Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?

[rmfagan]

Title says it all... I'm planning to purchase another lens and I wanted to get opinions on where I might gain the most.

At present:

1Dx
5D3
Rokinon 14
Rokinon 24
16-35L IS
24-70L II
70-200 IS II
50 1.4
100L Macro
TC III 1.4 and 2.0
600EX-RT x 3 and SR-E3-RT

I had a 17 TS-E but sold it as I felt it lacked the sharpness I'd hoped for and while shift was great, tilt wasn't as noticeable at 17.

I recognize a gap in telephoto coverage at the long end, and debated the 500 II, but got a 1Dx instead, and will get the 500 next fall, and rent that for now when needed.

I'm most strongly considering the 85L II and the 24 TS-E. The 70-200 is great for portraits, but can be unwieldy for more intimate settings or when my primary focus is portrait. Also, 1.2 would be sweet. As for the TS-E, I love landscape, and this is bread and butter for the TS-E. I also have enjoyed playing with architecture, but mostly outdoor thus far.

Is having so much wide coverage contraindicating the TS-E? Is the 100L and 70-200 a knock on the 85? Would there be other suggestions? Basically, where does my gear stand to gain the most?

Before it's suggested, I have 2 Gitzo tripods, RRS Gimbal/Pano/Macro set ups.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Normally, I'd purchase gear for a purpose rather than just having it sit.

In your case, focal lengths above 200mm are missing, but if you would not use them, don't buy any. I love my new 100-400mm L MK II.

 

[rmfagan]

Thanks for the input. I'm a bit confused though by the first half of your response.

I enjoy photography, I'm not half bad, I have high expectations of my gear, I can afford to buy what I want for the most part, and I make a small bit of money on the side at it--hopefully more in the future. Is that not purpose enough?

In any case, none of my gear "just sits". I do 6 or so trips a year, and photograph locally for small businesses, and some rec leagues, as well as some portraits.

I'm certainly not a "pro" by any means, and my experience and results pale in comparison to many on this forum, hence my appeal to the collective knowledge of you and others.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You were asking what holes you had in your gear.

What I was trying to say, is that you should not purchase gear just to cover every possiblity. You should purchase it because you will use it. You don't list the Canon EF 1200mm lens which goes for ~$100,000. If you have the money and want bragging rights, you could buy one, but actually having a use for it would justify the expense.

 

[CaptainZero]

I'd go with the 100-400 ii. You don't seem to have any long lenses. But, like Mt Spokane said, don't buy something you won't use.

 

[dcm]

Its a pretty wide open question and the answer is - it depends. What can't you do with your current gear that you want to go out and do/try? Where is your current gear holding you back from getting better results? Canon has quite a list of gear to choose from but without some idea of the intended use, it's hard to make a suggestion.

 

[BozillaNZ]

You must buy 24L II, 35L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 200 f2L, 300 2.8L, 400 2.8L, 500 4L, 600 4L, 800 5.6L, that ought do it.

 

[rmfagan]

Ok. Rephrased, I get it. What I suppose I should have asked is given my present gear, which lens would increase my utility the most, ignoring superteles bc I intend to buy later.

 

[rmfagan]

dcm- fair question. I'd appreciate the ability to create portraits that truly pop, which is what leads me to the 85L. I like narrow DOF, but mostly I love the color, contrast, and (relative) light weight and size compared to my only other portrait alternative.

With the 24TS-E, I'm curious to experiment with the darn near infinite DOF that tilt provides for landscapes, especially on my trip to Iceland in February. I could, I suppose, focus stack the 16-35. But that sharpness! And living near NYC grants extra utility to architecture shots.

I'd also entertain other options, but those are the two areas I isolated as biggest areas of need.

As far long, I'm set on the 500 II, when I get it next fall, and have and will continue to rent it until then.

 

[Patak]

135 f2 L would fit nicely to your combo. Portraits (outside) are great and AF is fast and accurate. 85L II could be a good choice as well if you do not mind slow focus.

 

[BozillaNZ]

Ok. Rephrased, I get it. What I suppose I should have asked is given my present gear, which lens would increase my utility the most, ignoring superteles bc I intend to buy later.

What do you want to do with your supposed new gear?

Landscape? Sport? Portait? Bird? Underwater? They are all valid 'utility' yet the gears required are vastly different.

 

[rmfagan]

Ok. Rephrased, I get it. What I suppose I should have asked is given my present gear, which lens would increase my utility the most, ignoring superteles bc I intend to buy later.

What do you want to do with your supposed new gear?

Landscape? Sport? Portait? Bird? Underwater? They are all valid 'utility' yet the gears required are vastly different.

Sport I feel I have fairly well covered, as well as bird. Portrait and landscape are areas of my kit I'd like to see improved upon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Ok. Rephrased, I get it. What I suppose I should have asked is given my present gear, which lens would increase my utility the most, ignoring superteles bc I intend to buy later.

What do you want to do with your supposed new gear?

Landscape? Sport? Portait? Bird? Underwater? They are all valid 'utility' yet the gears required are vastly different.

Sport I feel I have fairly well covered, as well as bird. Portrait and landscape are areas of my kit I'd like to see improved upon.

A 85mm wide aperture lens (lots of choices here when you add in 3rd party lenses). The Canon 135mm f/2 L is wonderful, but only for half body shots unless you can get way back. I love mine, but its for sale because my 70-200mm MK II handles almost everything in that range and I'm not into portraits.

 

[rmfagan]

I'll admit the 135 is darn tempting, given it's comparative price advantage over the 85, and it's ability for indoor sports, and potentially street. No one yet seems to think my landscape capability is lacking. How are straight up comparisons between 16-35 IS vs 24 TSE, negating tilt/shift?

But then again, there's tilt and shift...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'll admit the 135 is darn tempting, given it's comparative price advantage over the 85, and it's ability for indoor sports, and potentially street. No one yet seems to think my landscape capability is lacking. How are straight up comparisons between 16-35 IS vs 24 TSE, negating tilt/shift?

But then again, there's tilt and shift...

Funny thing, while I was posting, someone called about my 135mmL I had for sale.

I'm not good with ultra wide angles, I just sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 for lack of use, and sold my 90mm TS-E some time ago for lack of use. The 16-35mm IS is on my radar, but I'm waiting for a new body next.

I'd say the 24mm TS-E II is going to be better than the 16-35mm IS, it has a stellar reputation. My eyes are too old to do manual focus though.

 

[Khufu]

From reading your initial post I was thinking the 135L is going to be your next purchase and assumed it wouldn't be too many posts before someone nudged you in it's direction... It's almost certainly my next lens purchase, should be yours too! Now stop playing on the internets and go get yourself that new toy ;D
Also, do yourself a favour and grab yourself the 400mm f/5.6L prime as a lightweight "for now" toy whilst you're waiting for Santa to drop off that much less portable 500mm. You might just fall in love with it ;D

 

[sagittariansrock]

I don't see a fast standard lens for low light, such as the 35L, in your arsenal...

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I'll admit the 135 is darn tempting, given it's comparative price advantage over the 85, and it's ability for indoor sports, and potentially street. No one yet seems to think my landscape capability is lacking. How are straight up comparisons between 16-35 IS vs 24 TSE, negating tilt/shift?

But then again, there's tilt and shift...

I have tempted about the 135L and the 85L but when I see that I have the 70-200L II and the 100L I drop the option and rather think on something else like a new body. I am aware that these two are in a different league for bokeh and IQ but for my purposes the 70-200L II and the 100L cover my needs.
I think the with the two Rokinon lenses and the 16-35L IS you are quite covered for landscape and astrophotography. 24 TSE is a lot more useful if you shoot architecture but otherwise the lenses you have can do the job very well.
As others have suggested I would go for the long telephoto, like the new 100-400L II, even though you have the 1.4xTC and 2xTC, because TC's make slower the AF on my 70-200L II. Also consider a fast (f/1.2-1.4)standard prime in the 35-50mm focal range.

 

[Berowne]

I really do not understand this. You sold the 17 TS-E because it was not sharp enough? You buy a 1Dx for what purpose? You owe Gear for 20.000€ and you do not know what to buy next?

 

[wickidwombat]

since money doesn't seem to be much of a stumbling block here i really think you should go and have good hard look at the 200-400 f4L IS with built in TC.

sure the new 100-400 looks sweet too but i dont think there is too much that can match the 200-400

i also second the 135 (since i got mine my use of the 70-200 dropped alot) however again if money is no real object i would go for the 200 F2L and the 85 f1.2 L II for a less tight portrait lens

really depends which option you will use more...