Help me blow my money on lenses!

[motorhead9999]

That's right folks...I'd like to spend money that I don't have.

I have a 6D and I'm looking to get a nice range of lenses to cover my bases. I've currently got the 24-105L f/4 lens, a nifty fifty (50mm 1.8), and a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. I'd like to get (or at least plan out) a lens purchase that will work for me over a wide range.

Most of what I shoot is landscapes, concert shots (so usually in darker/low light areas), rocket launches and night/astrophotography. Here is what I was thinking of:

24-70mm f/2.8 (was thinking the Canon II version, although I'm eagerly awaiting to see how the new Sigma version costs/gets reviewed first)
70-200mm f/2.8 (Canon II version)
Either the Canon fisheye 8-15mm, or the new Sigma 14mm f/1.8 (again, depends on how that reviews once it's out).

I'd keep my nifty fifty, and (assuming I get the 14mm f/1.8) I could sell my Rokinon version. The question would be, should I sell my 24-105 lens?

Any thoughts? I'm pretty open to any suggestions as to what a good arsenal might be.

 

[privatebydesign]

16-35 f4 L IS.

Landscapes:√
Concert shots: √
Rocket launches: √
Night/astrophotography: √

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Never go out and buy lenses just to cover all the bases. Unless you are very wealthy, its not possible.

I would look at the statistics from your current usage to see which focal lengths and apertures get the most usage. Are their some shots that you cannot get but want? Research the right gear for that specific usage.

I have learned to avoid 3rd party lenses, they always seem to bite me, but some of the new ones sound good.

I find my Canon 24-70 2.8L II and 70-200 2.8L II cover low light events very well. So well that I sold all my primes except for a 17mm and 100mm macro. I do have a really old Made in Japan 50mm f/1.8 laying around somewhere. It came with a film camera and did not impress me, I need to try it more to see if it has a issue.

I have very little use for wide angle lenses, so I'd be of little help there. I bought a 14mm Rokinon, it was junk, so it went back a few days later. I have had two or maybe three Canon 15mm FE lenses, they were all excellent, I just never used them. I acquired them when purchasing large lots of gear as part of the deal. I've had a Canon 16-35mm 2.8L, and a 17-40L, I just don't use that focal length range, so back they went. I kept a very old Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime which was cheap, and sits in my bag, unused for 3 years now. It is a excellent lens if I ever needed wide angle.

If I were to buy wide, I'd strongly consider a refurbished or maybe new Canon 16-35 f/4L. I purchased a used 1D MK III on a whim about 3 weeks ago, and now find that I don't have wide enough lenses for it. I may just resell it rather than spend more on lenses. Maybe I'll put that 17mm Tokina on it first.

 

[IglooEater]

Agree with the 16-35 IS
Also for concert shots I assume you'll want something a bit longer? F/2.8 is not terribly fast for a concert environment. (At least not those I've been to.) maybe look hard at a 135 2.0 or a

The kit you outlined is certainly cream of the cream top quality and very polyvalent. (Is that a word in English?) If you have the money I don't see how you can go wrong with those, aside from the fact that you gain nothing at the wide end. If i was that high heeled i'd be getting the 16-35 2.8 III. At which point I'd keep the 24-105

 

[unfocused]

In order of importance:

70-200 f2.8 IS II;
16-35 f4 IS
100-400 II
70-300 L (for travel when you want something lighter than either the 70-300 or 100-400
8-15 fisheye. (For fun, but will be seldom used)
After that you can start spending big bucks on big whites.

 

[Loswr]

I'd sell the 24-105/4L...at least, I did shortly after getting the 24-70/2.8L II. I do like the focal range of the 24-105, but while the IQ is very good, it's noticeably a step below the 24-70/2.8. I would have been tempted by the 24-105/4L II, but there wasn't a significant optical improvement.

Love the 70-200/2.8L IS II.

Have the Roki 14/2.8 for astro, that reminds me that I should probably sell it since I now have the 11-24/4L.

 

[NancyP]

How large a proportion of your work is concert stills shots? How far away are you? Do you need zoom? There are some interesting newer lenses out there for wide angle concert work, Sigma 20 mm f/1.4 and upcoming 14 mm f/1.8, not to mention more conventional f/1.4 options like 35mm and 50 mm.

 

[Duckman]

The first lens I would add would be the 70-200ISii.
I'd get a wide zoom after that. 16-35IS or the 16-35iii. (I think a filterable autofocus lens would be best for your needs) Which you gets depends on your priorities.
the 24-105 is a good lens but the 24-70ii is even better, get it also if you can.

-J

 

[awair]

I'd love to spend someone else's money rather than my own!

My 2 cents, based on the disclosure that I have bought way more than I should have, and only after, did I learn if it was the right choice...

My affair with lenses started with a Tamron 35-135, it gave me the focal range I wanted but never quite that 'something special'. Converting to digital, I didn't quite make the same mistake, but it was close - a 17-85 (EF-S) with my 20D.

Because I couldn't afford the (at the time $2499) for the 70-200, I purchased the 135/2.0L. It's probably still my favourite lens, either on crop or full frame. Having then purchased a 300/4, I realised that I was short of an 'everyday' lens, and after checking the 24-105/4L, went for the 24-70/4L, which suited me better for size & weight.

Eventually I relented on the 70-200/2.8 IS II with one of the recent price drops, and although I love the quality (and take most of my sports photos with it) I believe that if I hadn't purchased the 300/4, I would be better suited to the 300/2.8!

We all have a different journey through our purchase history, and I would say you have one of 3 choices:

1) Base every next purchase on what you already have
2) Pick your absolute favourite lens, and buy a new suite around that - forgetting what you already have, or
3) Pick a 'Master Toolset' that looks good on paper, but might not really suit you and your passion.

Based on what you've told us, I recommend:
a) 135/2.0L
b) 85/1.2L
c) 'something wide' - either a zoom (11-24), or something fast (1.4). For me both the 70-200 & 24-70 are 'compromises'!

Good luck, and remember to start at the top...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Category_SLR+Lenses&Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&ci=274&N=4288584247+4291570227

 

[rfdesigner]

The Samyang 14f2.8 is going to be expensive to beat for astro, I take it you've tried stacking. If you want to upgrade at this end, google "barn door mount". That's a much cheaper way to grab loads more light than just getting a wider aperture lens, allowing much much longer frames.

For the concerts fast glass is helpful. The 135L is well suited.. if that's too long take a look at the 100f2.0 and 85f1.8, the AF on those two is really snappy, I have the 100f2.0 as I found the 85 a touch soft wide open, unlike the 100, take a look across the web and you'll find those that have had the 100 tend to speak highly of it. If you can spring for the 85L sure trial it (it's on my "one day" list).. but the AF speed might be an issue.

If you want more reach and really really HATE money, there's the 200f2.0

 

[jhpeterson]

I, too would suggest first the 70-200 IS II, then the 16-35/4. I have them both and would feel lost without them. They're especially good as a pair for travel.
Since you already have a 24-105, I'd consider the 24-70 II only after you've acquired the other two.

 

[meywd]

What about Canon EF 35 mm f/1.4L II USM, its great for astro, landscape, and environmental portraits.

the 135mm f2L and the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II are both amazing, used both many times, although the 135mm is still new in my kit (replaced the 70-200) but I am amazed at the photos taken with both, portraits, still life, and landscape.

I have the Rokinon 14mm f2.8, its a great lens, but the distortion is a problem and its too wide sometimes, still its very cheap so I don't think I will ever sell it.