GAS - what to get next

[Ozarker]

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

I would get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM. That's my vote.

 

[Ozarker]

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

That is my goal Dylan777. The only change for me would be at position #3: Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS. Those four would do it for me. Well, and maybe the Canon EF 600mm f/4 IS II.

 

[Snodge]

If you are getting into old manual lenses like the Helios lenses, you could easily pick up a new 16mm Zenit fish-eye lens - much cheaper than other fish-eye options and pretty good quality too. If you want something different in the m42 land, Chinon made an f/1.2 50mm lens which is just... want for the sake of want for me!

 

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

Based on what you're shooting, I'd

1. buy the 20-200mm f/2.8L IS II, you'll have the range covered

then:

2. sell the 50mm L
3. buy the 85mm L II
4. buy the 100L IS macro

 

[Jules]

I don't know if it was the fact that it was my first L glass, my first 2.8 glass (slower but far nicer bokeh than my nifty 50) or just the fact that it was a macro ... but the 100 L Macro still has such a "wahoo" effect that my 70-200 2.8 II doesn't quite reach ... i love it for jewelry, flowers ...
So i would definitely recommend the 100 L Macro (on top of macro it gives great portraits on an APS-C so i guess on FF it would also be great), and then of course the 70-200 2.8 II : versatile for portraits bokeh enhancements with long focals, super effective IS (surprisingly easily good for shots down to 1/20-1/10), can take x2-III for convenient portable 400 for events (shot boats across 1km strait last weekend, could see the smiling guy on the other side onboard the ship also had the same big white for shooting the boats parade)...

 

[slclick]

Based on what you're shooting, I'd

1. buy the 20-200mm f/2.8L IS II, you'll have the range covered

then:

2. sell the 50mm L
3. buy the 85mm L II
4. buy the 100L IS macro

I want the 20-200 2.8L ll, Hell I'd even take the version 1

 

[RGF]

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

how about some gas-x?

 

[Laktibrada]

70-200mm II (new) - 1 670 EUR now (1600 ish if i wait for a cashback)
85mm (new) - 1700 EUR
100mm L (used) - 600 EUR
65mm MP-E (used) - 700 EUR

almost sure i made up my mind - 70-200 II - ill wait for a cashback

then itll be one of the macros (the 100 seems a bit redundant with the 70-200 already acquired)

i am still torn over the 50 vs 85 battle... the 50 is great for indoor shots even in semi-cramped spaces and is a great walk-around lense
i am afraid the 85 would limit me there, but i guess ill start a new thread in a year or 2 once i saved up

 

[Busted Knuckles]

A trip to some place that has landscapes substantially different than your history? That is my vote.

You said you don't NEED several manual focus lenses that may cover the needed width, as well as some extension tubes.

Though heavy, I have had some great fun w/ my 70-200 II and extension tubes.

I also find the 16-35 to be the lens that stays on the camera the most. I picked up a 90 T/S with idea of doing some stitched pano's this summer. I have used T/S in the past and it isn't something one just slaps on and blasts away - thought a 2.8 it is not a bad portrait lens (not great but w/ T/S you get some really interesting and striking effects w/ depth of field fiddling). The 85L is a really cool lens, no doubt about it, and I have even heard some used it indoors for sports (must be really good and figure out where the action is going to be as the focusing will never be called speedy)

I like do like the idea of getting out and shooting.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

70-200mm II (new) - 1 670 EUR now (1600 ish if i wait for a cashback)
85mm (new) - 1700 EUR
100mm L (used) - 600 EUR
65mm MP-E (used) - 700 EUR

almost sure i made up my mind - 70-200 II - ill wait for a cashback

then itll be one of the macros (the 100 seems a bit redundant with the 70-200 already acquired)

i am still torn over the 50 vs 85 battle... the 50 is great for indoor shots even in semi-cramped spaces and is a great walk-around lense
i am afraid the 85 would limit me there, but i guess ill start a new thread in a year or 2 once i saved up

I put off purchasing the 70-200 II for a long time after it was released. In fact, I figured I would never buy it. I had other lenses that got the job done, it was crazy expensive and I was irritated at Canon for what they were starting to charge for new lens versions. (Remember, the 70-200 II debuted for about a million dollars or close to it. Or maybe it was about $2300. I forget.) Finally, I bought it for $1899 on a Black Friday sale about a year or year and a half after it was released. It was the first "ver II" lens I bought and I funded it partially by selling off a couple other lenses I replaced with it like the EF 70-300 IS.

I knew it was a good lens but I bought it blind, never having used it before. I was amazed, blown away in fact, at the pictures it produced. It was unique and that's saying something because I already had the 70-200 f/4 IS which is a great lens also and the reason why I didn't think I would ever need the 2.8 v II. But I was wrong! The 70-200 v II lens is easily the best lens I think I own. Even over the 24-70 v II in my case. The pictures it produces "pop" and are more interesting.

You're smart to wait and buy it with a good deal. That will help prevent any buyer remorse. Because once you use it, you'll be glad you bought it at whatever price you pay but a good deal always makes it a bit sweeter. And it will probably be one of the last lenses you let go of. Enjoy it!!!

 

[NancyP]

If you do landscapes, you need a good tripod with a good head.
If there are no good classes available locally, try your local camera clubs. As well as being useful as social events, the clubs are good sources for finding out who the good instructors are.
Photo books! If you don't have a good history of photography book, you should get one. Manual for whatever post-processing program you use.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

If you do landscapes, you need a good tripod with a good head.
If there are no good classes available locally, try your local camera clubs. As well as being useful as social events, the clubs are good sources for finding out who the good instructors are.
Photo books! If you don't have a good history of photography book, you should get one. Manual for whatever post-processing program you use.

I have found all kinds of very interesting and nostalgic photography books at used book stores for pennies on the dollar. Some are really old (60's - 80's) and others are within the last 5-10 years and cover digital, etc. But the information is timeless and I have learned some very interesting things looking at the older knowledge, techniques, tips and most of all... the photographs! One book I have is by Annie Leibovitz in the early '70's when she was younger along with some of the celebrities she shot, like a young Candice Bergen!

 

[Laktibrada]

yeah... i forgot that part - accessories
i got a manfrotto 190xprob with some funky joystick head...
and a speedlite 430ex II, cheapo remote triggers a lightstand, umbrella, chinese small and medium diffusers, and a reflector (should probably experiment with these a lot more, but it all seems ... overly complicated and scary)

i managed to go through an amazing amount of photoshop and lightroom videos on lynda.com when they had an anniversary and everything was for free and I learned A LOT (mostly about lightroom - photoshop seems ... overly complicated and scary)

now as for books, i always hesitate to buy instructional and how-to books with so much information being freely available on the internet; its a little different when it comes to books filled with beautiful photographs - i have quite a few of those and always find inspiration in them (but to be honest, it is the same with some photos i find on here or flickr or wherever in the endless lands of internet)

and last but not least - photography clubs - i realize that benefits of me joining a club would be countless (option to share and borrow lenses for a couple of minutes would considerable ease up my GAS decision making process ), but... i cant seem to find any in my area - i tried google, facebook - hmm... is the first rule of photography-clubs not to talk about them?!?!

 

[NancyP]

I am not sure about your area. Locally, I found one club by asking a fellow photographer about the logo on his T-shirt - turned out it was the club logo and I was talking with the club president. I found others by looking at fliers at the local camera shop and by consulting "MeetUp" internet event/club site, searching for (mytown) and "photography".

 

[degos]

70-200 is a 'popular' option, but in my experience pretty useless. Too wide at the short end and too short at the long end unless you're shooting in known venues of a certain size.

So don't just run out and buy one because it's an opticaly-good lens; try to recall what you shot with your f4 and determine whether a couple of primes might work better.

Super-fast 50mmm / fast 135mm / moderate-fast 300mm is a killer combo, for example. Not a lot of general usage they can't cover. You have the first one already.


Photo-clubs in my experience are so pre-occupied with running their own competitions that the members didn't want to divulge their techniques, all they wanted to achieve was 'teh win!!!'. I mean, sometimes they wouldn't even say where a photo was taken. Experience varies, I suppose.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

70-200 is a 'popular' option, but in my experience pretty useless. Too wide at the short end and too short at the long end unless you're shooting in known venues of a certain size.

So don't just run out and buy one because it's an opticaly-good lens; try to recall what you shot with your f4 and determine whether a couple of primes might work better.

Super-fast 50mmm / fast 135mm / moderate-fast 300mm is a killer combo, for example. Not a lot of general usage they can't cover. You have the first one already.


Photo-clubs in my experience are so pre-occupied with running their own competitions that the members didn't want to divulge their techniques, all they wanted to achieve was 'teh win!!!'. I mean, sometimes they wouldn't even say where a photo was taken. Experience varies, I suppose.

degos, you make some good points and I agree that while the 70-200 is a popular and great lens while it's usability can be limited at times. This is why I took so long to invest the money in mine. I hardly used the f/4 IS version myself. And it's heavy to carry as an extra lens. But when the times arrive that I can use it effectively, I'm really glad I got it! To me, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a more of a purpose driven lens that delivers on those purposes. It's not an early lens purpose, it's a need based or luxury lens purchase after several other lenses are in place. For me, it gets used a lot for indoor swimming on the 7D-II where my 5D3 is on the other hip with a 24-70, 24-105 or 16-35 installed and ready to go. It also gets used a lot on any portraits where I have the time and the light to change lenses and positions, esp outdoors.