3.) wait for 24-70 Mk II to be available, sell 24-105 L in favour of 24-70 Mk II and get 17-40L
These are my 3 scenarios/recomendations for you.
Thanks Mathino! All three are very appealing options!
And all contain lenses I'd love to own at some stage or another!
drjlo said:
I'll vote for 85L II on the 5D III. I have the 50L, too, but when push comes to shove and I *need* absolutely sterling and unmatched results in studio and portraits, the 85L II is the one.
Thanks drjlo! It's what I originally had in mind, as I love taking portraits, just didn't know whether it was worth getting it when I already have the 50mm, nice to know you have both, and grab the 85 over the 50 for portraits
ishdakuteb said:
base on your gear information, i guess that suggest you to buy the following:
1. 16-35mm
2. 100mm Macro
note: another thing that i need to mention that you probably do not need 24-70mm since you already have 24-105mm. you probably ask me why? first, you are having 5d mark III. second, i see there is no need to get extra stop in aperture to give up 3 IS stop when you are holding a good low light support in your hand. third, you are having lens with large aperture 50mm and 85mm. if you want more shallow depth of field with 24-105, try to get closer to your subject with both your feet and zoom
assuming that you do not interested in shooting bird. as if you do, $2500 is not enough
Hey ishdakuteb! Thanks for your post, and taking the time
Both are lenses I want to own at some time, thanks heaps! Also, re: 24-105 and 24-70, while I do like the 24-105, and don't miss / find myself wishing for an extra stop, I find that it lacks a bit on the long end. It's just not quite as sharp as I'd like it to be, it could be my copy too, not sure, but I like the idea of the new 25-70 having such amazing image quality
haha who wouldn't?
Axilrod said:
+1 for 100L Macro, it's relatively cheap for L glass and a lot of fun to use, plus you'd still have +/- $1500 left over for something else. Maybe the 16-35L if you wanted something ultra wide, or the 24L II if you use that focal length a lot.
I saw you mentioned the 85L and 135L, but considering you have the 70-200 II already i have trouble recommending those, that lens is a freak for a zoom, ridiculously sharp. Then again the 85 would give you a few extra stops and the bokeh is out of this world, but I don't see it getting much use with the other lenses you have.
Thanks Axilrod! As for having money left over, the plan is to just get one lens at a time, and use it for a minimum of one month before getting something else. The 100L Macro is definitely up the top with the 85mm
Also the 40mm ƒ/2.8 pancake is one that I really want
Thanks for your suggestions, and comments, true RE: the 70-200mm, that lens never ceases to impress me, it's just a massive lens to cart around
Thanks again everyone, tossing up between the 100L Macro and the 85L which is sort of where I was at the start, but thanks again, really appreciate you all taking the time!
Cheers,
Sam.
