Thinking of getting a "retirement" lens - thoughts?

I am going to be retiring at the end of September and rather than getting another telescope (have 8 already) I decided since I will now have time to get out and shoot, to add another lens to the stable. Also my middle son, who gets my gear passed down to him, has been using my 55-250 STM IS lens for hiking since it is so light.

Do I need another lens? NO, but I do WANT another lens.

What I currently have is a Canon 80D with 18-135 STM IS, 55-250 STM IS (monopolised by by son), 100 IS Macro, 50mm Macro, 100-400 IS L (again son has), 10-22 (son has)

I was thinking of giving the 55-250 to my son for his birthday - especially since I haven't seen it in about a year.

I was looking at

Canon 28-300 L but it is heavy and at 65 I am not in the best of health and have arthritis and don't like carrying really heavy things. $2450
Canon 70-300 IS II USM $450
Canon 70-300 IS USM $1350

Tamron 28-300 $600

or get another Canon 55-250 STM IS and a Canon 10-18 for the son and get the 10-22 back.

If I am walking (hobbling) around the 100-400 is almost too heavy to carry. I am not really sure what to add to the stable.

Thoughts?

I have the 17-55 f/2.8 lens and I find that I use this for most of my general photography. A bit heavy but very manageable (I'm 68 y.o. so I can relate). Love the IQ and all around quality results.
BTW, I just ordered a new 80D from Canon and it is on the way as I write this (currently have two XSi/450D camera bodies).

Dan

Tamron 100-400, it's lighter than the original 100-400L

You definitely "need" more lenses. I can think of some clear shortcomings in your lens collection, but the right answer for you depends on what you want to photograph and where.

I don't see a fast prime listed. Depending on your wallet, you need a fast 35. I like my Canon 35F2IS, but some people prefer the more X pensive Canon 35 F1.4. These lenses are fine for indoor candids and people photos on crop. I find this focal length more useful overall than an 85, but that is also an option. The 85 is good for events in large spaces where you want F1.8, or F 1.4. Many people use an 85 on crop ofor indoor sports, stage performances, or other natural light portraits indoors or outside.

A longer macro lens works for shots of bugs or flowers, if you like this aspect of photography. I have the new Sigma 70F2.8 and many people prefer the IS on the Canon 100 F 2.8 L IS. Either of these choices would be good, but there are lots of others to choose from, like the older Canon 100 F2.8 USM. Canon has a fine 35F2.8 macro lens. This would be a good choice if you want to have a macro for larger stuff.

I recommend a fast, short prime. While I like primes and zooms, I use my primes more. I wouldn't be without a fast prime.

I suggest a superzoom as a "hobble-around" lens. There are multiple offerings by Tamron, Sigma, and even Canon. None of them will be optically as good as any one of the lenses you already have or are considering, but a lens or combination of lenses that is too heavy to carry does no good. I once owned the 70-300L but sold it because it was too heavy for my 73-year-old back to carry, particularly when combined with my 15-85 and a superwide. My new Sigma 18-300 is probably lighter than my 15-85 (I haven't weighed them) and the weight is manageable even when I also carry my Rokinon fisheye or 10-22.

Congrats on the retirement. I've been enjoying mine for almost two years now.

It looks like your son has all your telephoto lenses, so a replacement is probably in order. If weight is a concern, then another EF-S 55-250mm would be a good option -- and since your son already has your current one, he won't borrow it. If you want something with more reach, then the Tamron 100-400mm already mentioned may be a good choice, as it's lighter than the 100-400L. If you want to throw practicality and cost out the window, then the 100-400L II would be the ultimate telephoto zoom choice. This is my wildlife lens, and it's a wonderful piece of glass. It's my biggest and heaviest lens, but the results make it worth carrying around. I do have a 70-200L f/4 IS and EF-M 55-200mm (for my M50) for those times I want to carry around a lighter telephoto.

I have the 70-300 USM and really like it for a telephoto lens

Actually about any of the recent 100-400 versions (Sigma, especially Tamron) beat out the old 100-400L. That lens wasn't known to be the sharpest tool in the shed, and it really starts to show its age with the higher resolution bodies.

The Tamron is lighter than the Canon II equiv, and reviews show that it performs favorably against the Canon 100-400 II.

https://dustinabbott.n​et …-f-4-5-6-3-vc-usd-review/

Ide look into Tamron 16-300 or 18-400.

Pancake 24 for indoors

The 18-135 already covers the walkaround, the 50 macro covers macros. The only glaring holes really are a fast general prime (maybe not even needed), and a long zoom, something that doesn't add to the stress of weight, age, and hurting joints.

There aren't many choices for that. The 100-400 variants, or the 150-600 Sigma, are the only things out there that are optically quite good at the long end (but the 150-600 lenses are heavy), besides the 55-250, which is quite good for what it is, if it is the latest STM model. The old Bigmos 50-500 OS is also quite capable, but again, the weight and size is an issue.

For lighter weight long lens options that are good optically, you are left with the 55-250, and the 2 3rd party 100-400 lenses. Other choices will be heavier, I feel, or IQ will suffer a bit.

Another alternative to consider which will be close to, or under, the price of a new long lens would be one of those bridge cameras with super zoom lenses. Some of those are actually quite nice, like the Nikon offering (P900 or the new P1000), or even the Canon SX series. They have zoom levels that you cannot replicate with Canon DSLR lenses.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=VK8Ei5TLxAk

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18680914
The 18-135 already covers the walkaround, the 50 macro covers macros. The only glaring holes really are a fast general prime (maybe not even needed), and a long zoom, something that doesn't add to the stress of weight, age, and hurting joints.

There aren't many choices for that. The 100-400 variants, or the 150-600 Sigma, are the only things out there that are optically quite good at the long end (but the 150-600 lenses are heavy), besides the 55-250, which is quite good for what it is, if it is the latest STM model. The old Bigmos 50-500 OS is also quite capable, but again, the weight and size is an issue.

For lighter weight long lens options that are good optically, you are left with the 55-250, and the 2 3rd party 100-400 lenses. Other choices will be heavier, I feel, or IQ will suffer a bit.

Another alternative to consider which will be close to, or under, the price of a new long lens would be one of those bridge cameras with super zoom lenses. Some of those are actually quite nice, like the Nikon offering (P900 or the new P1000), or even the Canon SX series. They have zoom levels that you cannot replicate with Canon DSLR lenses.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=VK8Ei5TLxAk

I suggested the all in one due to arthritis, which can be pretty brutal.

Super bridge cam certainly an option, but since this was in the Canon section, thought a lens option would be more appropriate.

From my limited experience, a super zoom in a much larger sensor makes a big difference in IQ, especially if you can get stability down, not easy if you've got medical conditions.

A nice monopod might be warranted... and a good one doubles as a good hiking stick while helping stabilize whatever the solution might be.

I just put the superzoom lenses in the same category as the bridge cameras with super-super-zoom lenses, IQ-wise. If I found out that a DSLR with a superzoom put out about the same IQ as one of these bridge cameras, but the bridge camera might be lighter and have more reach, and image stabilization, it would be worth a consideration.

A Nikon p900 costs less, weighs less, and has more reach than an 80D plus Tamron 18-400. The question just comes down to IQ, which provides a better final result at 400mm, and if lighting is an issue (thus needing high ISO), that may rule out the Nikon option, rendering my suggestion moot.

I really like the other P1000/P900 video where they zoom in on Saturn, and you can clearly see the rings. Pretty neat stuff!

Have monfroto mono pod and a 190L tripod, still have my old Bogen tripods and a Zone VI from my Speed Graphic and Mamiya C330 days, still have the cameras.

I have decided to add a good prime and two knock around lenses to the kit.

Canon 35 f/2 IS USM

Canon 10-18 IS STM - to keep in the carry back so I always have it with me, my 10-22 will be when I am looking for slightly better quality

Tamron 18-400, for when I am taking the wife somewhere like Newport RI and we are just going to walk around and I don't want to carry an extra bag with different lenses in it. Yes the shots will not be as sharp as a prime or a white lens but it sounds interesting as an all in one.

Manual lens might be the answer for you, to avoid your next lens being monopolized again by your son again

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18682585
Manual lens might be the answer for you, to avoid your next lens being monopolized again by your son again

wouldn't help, he "borrowed" my Nikon F3 film camera off my shelf this week, surprised he hasn't tried the Speed Graphic and the Mamiya C220 and C330's ROFL