Pick my next lens...

Currently have 24-70 2.8L, 50 1.8, and 70-200 2.8L II. I shoot a lot of landscapes, weather, portrait, sports and wedding stuff. I've also recently gotten into the business of promo videos.

I've been leaning towards and UW w/16-35L being near the top of my list. I'd love some suggestions!

Unless you feel that your UWA needs to be 2.8, the 17-40 runs a close second to the 16-35L, at about half the price.

I'd look into the sigma 12-24 or the 17-40.

I'd prefer it to be fast, but I guess it's not really a *need*.

Sirrith wrote in post #13468694
I'd look into the sigma 12-24 or the 17-40.

The 12-24 doesn't really appeal to me all that much. It's not a ton cheaper than the 16-35L II. The 17-40 is an option, but I've read a lot of people complaining about the distortion around the edges with it. I'm really torn.

SCMedic wrote in post #13468696
I'd prefer it to be fast, but I guess it's not really a *need*.

Is it worth another $700 or so? Its not like you are going to use it as a bokeh lens, and for landscapes its most likely going to be used stopped down.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13468851
Is it worth another $700 or so? Its not like you are going to use it as a bokeh lens, and for landscapes its most likely going to be used stopped down.

You are quite right.


Now, the issue becomes: Does it very quickly overlap my 24-70 2.8L? Yup. How often am I going to use the 17mm? Probably only for weather/landscape shots. Worth $600? Sure. Need? Probably not a *need*. Any other great lens suggestions?


Thanks for listening guys. I'm working through this whole process in my head before I make a decision.

SCMedic wrote in post #13468878
You are quite right.


Now, the issue becomes: Does it very quickly overlap my 24-70 2.8L? Yup. How often am I going to use the 17mm? Probably only for weather/landscape shots. Worth $600? Sure. Need? Probably not a *need*. Any other great lens suggestions?


Thanks for listening guys. I'm working through this whole process in my head before I make a decision.

The difference between 17 and 24 on a full frame camera is huge. And as for overlap above 24, well who cares. That just makes each lens more versatile. If you didnt have the 70-200 2.8 II, I would suggest the 135L.

Right on. I think you're right. The 17-40 would be a good option to have in the bag.

I love my 17-40
but it won't be long before it's a 16-35

SCMedic wrote in post #13468817
The 12-24 doesn't really appeal to me all that much. It's not a ton cheaper than the 16-35L II. The 17-40 is an option, but I've read a lot of people complaining about the distortion around the edges with it. I'm really torn.

Most if not all Ultra Wides have distortion in the edges.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13468851
Is it worth another $700 or so? Its not like you are going to use it as a bokeh lens, and for landscapes its most likely going to be used stopped down.

Exactly.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #13469166
I love my 17-40
but it won't be long before it's a 16-35

And that's why I'm wondering which one to get.

100L - can get fun with some macro stuff for your wedding stuff, can be used for portraits as well... wicked wicked sharp... fills the little 100mm range for you too - love mine...

witharebelyell wrote in post #13470082
100L - can get fun with some macro stuff for your wedding stuff, can be used for portraits as well... wicked wicked sharp... fills the little 100mm range for you too - love mine...

Hmmm. That's a future option for sure. The 135L or the 85L were the top of my prime list.

maybe 17-40L and 35L?