How to complete my lens lineup? Help!

[Feck]

OK guys, help me spend $3000.

I've got a 1D3 together with:

17-40/4L
24/3.5L II TSE
50/1.8 II
70-200/4L IS
100/2.8L IS

I'm going to "finish" my lens collection first then add a FF body at some point (5D2?). I'll probably get a couple of 600EX flashes too, but my 430EX on a cord works OK for the moment.

I think between the 17-40 and 70-200 I've got walkabouts sorted. I love fast glass but only have the 50/1.8. Most of my shooting is of the family (young kids) but I'd like to get into portraits at some point. I've just returned two Sigma 50/1.4s which front-focused even with +20 MA so my confidence is knocked with Sigma - shame as they were otherwise great lenses. The shortlist is:

35/1.4L $1330
50/1.4 $360
85/1.8 $370
85/1.2L II $2000
135/2L $980

I've pretty much discounted the 135/2 since it's too tight on a APS-H, and my 100/2.8 kind of fills that role. I like the idea of covering 35 and 85, and making do with my 50/1.8 until Canon manage to produce a decent 50mm lens. The 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L II would blow my budget slightly but the results look great! Alternatively I could downgrade to the 85/1.8 and buy two 600EXs and a STE3.

I'd welcome your thoughts - have I missed anything?

Thanks, Feck.

 

[charlesa]

The 85 mm would be an obvious choice if you want to move to portraits, although the 50 mm and the 70-200 already cover that as well. The 35 mm is quite a good walkabout lens for street photography.

 

[AmbientLight]

Well I believe you already have made the best choice going for the 35 and 85mm L lenses. If you must stay within your budget you could also choose to concentrate your investment in excellent portrait glass, going for the 85 and 135mm lenses, although I believe the latter will become useful for you only once you add a full-frame body. I agree that on crop the 100mm lens makes more sense in this area.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Buy a lens for a purpose. If you are not missing anything, hang onto your cash or upgrade to a 1D MK IV, its is much better and you can sell your MK III and add a little cash to do it.

 

[charlesa]

Buy a lens for a purpose. If you are not missing anything, hang onto your cash or upgrade to a 1D MK IV, its is much better and you can sell your MK III and add a little cash to do it.

+1 from me. You only buy glass with one purpose in mind before going for it.

 

[Cannon Man]

The 85 1.2 II no question! It is the best lens for portraits and will bring superb image quality!
My favorite lens on this planet.

 

[Axilrod]

I'd upgrade your 50mm man, the 50mm f/1.4 is a pretty big improvement over the 1.8 and not too expensive. 85mm would probably be a good length for portraits, it's about 110mm FF equivalent on APS-H. It's kind of an odd crop factor, but I'm sure you can make it work. I think the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 would be good choices, both stellar lenses for the money and wouldn't break the bank at all.

 

[dshipley]

OK guys, help me spend $3000.

I've got a 1D3 together with:

17-40/4L
24/3.5L II TSE
50/1.8 II
70-200/4L IS
100/2.8L IS

I'm going to "finish" my lens collection first then add a FF body at some point (5D2?). I'll probably get a couple of 600EX flashes too, but my 430EX on a cord works OK for the moment.

I think between the 17-40 and 70-200 I've got walkabouts sorted. I love fast glass but only have the 50/1.8. Most of my shooting is of the family (young kids) but I'd like to get into portraits at some point. I've just returned two Sigma 50/1.4s which front-focused even with +20 MA so my confidence is knocked with Sigma - shame as they were otherwise great lenses. The shortlist is:

35/1.4L $1330
50/1.4 $360
85/1.8 $370
85/1.2L II $2000
135/2L $980

I've pretty much discounted the 135/2 since it's too tight on a APS-H, and my 100/2.8 kind of fills that role. I like the idea of covering 35 and 85, and making do with my 50/1.8 until Canon manage to produce a decent 50mm lens. The 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L II would blow my budget slightly but the results look great! Alternatively I could downgrade to the 85/1.8 and buy two 600EXs and a STE3.

I'd welcome your thoughts - have I missed anything?

Thanks, Feck.

Personally, I'd go for the 35 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.8 and would wait for Canon to release a new 50 before upgrading it, however, you'd still have enough budget left (especially if you buy the 35 and 85 used) to sell your 50 f/1.8 and pick up the 50 f/1.4 if desired.

 

[Feck]

Many thanks guys, some useful perspectives there. I'm from the UK but living in the US so all my boxes etc are in storage - otherwise I'd be able to sell my 1D3 to upgrade it - maybe later. But it's a great camera and I love it, I'm just missing video and FF.

I think I'll go with the 35 and an 85 of some description - might have to do some creative accounting to afford the 1.2.

Cheers.

 

[RLPhoto]

135L - Best lens ever for portraits and its cheaper than 85L.

Buy a 5D - 5D2 - 5D3 series camera.

 

[dafrank]

Well, of course it's nearly impossible to recommend lenses when I don't know what and how you intend to shoot with them. To just guess (kind of an exercise in futility), I'd say that you probably want to shoot some longer range action at some point, because you purchased an 1D3 camera which is mostly made for action/sports photography. If I'm guessing right, then finding an older used Canon 300 f?2.8 IS (the new one is better, but even more outrageously expensive) and at least a version II 1.4x extender would be a great addition to your kit. If you don't have a need for shooting distant sports subjects, then your own idea of a 35mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.2 is a very good one. These give you great speed (as in lens aperture, not focusing speed), portrait bokeh in the 85mm that is wonderful and, in the 35mm, a near-perfect 50mm replacement for the 1D3, and the perfect "walking around" lens for your future full frame camera. Don't bother with the 85mm f/1.8 - it's a great very sharp lens, but it just isn't in the same league as the f/1.2. With those two, you could, arguably, shoot just about anything you would need to, using your own foot-powered "pedi-zoom" for all but the most extreme purposes. Good Luck!

Regards,
David

 

[pwp]

Buy a lens for a purpose. If you are not missing anything, hang onto your cash or upgrade to a 1D MK IV, its is much better and you can sell your MK III and add a little cash to do it.

+1 from me. You only buy glass with one purpose in mind before going for it.

+1 again. My lens collection has grown based on specific need. If I pick up a strong architecture client I'll go straight out and get a 17mm TS-E for example. A healthy percentage of working photographers on the planet will have a core kit of the three L f/2.8 zooms and two bodies. There is very little you can't do with a 16-35, 24-70 and a 70-200. As Mt Spokane suggests additional lenses are added for a purpose.

If the money is burning a hole in your pocket take a holiday.

-PW

 

[dafrank]

A couple more ideas, based on my own experience.

If you go for the pricey 85mm f/1.2 and 35mm f/1.4, but still want a 50mm for some reason, then you might want to consider the old but cheap 50mm f/2.5 macro. I have one and it is wonderfully sharp from about f/4.0 and up, while still being pretty good in the middle wide open. It is made cheaply - but not as poorly as the 50mm f/1.8 - and it has held up well for a long time in my bag. The manual focus ring is too narrow and feels pretty wobbly, but it works just fine. It also focuses down to a 1:2 mag. ratio without attachments and is quite sharp and flat-focused in close-ups. I doubt this lens will be made much longer, so, if you want a new one, you'd be better off to buy one pretty soon.

I can't pay as many compliments to Sigma as they deserve for their last generation 150 f/2.8 macro (focuses to 1:1 without adapters), the one without the IS, but with an ultrasonic focus motor. It is sharper than the newer design and just plain sharp all over the full frame format, from wide open to at least f/11.0. It feels good in hand, and the focus helicoid travel is very long - a good thing for accurate manual focusing, but it slows down autofocus to a leisurely pace. The construction is very good for a 3rd party lens - not as good as a Canon L, but it feels better than most of the non-L Canons. Yes, it's sharp wide open at 150mm, and killer sharp at f/4.0. And it costs way less than the Canon 180 or the even the newer Sigma replaceemnt with IS. This, like the Canon 50mm macro above, is probably not going to be in production much longer, so if you're interested, go for it soon.

Last, I'll state the obvious. If you make money with the 24mm TSE lens shooting anything vaguely architectural, or if you're a wealthy enthusiast who does the same stuff for yourself, get the companion lens to your 24mm TSE - the 17mm TSE - as well. It's an almost miraculous performer considering its incredibly wide coverage and complex construction; simply put, it can do what no other lens from anyone else can do.

Without knowing more about your "work," I can't think of any other good advice on the subject for you.

Again, good luck.

Regards,
David

 

[canonian]

Well, of course it's nearly impossible to recommend lenses when I don't know what and how you intend to shoot with them.

+1 on that

What lenses you have/need totally depend on what you shoot and what look you're going for. Otherwise you're just blowing money for the heck of it.

 

[iaind]

Well, of course it's nearly impossible to recommend lenses when I don't know what and how you intend to shoot with them.

+1 on that

What lenses you have/need totally depend on what you shoot and what look you're going for. Otherwise you're just blowing money for the heck of it.

If you've got money to burn get the 8-15 fisheye

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Buy the 2.0 teleconverter for the70-200. ($450) Then add a 35mm f2.0 (~$450), the 85mm f1.8 (~400)
a Domke F2 bag ($125), add 100 for filters and save the rest of the money for a chiropractor.

 

[Feck]

Thanks chaps, all valid points. I shoot landscapes, portraits, sports, macro, wildlife, air-to-air - whatever wanders in front of my camera. So the f/4 lenses are great for lightweight walkabout / general purpose, the TSE is good for landscapes, the 100 for macro etc. Ideally I'll get a 300 or 400 tele at some point but at the moment I get much more mileage at the wider end and the 70-200 with a 1.3 crop is just about ok for my needs. So really I'm after some fast glass for shallow DOF, the 35 and the 85 would certainly cover it. That said, I'm going to give the Sig 50/1.4 one last chance and maybe I'll leave it at 24TSE / 50/1.4 / 100/2.8. I'll let you know.

 

[UrbanImages]

I don't use primes very often however I have both the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.4 and I feel that they do just fine for what I need them for; i.e.: portraits and other work where I can take my time and set the shot right. However a lens I might recommend looking at is the 24-70L. Covers a good amount and is fast as well. You can still find new copies of the Mark I if you don't feel like shelling out and waiting for the Mark II. This leaves enough to diversify. I also have the 40 2.8 pancake. Short money and very sharp, even wide open.

 

[Deleted member 42026]

I've seen 1Ds mark iii's around $2500. If one of those appeal you could potentially get one of those and the 35L.

Sounds good to me. Im pretty sure I saw them on keh.

 

[dirtcastle]

The quality of the 35/85/135 Ls are all known to good values (for the price). So as I see it, it's more a matter of what focal length you want your quality to be at. But it is definitely true that the 135mm f/2 L is definitely the best value of the three. That said, it often requires that you back up a bit from your subject.