I have about $870 in cash (and that figure will grow with time) and I'd sell whatever lens I would upgrade...
First things first - gear:
Bodies:
I have a 5D mkiii that I'm VERY happy with and as I have stated before, I don't think I would upgrade to the mkiv regardless of how much of an upgrade it is over the mkiii. I also picked up an Xti for my daughter for around $15 so I have a back up (Ferrari to a Pinto) if the mkiii temporarily dies on me. I doubt I'll ever use the xti, but it is good to have.
Lenses in order of focal length:
Rokinon 8mm fisheye lens. I don't really do much fisheye photography... but it is fun to bend light from time to time. I'd actually like to get a extension tube so I can get MFD down to zero and also turn the fisheye from semi-circular to where the image covers the entire frame. I have zero interest in upgrading this lens to a better fisheye (Sigma or Canon).
24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I think this is the likely candidate for upgrade. 24mm is more than wide enough for my purposes and while I might be interested in doing some free-lance real-estate images (and 24mm isn't wide enough), I would do it if I could use their lenses but I don't want to invest in a 16-35 or a 17-40 because I WOULDN'T USE IT personally. I have zero interest in the 24-70 f/4L IS Macro. I think the logical upgrade is to the 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii. But I'm also interested in the new Sigma 24-70mm f/2... but maybe that isn't sharp wide open and you wind up having to stop it down to f/2.8 anyway.
Here's the rub though... I don't use the 24-105 that often. Maybe it is because it isn't that sharp, maybe I just don't like the focal length, maybe it is because I don't want to have to bounce flash. It's a mystery and investing $2000 in a lens that I don't use that often seems like a poor use of resources.
If I can sell the 24-105 for $700, then I'll have around $1600 which is spitting distance as far as I'm concerned.
Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM. This is the other option. I was thinking about getting the 135mm f/2L before I found the 85mm for $275. I like portraiture a lot, but I also have a baby on the way and I think 135mm on the full frame will be too long. I'm not that fond of the near 3 ft I have to deal with in terms of minimum focusing distance, but I can work around that for the time being. I also have an itch for the 85mm f/1.2L mkii. But if I sell the 85mm f/1.8 for $400 (which is a touch unlikely), then I'll be at $1200 and I wouldn't call that spitting distance.
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii. I love the lens... it is my favorite... it isn't going anywhere. Occasionally I think I might like a little bit more reach, maybe a 300mm f/4L or a 400mm f/5.6L, but more likely than not, I'll just invest in a Canon 1.4 teleconvertor, mkii. So let's call that $250... so I'll be at $600ish cash and further away from either the 85mm f/1.2L or the 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii.
2nd things second - What do I shoot:
I shoot a bit of everything. Mostly I shoot my daughter in candids and portraits, which is why the 24-70 would be nice as well as the 135mm and the 85 f/1.2. I also shoot sports and action photography, some of which is indoors. So I know the 135 is so much faster for auto focus than the 85, but I question whether I would go to the 135 over the 70-200... and yes it is an extra stop of light, but the iso performance of the mkiii is really quite good, and I can clean it up the grain in lightroom.
I also shoot different events like music recitals, birthday parties, and the like... most of which are indoors.
I don't do real estate as I said before, but $50 for a house doesn't sound like a bad deal (I'm guessing at the pay). I don't do landscape as a focus... but if something looks nice, sure I'll throw the lens to 24mm and I'll take a few shots... maybe use bracketing to do some HDR and then use light room to fix the distortion.
So there it is. Money is burning a hole in my pocket and I don't think I have a REAL need. So, where would the best bang for my buck upgrade be?
First things first - gear:
Bodies:
I have a 5D mkiii that I'm VERY happy with and as I have stated before, I don't think I would upgrade to the mkiv regardless of how much of an upgrade it is over the mkiii. I also picked up an Xti for my daughter for around $15 so I have a back up (Ferrari to a Pinto) if the mkiii temporarily dies on me. I doubt I'll ever use the xti, but it is good to have.
Lenses in order of focal length:
Rokinon 8mm fisheye lens. I don't really do much fisheye photography... but it is fun to bend light from time to time. I'd actually like to get a extension tube so I can get MFD down to zero and also turn the fisheye from semi-circular to where the image covers the entire frame. I have zero interest in upgrading this lens to a better fisheye (Sigma or Canon).
24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I think this is the likely candidate for upgrade. 24mm is more than wide enough for my purposes and while I might be interested in doing some free-lance real-estate images (and 24mm isn't wide enough), I would do it if I could use their lenses but I don't want to invest in a 16-35 or a 17-40 because I WOULDN'T USE IT personally. I have zero interest in the 24-70 f/4L IS Macro. I think the logical upgrade is to the 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii. But I'm also interested in the new Sigma 24-70mm f/2... but maybe that isn't sharp wide open and you wind up having to stop it down to f/2.8 anyway.
Here's the rub though... I don't use the 24-105 that often. Maybe it is because it isn't that sharp, maybe I just don't like the focal length, maybe it is because I don't want to have to bounce flash. It's a mystery and investing $2000 in a lens that I don't use that often seems like a poor use of resources.
If I can sell the 24-105 for $700, then I'll have around $1600 which is spitting distance as far as I'm concerned.
Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM. This is the other option. I was thinking about getting the 135mm f/2L before I found the 85mm for $275. I like portraiture a lot, but I also have a baby on the way and I think 135mm on the full frame will be too long. I'm not that fond of the near 3 ft I have to deal with in terms of minimum focusing distance, but I can work around that for the time being. I also have an itch for the 85mm f/1.2L mkii. But if I sell the 85mm f/1.8 for $400 (which is a touch unlikely), then I'll be at $1200 and I wouldn't call that spitting distance.
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii. I love the lens... it is my favorite... it isn't going anywhere. Occasionally I think I might like a little bit more reach, maybe a 300mm f/4L or a 400mm f/5.6L, but more likely than not, I'll just invest in a Canon 1.4 teleconvertor, mkii. So let's call that $250... so I'll be at $600ish cash and further away from either the 85mm f/1.2L or the 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii.
2nd things second - What do I shoot:
I shoot a bit of everything. Mostly I shoot my daughter in candids and portraits, which is why the 24-70 would be nice as well as the 135mm and the 85 f/1.2. I also shoot sports and action photography, some of which is indoors. So I know the 135 is so much faster for auto focus than the 85, but I question whether I would go to the 135 over the 70-200... and yes it is an extra stop of light, but the iso performance of the mkiii is really quite good, and I can clean it up the grain in lightroom.
I also shoot different events like music recitals, birthday parties, and the like... most of which are indoors.
I don't do real estate as I said before, but $50 for a house doesn't sound like a bad deal (I'm guessing at the pay). I don't do landscape as a focus... but if something looks nice, sure I'll throw the lens to 24mm and I'll take a few shots... maybe use bracketing to do some HDR and then use light room to fix the distortion.
So there it is. Money is burning a hole in my pocket and I don't think I have a REAL need. So, where would the best bang for my buck upgrade be?
