Choosing new lenses is hard.

Sometimes people here beat themselves up for months before making a lens choice and other times they just know what they want. Some people even preorder a new lens before the slightest hint of a review comes out. Right now I am beating myself up over an UWA lens pick between the 11-16, 10-18 and 10-22.

Let me know which of your lens choices were slam dunks and which you had a hard time choosing between and what lenses were your secondary choices.

For me here is what I went through in the past.

17-50, 24-105, 60/2.8, 85/1.8 These were slam dunks for me and I didn't really think about other lenses when I bought them

70-200/4 IS - hard choice between that and 70-200/2.8 non IS
135/2 - Hard choice on selling the 70-200/4 IS for the 70-200/2.8 II or just adding the 135/2
30/1.4 non art - Hard choice between that and 28/1.8
50/1.4 - Buy or or wait for updated Sigma art or a new Canon IS version.

How about you?

I agonized over several choices for a fast short telephoto. I considered the Canon 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, but many users of the 50/1.4 report autofocus failure requiring repair, and users of the 85 report severe CA. (It is true that many users of both are quite satisfied with them.) The other choices were the 50L, 85L, and several Sigma offerings, but they were more than I was willing to spend.

I settled on the Rokinon 85/1.4, which is, of course, manual focus. I found it very difficult to focus manually on my 70D, except through live view - an awkward process at best. I also tried the "focus peaking" option of Magic Lantern on my 60D, but that was also awkward. Finally I ordered an EF-S focusing screen for my 60D. With that screen my focusing is not perfect, but I get a higher hit rate. I may try the Fotodiox split-image screen to see if it makes focusing easier.

Some time ago I also owned the Tamron 60/2 macro, but was never satisfied with the results. I suspect that my technique, rather than the lens, was at fault.

I've never had a problem choosing a lens. I always buy the one that I think is most suitable for the job. Simples Tch.

After I got the 6D (FF) I got rid of my Siggy 10-20 as it doesn't work with FF and got the Siggy 12-24. My slum dunk lenses were the 24-105mm and the 55-250 which have been good on the 400D the 450D and the 600D. Now go well with the 6D and the M

The 24-70 II solved most of my issues choosing a lens in the entire mid-range - I had a heck of a time before it was introduced. Although maybe not a master of much except flexibility, the trade-offs it offers allowed me to stop considering anything else in the range - and I went through the gamut.

Telephoto was also tough for me - the trade-offs between speed, size and reach made the various 70-200/300 and 100-400 lenses tough for me. Eventually, I settled on the 70-300L for its pleasing combination of size, reach and IQ. Although, I am close to biting on a 135L in addition to help make up some speed on the telephoto end.

For UWA, there will always be only one choice for me - the ZE21. I don't have one right now as I use other ranges more frequently and sold it but when I'm able to start thinking about spending a chunk of change on a UWA again, there will be no question. But, I went through the gamut of options here too before coming to this conclusion.

See my gear list and the list of previously owned lenses for proof, I have a hard time choosing too. Luckily most were purchased and sold used so I've not lost much more than shipping costs through all my testing.

Canon 70-300L
Canon 100-400L
Tamron 150-600

seriously considering all three, 70-300 for good optics, mostly a good range of focal length. 100-400L preferable focal length, kind of heavy, but good size, fits a lot of bags. 150-600, big lens, doesnt fit any bags, a little heavier than the 100-400, super reach. Went with the 150-600 for the super reach. Had to sacrifice a bit of convenience for this lens, but I think I made the right decision. Love the reach I can get, and the IQ is very good, unexpectedly too good for the price. Really expected consumer like optics, but this is clearly top shelf optics.

Wide has been easy for me, telephoto, not so much. I can't decide between:

70-200 f/4 IS
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS
70-300L
135/L

No idea. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but I haven't been able to commit to one.

Haha yes I sold/resold many lenses in past.

For my 40D crop the ideal lenses were 17-50 2.8 (Tamron or Canon), 55-250 IS (or 70-200 2.8L series seen how much cash you have), Sigma 50 1.4, 85 1.8 (no 135L, too long!).
For my 6D fullframe I finally have my perfect setup in my signature (urban exploring & model photography).

Tip : always buy lenses secondhand, then you never have loss!
I even bought and sold my 70-200 2.8LI with €200 gain
5 years ago I bought the 85 1.2L for €1000, 5 years later I resold it for the same price.

Buying secondhand is hiring for free without capital loss
IS is necessary for lenses +100mm, you don't need it for 50mm and it will be too expensive and more heavy anyway.

Charlie wrote in post #17084437
Canon 70-300L
Canon 100-400L
Tamron 150-600

I see this being my next dilema. Also the 400/5.6 and if Canon actually does release the 100-400 II then, well my heads spinning just thinking about it.

I had a bias against white lenses. I bought the 70-300 IS instead of a 70-200 L because of that bias.

When I became disenchanted with the 70-300, I again considered a 70-200 L, but, instead, bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8.

Finally, after some dissatisfaction with the Sigma, I got the 70-200 2.8 IS L.

FEChariot wrote in post #17084322
Sometimes people here beat themselves up for months before making a lens choice and other times they just know what they want. Some people even preorder a new lens before the slightest hint of a review comes out. Right now I am beating myself up over an UWA lens pick between the 11-16, 10-18 and 10-22.

How about you?

My hardest decisions was between the 70-200 F4, F4IS, F2.8 or Canon 135 F2 for a wedding I did last year. I ended up going for the 135 for the extra speed and dof.

Im going to have that descission gain, I wnat a 70-200 for kids portraits and studio use on my full frame, right now im leaning towards a used non IS 2.8.

I see your looking for a wide lens, what about a prime? I love my sigma 15mm F2.8 lens. It doesnt get used a ton but its fun when I do. I may get the 10mm eventually.

I never have trouble picking a lens and I've never regretted a pick. I know what I need, do the research (thank god for the 'net) and then buy buy it. I have three primes (35,50,105 Sigma) and three zooms (24-105,70-200 f4 is, 70-300 is) and a 1.4 extender. Covers my needs nicely so far. Of course, I'm an amateur and I don't pixel peep. Shoot mostly landscapes and animals, no portraits. Do my own printing (mostly 8x10, a few larger) on an Epson 3800 and a couple of Canons. I print B/W on the 3800, use the Canons for color - just got a Canon dye, haven't used it yet tho.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17084448
Tip : always buy lenses secondhand, then you never have loss!
I even bought and sold my 70-200 2.8LI with €200 gain
5 years ago I bought the 85 1.2L for €1000, 5 years later I resold it for the same price.

Buying secondhand is hiring for free without capital loss

Sounds like good advice, but what about the chance of buying used lenses that are bad copies or with faults that are not immediately obvious?

When my niece was about to turn 18, I told her "the cool thing about turning 18 is you'll be an adult and you can do anything you want. The scary thing is you'll be an adult and you can do anything you want".

Choosing the right lens for a crop camera can be very hard. I have used a 24-105, 24-70L, and 17-40L on my croppers and I really had a hard time choosing which one to bring with me when I went overses. It was like rationalizing I need the f2.8 just in case of low light which is a very heavy lens, but then I wanted wide angle so wanted to bring the 17-40L which is slower than the 24-70L. But now I have a 6D and everything has changed. Coupled with a 35 f2 and I am very satisfied. I get f2, a very small, sharp and light lens, and I get a normal 35mm field of view. This combo to me, is a lot better than a 7D with 17-40L. I am now looking at getting the new 35 f2 IS and a 16-35 f4 IS when the price drops.