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

[adhocphotographer]

35L (or Art)
85L
135L
200-400L
500/600L

But unless you are lacking something for a specific purpose, I tend to throw my money into photo opportunities!

Pick up the 500L and go on Safari somewhere?

If i felt some serious GAS building up, i would release it on a 135L... great value, easy re-sale if you want to, fantastic quality.

 

[e17paul]

If you have a pretty full set of lenses already, what about a fisheye? It's a lot of fun under the right (occasional) circumstances, either shooting upwards or in very confined spaces.

My personal preference is for the old school 15/2.8 over the 8-15/4 L.

 

[tron]

My 17 TS-E is SHARP!

On the other hand I have some reservations about my 24TS-E extreme corners... (I admit thought I do not remember if it was shifted or not)

 

[tron]

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.

So you have no big tele's and you say you are well covered for sport and bird!! Plus, you have 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and you say you have to improve on landscape and portrait?

 

[rmfagan]

As already stated, when needing a big tele, I rent the 500 II, and will continue to do so until I buy one next fall. Considering most sports I shoot don't require a $10k tele, because I'm shooting hockey, basketball, and the like, then yes, I consider myself set for sports and birds.

Would the 100-400 be useful? Yes, no doubt it would. But when I shoot wildlife it is either birds (rent 500II) or large mammals (in which case the 70-200 is often sufficient, occasionally with 1.4x). I don't like the notion of giving up 2.8 as I do a lot of shooting at dusk and dawn for these animals, and can't see myself carrying both a 70-200 AND 100-400. And since 70-200 is useful for other things, I wouldn't sell it.

While I do have a lot of coverage at wide focal lengths, they are fairly task specific. The Rokinons I use almost exclusively for wide-field starscape or Milky Way photography. The 16-35 is great, no argument. As is the 24-70, though I find for my purposes, I'd simply bring the 16-35 as I prefer wider and don't often go past 35 on the 24-70 for landscape. So yes, I am limited in that the 16-35 is my "landscape lens". I was hoping to ascertain whether the 24 TS-E might be a viable candidate to augment my capabilities for that use.

 

[rmfagan]

My 17 TS-E is SHARP!

On the other hand I have some reservations about my 24TS-E extreme corners... (I admit thought I do not remember if it was shifted or not)

I'll admit, I might be being unfair to the 17 TS-E. Its not like it wasn't sharp...it was. Partly, I'd expected a little more, closer to the legendary sharpness of the 24 TS-E, and partly, I probably should have purchased the 24 TS-E to begin with. I found 17 was wider than I really needed, and that the effects of tilt weren't as noticeable as I'd hoped. So that's on my poor choice, and not on the lens.

 

[ashmadux]

Mine will be the 35mm f2 IS.

Rented it twice, its a nice lens. Definitely not L quality rendering (fringing, agrhgrgh), but does well on both FF and crop. But not a 600 dollar nice lens, so waiting for a deal.

A fun backup would be the 8-15. Its FANTASTIC....i try to rent it every time i get a chance. I actually prefer it on a ccrop, because circle photos are useless for me (atm)

 

[NancyP]

If you currently focus stack your landscapes and would prefer to not have to do so (because of grass/leaves waving in the breeze, or other moving elements), then the TS-E 24 is for you. People have to want that tilt/shift function badly, because the lens is heavy and all manual.

If you want to do a lot of head shot portraiture at f/1.2 with the famous f/1.2 bokeh, and don't care about fast AF, get the 85 mm f/1.2L. If you want to do head shot portraiture AND short tele action shots (indoor sports), get the 85 f/1.8 for its fast AF. You will get 90% of the bokeh, and good action shots to boot.

 

[tayassu]

I do not see a 'gap' in your setup, but I would try new things in your situation.

Maybe invest in the 8-15/4L for that unique fisheye look.
Maybe get the 24 TS-E for its unique capabilities.
Or maybe get a MF lens, e.g. for portraits, maybe the Zeiss 135/2 or, if you have some money to spend, the Otus 85mm...
Also, I find long, portable teles to be extremely important for landscapes... Think about the 100-400II.

But until then, have fun shooting with your gapless gear!

 

[FEBS]

For portrait I would go for the 85L 1.2. I know it's not the fastest but such a nice bokeh and sharpness. You need to practice that lens as f/1.2 is not that easy to handle. This lens will give you some real supplement compared to the 70-200II you already have. A 135L would not create the same surplus as the 85L would do compared to the 70-200II.

For landscape, I would definitely go for the 24TS-Eii. Great lens. Still experimenting a lot with it. When I compare that lens with the 24Lii, just give me the 24TS-E. Yes, it's manual, but the results are really great. It's even better then the 16-35L f4, which is another great lens.

I had the same feeling about a half year ago and bought the 85L and the 24TS-Eii at that moment and never regretted. Those are really a supplemental in you current gear list.

 

[dcm]

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.

I'm surprised nobody already suggested these. For portraits that truly pop you might consider the Otus 85 f/1.4 or Zeiss 135 f/2 that Eldar and Dustin highly recommend. You seem to have some manual focus experience already with TSEs and Rokinons so this shouldn't be much of a stretch. I've not had the pleasure of using these myself yet, but they are on the bucket list.