GAS - what to get next

[Laktibrada]

i grew quite fond of photography over the past few years and as a result i now own a 5d3, 24-70 II and the 50 L...
not so long ago i sold my 70-200 4 IS and the 100 zeiss so now i got 1500-ish EUR to spend

my candidates to spend them on:

70-200 2,8 IS II - i lately notice the lack of tele distance after selling the 4IS - especially for sports and portrait photography, but i dont shoot those too frequently; this lens seems the most logical choice leading a universal setup

65mm super macro - the zeiss was optically awesome and files straight out of camera looked halfway processed, but the 1:2 just wasnt enough for me and manual focus was too hard to master for portraits... the 65 might be a bot too much on the other hand, but it is something i can imagine myself playing with over longer periods of time

24mm tilt shift - i got 24mm covered, and can work around most of what TS provides via post-processing one way or another, but id still love to own this... hmm... yeah... just a case of GAS i guess

85L - i dont understand why 50L gets so much hate, but the 85 seems to get pure love, so, should be worth a try

i would welcome any opinions on which to buy first (cause i guess i will buy most of them sooner or later ), including suggestions of lenses which i didnt consider

 

[meywd]

What do you shoot, it seem you do some macro, other than that? if macro is your main thing, and since you were not satisfied with the Zeiss, the 65mm seems like the logical choice.

 

[Laktibrada]

portraits, landscapes and macro i guess... in that order

 

[meywd]

portraits, landscapes and macro i guess... in that order

now you don't have a macro lens, many say the 50mm on FF isn't a portrait focal range, so the 85L fits perfectly, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is an amazing lens, but if I didn't shoot birds and some events, I would have gotten the 85L or the 135L

 

[Jim Saunders]

The 70-200 is a solid investment and takes extenders well if you need to go further.

Jim

 

[johnnycash]

Get the 70-200 f/2.8L II (IS) - it is one of the most useful lenses.
However, the TS-E 24mm II is simply amazing. It is amazingly sharp, something I experience only with my Otus when doing landscape and architectural work. You have to have one too I bought it when I had my GAS day and even though I don't use it as much as other lenses, I don't regret it and will not sell it now I've seen how capable and special it is. It will also slow down your work and bring more shooting discipline, which is always a good thing.

 

[Dylan777]

1. 24-70L II
2. 70-200Lf2.8 IS II
3. 85L II

4. 400mm f2.8 IS II + x2 TC III - for the future

 

[Vivid Color]

For a macro lens, I would suggest you consider Canon's 100 mm L f/2.8 macro lens. It's incredibly sharp, has IS, and it can double as a portrait lens. I absolutely love mine.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

1. 24-70L II
2. 70-200Lf2.8 IS II
3. 85L II

4. 400mm f2.8 IS II + x2 TC III - for the future

I would agree with Dylan except to offer another idea... go WIDE. Get a 16-35L f/4 IS! It's my favorite lens. Or,consider the 15mm EF FishEye lens. Tons of fun!

Otherwise, the 70-200Lf2.8 IS II is absolutely the best choice of next lens. It is extremely versatile and has the IQ of a prime but at several focal lengths. It's the perfect companion lens to the 24-70L II lens you already have.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

As a fellow member of the GAS club, I would answer your questions accordingly;

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is an incredible lens, and certainly not a lens I ever see myself parting ways with.

For macro, I would recommend the 100L over the 65, could just be my taste, but the 100L is also incredible and certainly one of the best investments we've made in a lens. Color, contrast, it's got it all. (Look at the beginning of any of our wedding galleries found on our wedding page; http://photosbytabor.com/tulsa-wedding-photographers/ to see what we do with this macro)

24mm TS, I don't own it, but I want to! I have the normal 24 1.4L II, and I greatly enjoy it, (but it is also my wife's least favorite lens, so something to keep in mind. It's not for everyone's taste.

The 85L is incredible. Hi praise for the 85L. It can be a bugger to work with, but when it hits, the world melts around it. For portraits, there is no better lens (in my opinion), the 70-200 2.8L IS II is second, the 50L is third, but the 85L is definitely first.

Final bullet point, I would recommend the 70-200 2.8L II

I hope this helps!
-Tabor

 

[Hjalmarg1]

1. 24-70L II
2. 70-200Lf2.8 IS II
3. 85L II

4. 400mm f2.8 IS II + x2 TC III - for the future

+1, I second this option. The 70-200L IS II is the most versatile lens you can get. It works great for portrait, sports and landscape. This is my second most used lens.

 

[cycleraw]

Here is another vote for the 70-200mm 2.8L II it's an awesome lens and will NEVER part with mine. After that I go with the 100mm 2.8L Macro.

 

[CurtL5]

Proud member right along side of you! I too shoot sports, portraiture and landscape...
I also use the 5Dmiii and I currently have the 16-35L 2.8ii, the 70-200L 2.8ii and the 100-400L vII. I also have the 50 1.8 but that is more of a plaything. The only gap I have is the 24-70...

When I shoot landscape I use the 16-35 almost 100% of the time and I typically shoot it around 16-18mm.
When I shoot sports, it depends on which sport and really, the size of the playing field but it is most often the 100-400.
When I do portraiture, I try to use the 70-200 as the image quality is absolutely superb. The compression at those focal lengths has the ability to provide incredible bocah not to mention a very VERY pleasing image quality over-all.

You are the only one that can ultimately decide which length best suits your needs but the version ii of that 70-200 is SO much better than the v1 I shot previously, it is truly as it were an entirely different lens and I'm surprised you were able to give up that focal length range in the first place!

 

[NancyP]

MP-E 65 is a hard lens to use, best for experienced macro photographers. But, these lenses often show up on the used market, from people who had bought them for specific projects (product photography, for instance). Mandatory for the MP-E is a decent flash / diffusion system or a tripod. Define your macro project first, then shop for the most appropriate lens. Some 1:2 lenses can be turned into 1:1 lenses by use of extension tubes, though your working distance may get a bit cramped.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

If you have to ask people on the Internets Tubes which lens you should buy next, you don't need another lens.

Maybe a better investment would be some classes?

 

[slclick]

Sigma 35 Art and Canon 100L Macro

 

[johnnycash]

If you have to ask people on the Internets Tubes which lens you should buy next, you don't need another lens.

Maybe a better investment would be some classes?

That's also a good point

 

[Zeidora]

If you don't like MF of the Zeiss, stay away from the MPE 65. The Zeiss 100 MakroPlanar is my work-horse lens, just gorgeous, so I have zero issues with focusing it. Adding extension rings for 1:1 is no big deal. The MPE 65 is much more challenging for framing and good focus. If macro is your third priority, omit it for a while.

MF may also be a problem if you use the stock, clear focusing screen. So think about using a dedicated MF screen. Then it is a breeze.

Sorry, can't help with portraits, not my thing. Landscape, if I wouldn't have a LF rig, I would also go for a TS-E lens, most likely the 24 for starters.

 

[Laktibrada]

thanks for all the wonderfull feedback...

the more i think about it, the more i understand that this is more an issue of choosing between the logical addition helping me to cover the complete "basic" focal lengths (70-200) and a(ny) specialty lens, that would enable me to create more unique photographs

manual focus for macro stuff was a breeze with zeiss i went with cheap extension tubes though and that made getting 1:1 considerably harder - the plan however was to use this lens mainly for portraits and there i figured out i sucked at long-distance MF
i basically bought the zeiss for portraits and some rare macro-fun, and i found myself doing the exact opposite ???

fisheye was fun (i owned a wallimex(german localization of samyang?)) but the canon version seems to expensive for the occassional experiments

right now i am keeping myself busy with some old manual lenses (couple of helioses) so its not like i NEED a new lens
and as for writing this post - i was pretty much decided by the end of last year to upgrade the 70-200 4 IS to 2,8 II using zeiss money... but somehow canon cashbacks avoid this lens since then, and that leaves me sitting on a nice pile of money which itches like hell

i would love to own all the lenses i mentioned (maybe the 180mm instead the 65 for macro) or a least be able to try them for a couple of months, i merely need to set my priorities straight and start with the one i will use the most

then there is the 50L vs 85L issue - i got the 50L dirty cheap in perfect condition and its ideal for all the kids portraits (wider and faster focusing) and while 85L get pure praise, i cant seem to justify spending additional 1000 EUR for it

classes are a tricky subject - i got one as a gift and it covered basic/advanced areas which i was already quite confident about, and another i bought for myself was technically nice, but i wouldve gotten a lot more from it if there a) werent 50 other people there asking very basic questions b) the "teacher" was less of an a$$ c) would be 10x better orgaization
i checked out good classes which came with high recommendations, but those cost quite a fortune (close to what i would pay for a used 65mm mp-e)

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Take that money and get a Lynda.com account. Tons of good classes on there and you do it at your own pace.