The ULTIMATE lens dilemma.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17277479
It surprised the $#!T out of me, too. She just went back to work after three years off. Maybe she is just feeling generous.

Is it possible that she doesn't understand the numbers involved? It's exceedingly common for someone not involved in a hobby (any hobby, really) to completely underestimate the cost of enthusiast equipment.

WhyFi wrote in post #17277541
Is it possible that she doesn't understand the numbers involved? It's exceedingly common for someone not involved in a hobby (any hobby, really) to completely underestimate the cost of enthusiast equipment.

This is the best answer I've heard. I'll let her know what a 24L II goes for. If I never come back, you'll know this was the answer.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17277024
Pish-posh! Money is just green toilet paper if you are not spending it. That is WHY it exists.

Strange - my money is about 2x3 inches, plastic, with a VISA logo on the front.

RodneyCyr wrote in post #17277657
Strange - my money is about 2x3 inches, plastic, with a VISA logo on the front.

A true American! Charge!

i don't understand why this is the "ULTIMATE" lens decision...but anyways, if you're actually looking for people to give you suggestions, it would help to know what you have now

DreDaze wrote in post #17277864
i don't understand why this is the "ULTIMATE" lens decision...but anyways, if you're actually looking for people to give you suggestions, it would help to know what you have now

"Given you already have every lens you 'need' and were given carte blanche to get another one. What would you get?" Pretty ideal circumstances.

Current list:
17-40, Σ70-200 OS, 100-400L, 28-75 and 28-135
28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 1.4, 100 2, Rokinon 14 f/2.8
Shooting a 6D and 60D, but selling efs lenses, 15-85, 60 2.8.

I don't use the midrange zooms often enough to justify replacing the ones I have. I think the 24L II, is about all I'd like to have. I'd sell the 28 1.8, if I got it.

Two weeks ago my wife made my choice a little easier. She said: "You WILL buy the 6D, and you WILL buy it NOW!"

I agree with an earlier comment. Money is just green paper if one does not spend it.

Fisheye, replace 17-40 with 16-53 or TS-E.

But if you use 24mm a lot for stuff other than landscapes, the 24 II makes more sense than the TS-E..

Maybe 135L, but only if you don't like carrying the 70-200 all the time or if you do a lot of portraits at that FL (I still like the 135L over the 2.8 zooms, but I agree there is not all that much in it).

Of course then there are the insanely expensive options. If I could get any lens at all it might be the 200 f2, or 500 f4II, or 600 f4 II or ....... Of course it doesn't matter whether I can actually afford them or not, $6k+ on a lens isn't going to happen in my house - I have to be a bit more subtle than that. Maybe if I could but one in $2k installments over a few years it would work.

200mm F2, 400 DO ii, 800mm F5.6

I'de be happy with any of these.

---------------


edit, based on your lenses, 50L, 85L, 135L..... you gotta have one of those, just really nice lenses.

It's a trap. Buy yourself a used 40mm pancake for about $50. Then get her something of equal value for Christmas.

ejenner wrote in post #17278233
Fisheye, replace 17-40 with 16-53 or TS-E.

But if you use 24mm a lot for stuff other than landscapes, the 24 II makes more sense than the TS-E..

Maybe 135L, but only if you don't like carrying the 70-200 all the time or if you do a lot of portraits at that FL (I still like the 135L over the 2.8 zooms, but I agree there is not all that much in it).

Of course then there are the insanely expensive options. If I could get any lens at all it might be the 200 f2, or 500 f4II, or 600 f4 II or ....... Of course it doesn't matter whether I can actually afford them or not, $6k+ on a lens isn't going to happen in my house - I have to be a bit more subtle than that. Maybe if I could but one in $2k installments over a few years it would work.

I'd use the 24L II quite a bit. Had a 135L, actually sold it to get the 70-200 OS. Perhaps the 70-200 f/4 IS and sell the 70-200 OS, or else just get the 200 2.8L II. Of the bunch, I'd use the 24 more often.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17278268
I'd use the 24L II quite a bit. Had a 135L, actually sold it to get the 70-200 OS. Perhaps the 70-200 f/4 IS and sell the 70-200 OS, or else just get the 200 2.8L II. Of the bunch, I'd use the 24 more often.

If you want f2.8 @ 200mm, I'd keep the sigma. OS at that FL is just too useful.

I went the slow zoom, fast prime route, but while popular it's not for everyone and if you already sold the 135L, you'd probably have that deep sense of loss if you really wanted it back.

Sounds like the 24II to me.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17276865
Didn't think of that. She probably already bought it!

She is looking at this post, what others are suggesting

DGStinner wrote in post #17276927
Is it possible that she already bought herself something expensive which you don't know about yet and is using this as a tactic to ease the blow of the expense?

Bahaha - THIS!