Of your current lens line up, which ones would you replace if stolen/damaged?

  • Thread starter Thread starter willrobb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
W

willrobb

Guest
#1
Touch wood it never happens to anyone, but if any of your lenses were stolen/damaged beyond repair and your insurance paid up a reasonable amount (unlikey I know), which lenses would you replace with the same model and which ones would you upgrade or not bother replacing? Let's keep it with lenses available now and not get into rumoured lenses.

I currently have:

1. Canon 17-40mm f4L - I would replace this one with the same lens. This is a great lens, for travel/interior shoots, I sometimes wish I had the 16-35mm f2.8LII, but I have enough fast glass and the 17-40mm is a brilliant wide zoom at a really decent price.

2. Canon 24-70mm f2.8L. I would replace this one immediately with the same lens. It's my bread and butter lens, it's on one of my bodies 90% of the time for events/weddings/travel.

3. Canon 50mm f1.2L- Again, I would replace this immediately with the same lens. For portrait shoots it's my go to lens, it's good for baby shoots, individual portraits, couple shots, even group shots when you can put enough distance between you and them. I love the narrow DOF and the bokeh is superb. For low light shots when you can't use lights, it really is a powerful tool to have in your kit.

4. Canon 100mm f2.8L macro HIS - I'd replace this one too. One of my regular clients is a whisky magazine, this lens is great for product/drink shots and it's a really good portrait lens as well. The image stabilisation is a real winner, at event shoots I can go round and get the details on things without having to break out a tripod.

5. Canon 70-200mm f2.8L - I love this lens, but I would upgrade it to a 70-200mm f2.8L II IS. I love the IQ of my lens, at fashion shows it's brilliant with a monopod/tripod, but at events/weddings where I have to hand hold I really wish I had IS.
 
#2
The three lenses I would replace if stolen would be:
35mm 1.4 L
50mm 1.2 L
135mm 2 L

I couldn't imagine my kit without them.

Now, my little 50mm 2.5 macro... I would upgrade it to 100mm 2.8 L for the many obvious reasons!


(knock on wood)
 
Upvote 0
#3
If everything where stolen at a time, I would seriously consider switching to Nikon, because to date they have the better sensors and following "keepers" as far as lenses are concerned:

-A wide-angle zoom with STABILIZER: the 16-35. I really need the stabilizer in this lens for reportage, freestyles, overhead stills and panning!!!
-An excellent 24-70 (missing stabilizer though, but so does Canon's)
-An excellent 14-24 (missing stabilizer, but unrivalled by Canon)

I do love the Canon-Tele-lenses and following EF lenses. They are what makes me stay (or stuck) with Canon:
-500/4.0 L IS with excellent relation of cost and value, works extremely well with extenders, especially with the new 1,4 III
-300/2.8 L IS II seems to be the best tele ever built, doesn't it? Can't afford it though and will wait for 1Dx performance before investing further
-24/1.4 L II - could still be improved in terms of cornersharpness and aberrations at f1.4
-24-105 L IS: It is simply the best compromise of image-quality and zoomrange that I know of and I would really miss it if switching to Nikon. Nevertheless, Nikon 24-70 on the D3x is something else in terms of IQ

I do not care too much for the highly praised 85/1.2 L because I want it to be stabilized and equipped with quicker AF. The Sigma 85/1.4 is just so much faster (and no less accurate)!

Missing is also a 50/1.4 that rivals the Nikkor wide-open. Please CANON! - make it stabilized! Any lens is simply so much more universal if a stabilizer is included, to me only exception are fisheyes.

I am missing an update of the 300 4.0 L IS which has pretty bad abberations and does not perform to well wide-open or with extenders. For Macro I am using Sigmas or adapted tilt-lenses, so I do not depend on the 100 L IS, which surely is a great lens.
 
Upvote 0
#4
Well, this is what I had before:

Canon 7D
This is a beast of a camera. High speed, high resolution and plenty of features. Yes, it's still an APS-C, but the image quality and features are really great. (And it's really the only affordable choice if you need speed)
Canon 50mm 1.8
You can never go wrong with this one
SIGMA 17-70mm 2.8 - 4 HSM OS
I only had about half a year to play with this one. It's a nice lens with a good price, but in the end I found it a bit soft at the edges for my taste. So when it was stolen I decided against getting this one again. (Even though it's most likely the best lens with this range out there)
SIGMA 70-200mm 2.8
Sadly without OS, but I simply couldn't afford the better one. If you do have the extra cash make sure you go with the OS version. It's still a great lens though
SIGMA 150mm 2.8 Macro
I decided not to wait for the OS version especially since I got this one at an incredibly bargain. I really don't think OS is worth twice the price. The image quality of this lens is absolutely stunning, best lens I currently own by far
2x SIGMA Converter
works with the 70-200mm and 150mm Macro (making it a 300mm 2:1 macro!)

(Plus a whole bunch of other stuff)
Then everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) was stolen, and now I have this:

7D (again)
Canon 50mm 1.8 (again)
You can never go wrong with this one
Canon 24-70 2.8
Just got this one instead of the Sigma version. (The Sigma had some issues, plus I like that the Canon has better macro abilities and can fit a 77mm filter instead of the 82mm the Sigma uses) Didn't do many shots with it yet. Hopefully I will be able to play with it a bit more next week. It sure does feel really nice, L lenses really do have an amazing build quality!
SIGMA 150mm 2.8 OS Macro
Personally I do not think this lens needs OS (image stabilization) but they no longer make the non OS version. Since my old one was stolen I had to get this one. I haven't had time to test it thouroughly, but I do like the look and feel of the new EX finish and from what I have seen image wise it's just as good as my old one. (Which means it's simply incredible)
SIGMA 85mm 1.4
Now I have not had too much time to test this one, but what I have seen so far simply astonishes me. Having a 1.4 aperture really makes a difference in low light situations and the detail I can get out of a well focused shot is absolutely stunning. (Be aware though that an aperture of 1.4 has next to no depth-of-field, so make sure your focus is absolutely spot on!) I will certainly use that one a lot!

So far I have not regretted any of those buys. Once I have enough money again I will also buy Canons 100-400 to replace the lost 70-200 with the converter. Sadly insurance did not cough up a lot of money, but I had some money saved up to get all the things I needed again. Should I loose any of the things yet again I would most likely replace them 1:1. Only exception would be the 50 mm, I am thinking about upgrading this to the 1.4 version. (But then the one I have now was used and cost me something like 50€...)
 
Upvote 0
#5
Get the same again:
100-400L - there is nothing better
70-300L - weather sealing!
15-85 - nothing better. No, the 17-55 isn't better, too short a range.
135L - there is nothing better

Upgrade:
EF 50mm f/1.8 to f/1.4 - I've cheaped out long enough
Sigma 150mm macro to OS version

Wouldn't replace:
Zeiss 50mm makro - good, but far overpriced for what you get

Undecided:
Samyang 8mm fisheye - would I upgrade to the new Canon zoom fisheye instead?...

I know I have a ton of other lenses. They would group into replace as needed. The above lenses would form my core use.
 
Upvote 0
#7
Mt Spokane Photography said:
All of them. If I don't need or like a lens, I sell it. I've long since sold off all my Sigma and Tamron lenses, but I kept my Tokina 17mm f/3.5.
Click to expand...

+1. All of them for me as well. I use all of them (listed in my signature) and would get the same as I am very satisfied with them.
 
Upvote 0
#11
lol said:
Get the same again:
100-400L - there is nothing better
70-300L - weather sealing!
15-85 - nothing better. No, the 17-55 isn't better, too short a range.
135L - there is nothing better
Click to expand...

Sorry to hijack this thread, but...lol, I notice you have both the 100-400L and the 70-300L. That's something I've thought about but I've hesitated. I have the 100-400L and the newer Tamron 70-300 with IS. I have no complaints about the Tamron, but I have to admit, I'm kind of lusting after that white lens with the red ring around it, especially now, while the rebates are on and prices are down.

Since you would replace both, I assume you feel they compliment each other. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
 
Upvote 0
#13
unfocused said:
Sorry to hijack this thread, but...lol, I notice you have both the 100-400L and the 70-300L. That's something I've thought about but I've hesitated. I have the 100-400L and the newer Tamron 70-300 with IS. I have no complaints about the Tamron, but I have to admit, I'm kind of lusting after that white lens with the red ring around it, especially now, while the rebates are on and prices are down.

Since you would replace both, I assume you feel they compliment each other. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Click to expand...
When I got it, the sole reason for adding the 70-300L to the 100-400L was because I got fed up of drying the insides of the 100-400L if I use it in the rain. I took the focal length hit of the 70-300L and that became my wet weather lens, but I still reach for the 100-400L first given the chance. The 70-300L hasn't given me any problems with moisture so far.

Since then, the 70-300L also gave an extra benefit which I didn't originally plan on. I did some light travel where carrying the 100-400L was not an option, but the 70-300L just made it into the bag. I think the improved IS also helped in extremely poor light, subject allowing.

I did wonder a lot if the price was worth it, or if I should look at a 2nd 100-400L to swap out, or even a 70-200 II with 2x. But the 70-300L swung it in the end and I have no regrets.
 
Upvote 0
#15
I only have equipment that I need and use regularly, everything extra I've sold.
5D2 + Zeiss 18 + 24L2 + Zeiss 50 makro + 135L

I kind of want a Zeiss 28mm or 35mm lens, but don't think either would really add anything to my photography that the 24L can't already do.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
[COMMUNITY PROJECT] Deriving comprehensive guidelines for shooting the sun without sensor damage
Replies
14
Views
669
EOSR7MkII
E
Ozarker
OMG, all possible lens choices are too good!
Replies
3
Views
591
Buylongterm
B
G
What's next for the VCM Hybrid Prime lens line up?
Replies
2
Views
2K
bn5fg
B
M
Sony Redefines the 100mm F2.8 Macro
Replies
1
Views
591
ThomasTH
T
D
Katharine Burr Blodgett: Inventor of non-reflective coatings for glass?
Replies
20
Views
1K
AlanF
AlanF
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu