Choosing new lenses is hard.

FEChariot wrote in post #17085269
Yes. Take the money factor out of it and I would have no problem either. Take the UWA dilemma of mine right now. I know what I want in an UWA: the 16-35/4 IS. Problem is that I don't have a body to make it UWA and don't have the money to make that upgrade. Seeing how I am paying over $35K a year in child care for three kids, the cash flow isn't going to be fabulous for a while.

So if I look at the crop alternatives I am looking at the 10-18, 10-22 and 11-16. The 10-22 has the range but not the IS or equivalent aperture. The 10-18 has the IS but not the range or aperture. The 11-16 has the aperture but not the IS or the range. It's like its a cruel joke. Plus the 11-16 has arguably the most archaic focusing system out there.

I had an UWA dilemma, too. I have the old all rounder 24-105mm on my 6D, but 24mm is not wide. The 16-35mm f/4L would be great, but the price and is 16mm wide enough?
I let the 70-200mm to go, used it very little and got Sigma 12-24mm and now I have a UWA to use when I need it. Not perfect, but very usable.
If I need telephoto, I'll pick the EF-M 55-200mm to my M body, very light pack to carry on.

clacson wrote in post #17085300
I had an UWA dilemma, too. I have the old all rounder 24-105mm on my 6D, but 24mm is not wide. The 16-35mm f/4L would be great, but the price and is 16mm wide enough?
I let the 70-200mm to go, used it very little and got Sigma 12-24mm and now I have a UWA to use when I need it. Not perfect, but very usable.
If I need telephoto, I'll pick the EF-M 55-200mm to my M body, very light pack to carry on.

16mm is very wide on FF. The differences in focal length become much more apparent on the wide end. So, the difference between 16mm and 17mm is much more significant than say 50mm and 51mm. 16mm and 24mm are worlds apart.

Edit: I see you have a 12-24 in your arsenal. Now that's wide! I haven't needed anything wider than 16 or 17, and I'll probably pickup the Rokinon 14mm one of these days. If you're accustomed to shooting at 12mm then maybe 16 isn't wide enough for you.

Well buying locally I test them with the middle focuspoint if there is no back/frontfocus and I check them for scratches, but never found any.
I also know someone that brings his ipad with him, he takes a pic and zooms in around the pic, corners before buying it.

Online I pay with Paypal so insured, if not satisfied I can send it back.
I never had any problems with secondhand lenses.

A lot of people think that people sell lenses cause there is a problem with them, but the real reason is that they don't need the lens anymore, need cash for other lenses, just want to test a lens (I know someone who buys lenses to test and resells them )
On Ebay sellers write honestly the state "perfect condition, a bit paint loss on the Sigma, ....".

I started with a new 40D + new Tamron 17-50 & Canon 55-250 IS.
After this I bought a second hand 5D, 5D MKII and loads of secondhand lenses.
Even an old Canon 28-70 2.8L from a professor (12Y old), tested and in perfect condition (still have seller's remorse, should have kept it! )

So definitely no worries about secondhand lenses, you save loads of cash +-30% or more or even gain cash, the value of top lenses stays.
There was even a period that certain Canon lenses got more expensive and that you could sell the same lenses with a lot of gain

Archibald wrote in post #17084592
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?

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17085339
So definitely no worries about secondhand lenses, you save loads of cash +-30% or more or even gain cash, the value of top lenses stays.
There was even a period that certain Canon lenses got more expensive and that you could sell the same lenses with a lot of gain

Most of the time around here the used ones are going for too much money.

I'm interested in the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. On line locally I quickly found 5 second hand copies. They are listed for $550, 500, 550, 500 and 499. But I can buy a new one locally for $560 -- unused, with full guarantee, 14 day no-questions-asked exchange or return.

It's the same pattern again and again with different used lenses. And that's why I don't have any used lenses in my bag.

Archibald wrote in post #17084836
Why do people put FF lenses on crop cameras?

Because for some situations, the crop camera, combined with the L lens, is the best tool for the job.

As far as choosing lenses goes, I think that if you know exactly what pictures you want to take, and what situations you will be shooting, then it is a really easy choice. I think that difficulty in decision making happens when someone doesn't have a very clear vision as to exactly what kind of imagery they want to create, or when they do not know what situations they will be shooting. A well-developed personal style, and a great familiarity with one's subject matter, typically makes decisions about gear very easy.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17085868
As far as choosing lenses goes, I think that if you know exactly what pictures you want to take, and what situations you will be shooting, then it is a really easy choice. I think that difficulty in decision making happens when someone doesn't have a very clear vision as to exactly what kind of imagery they want to create, or when they do not know what situations they will be shooting. A well-developed personal style, and a great familiarity with one's subject matter, typically makes decisions about gear very easy.

Knowing what type of pictures might help you decide if you want a super tele or a macro or an UWA, but it's not going to help you choose which 50mm is best for you. Should you pick a 100-400, 400/5.6 or 300/4 with 1.4 TC for instance.

FEChariot wrote in post #17085931
Knowing what type of pictures might help you decide if you want a super tele or a macro or an UWA, but it's not going to help you choose which 50mm is best for you. Should you pick a 100-400, 400/5.6 or 300/4 with 1.4 TC for instance.

I still stand by what I said.

As far as the 400 f5.6 / 100-400mm / 300mm f4 decision goes, I think that each of those lenses is best suited for specific purposes. I own a 100-400mm, but have rented both the 400 f5.6 and the 300 f4 at times, because I knew that these lenses were better suited for a particular situation/subject.

If you tell me what I will be photographing, and where I will be photographing it, I pretty much know what lens (or lenses) will be best suited for that particular situation.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17086152
I still stand by what I said.

As far as the 400 f5.6 / 100-400mm / 300mm f4 decision goes, I think that each of those lenses is best suited for specific purposes. I own a 100-400mm, but have rented both the 400 f5.6 and the 300 f4 at times, because I knew that these lenses were better suited for a particular situation/subject.

If you tell me what I will be photographing, and where I will be photographing it, I pretty much know what lens (or lenses) will be best suited for that particular situation.

So what if you need a 50mm is knowing what you are going to be shooting tell you which one there you need? What if you shoot a variety of things? What if you want to have the better macro ability of the 300/4 IS for dragonflies but also need more reach of the 400/5.6 for BIF 10 minutes later and can only afford one of the two?

Maybe your photography is just very specialized and need specific tools for specific shoots. That I can understand. Same with a wedding photog. They don't need 10 different lenses to do that job. However as an amateur myself who likes a lot of different kinds of photography, I need a lens to be versatile. I might go out and shoot the Milky Way one night and the 11-16 would be the best then, but the next day I could be shooting in a museum and the IS in the 10-18 would be great. The next week I could be shooting a sunset and want the better flair performance of the 10-22. However I am not going to buy all three just to have on hand for each specific case and renting doesn't make sence if you keep changing what you are shooting. I'd have to rent lenses every week.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17085305
16mm is very wide on FF. The differences in focal length become much more apparent on the wide end. So, the difference between 16mm and 17mm is much more significant than say 50mm and 51mm. 16mm and 24mm are worlds apart.

Edit: I see you have a 12-24 in your arsenal. Now that's wide! I haven't needed anything wider than 16 or 17, and I'll probably pickup the Rokinon 14mm one of these days. If you're accustomed to shooting at 12mm then maybe 16 isn't wide enough for you.

I believe the rokinon is manual focus. the Sigma 15mm F2.8 is awesome and auto focus. but I think its twice the price.

UWA lens you say - got to be the Sigma 8-16

My case...17-40L, 50/1.4 and 300/4L were bought without much struggling...
24L : struggled long for buy or no buy...bought finally...
135L : struggled long with 70-200/4L...IQ and light against versatility...bought finally...
40PC : struggled for buy or no buy...dropped
24-70/4 : still struggling for buy or no buy
50L or 85 : thinking of for a while...may drop both for the time being...