300 2.8 IS or 4 L lenses + acces.

Like the title says.
If you were in my place, disregarding your area of interest (and mine) or current need in particular focal length . Which would you get? Also disregard my bigma. It is being borrowed,but will remain borrowed indefnitely .

So scenario A or B?

A

• EF 300 2.8 IS L
  
• 85L
  
• Canon 1.4x TC

• EF 300 2.8 IS L
  
• 35 L
  
• 50 1.4
  
• Canon 1.4x TC

• 85L
  
• 35L
  
• ts-e 24 L
  
• ef 50 1.4
  
• mt-24ex
  
• angle finder C
  
• canon tc 1.4x
  
• p-2000

Man..I'd DEFINITELY go with A2. That's 3 awesome lenses, but if you don't want a telephoto, don't bother! That 300 is great even with a 2x on it. How else are you gonna get an 800-some mm lens on a 20D for under $5k? The 35L is amazing, and should definitely be had no matter what. The 50 I don't think is important when you have the 35, but that's just me. I'd get the 85 1.8 instead.

A1. You're currently lacking on the long end, so that says "300" to me. And the 85 rather than the 35+50, since those two overlap what you've already got (between the 17-40 and the 50 f/1.8). I can't disregard gaps in coverage - all your current lenses are capable, so upgrading is gilding the lily (maybe graduating with Honors) but supplementing is a real improvement (PhD instead of just Masters).

Plan A. 300MM IS/ Who would refuse to buy that?

A
EF 300 2.8 IS L
85L
Canon 1.4x TC

* Both longish.

or
EF 300 2.8 IS L
35 L
50 1.4
Canon 1.4x TC

* I don't think you would use the 50mm

B
85L
35L
ts-e 24 L
ef 50 1.4
mt-24ex
angle finder C
canon tc 1.4x
p-2000

* You could go for a 135mm L instead of the 50mm (which is good with the 1.4x). So B is my choice. I would probably lose the angle finder, mt-24ex (whatever that is) and p-2000 to find the cash for the 135mm.

Graham

I still think besides the 300, that the 35L and the 85 1.8 is a much better choice than just the 85 1.2L. It's just too slow and finicky, unless you're doing formal portraits with subjects that won't run away on you!

mt-24EX is a macro light.

I like the one that says "300mm f/2.8L IS"

This lens also happens to be THE lens where the EF 2X Tele-converter is a serious consideration and welcome addition. So a very useable 600mm with IS option is just a few hundred more..

Ronald, yes Plan A (both i and ii) are tempting. Especially since havin the 300 @ 2.8 ( let alone its THE 300 2.8 ) and 420mm @ f/4 is perfect any need I may have in the long end. But then again, plan B is so much gear!! lol

Jon,I meant to imply disregarding my current lenses also. So now which would you say?

ACDCROCKS, someone being offered 3 L lenses and a bunch of worthwhile gear. Still you have a good point. Its the 300 2.8 IS

blue max, firstly, I already have a 135 L. But still disregard focal lengths man. Base your decision soley on the 2 sets of gear being questioned. Disregard my current line up, disregard your current fetish for a focal length, disregard price and lastly disregard usage. Whether I go with A or B. I plan on using each set as equally as I would have used the other.

On a personal note. I have a different perspective in relation to focal length. Before buying the 135L, i had questioned whether I could use such a field of view for portrait on a 20D. But then I realized that its not branded as portrait-only and will explode or better yet implode if used to photo anything other than a portrait. So I use my 135 L to capture images that I want to represent in 135 L field of view. I bought the lens in the end, because of its quality. Portraits are nice and all. But its a great lens for architecture too! How so? To isolate certain parts of a magnificent building. So, I would use a 50mm lens if I need to.

The 300 F2.8L IS is very nice, but do you really need to pay 3x the price of the F4 version?

Option A1 but would consider 85mm 1.8 over 85L 1.2
Bruce

Yes, but it's "so much gear" without a telephoto. You'll always be wishing you had that *really* long lens (with the 2x), but you spent the money on moooore standard lenses instead. You'll kick yourself.

Man, if I could have the 300 2.8L IS AND the 35L, I'd die a happy man. That'd be effing amazing.

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I like the one that says "300mm f/2.8L IS"

This lens also happens to be THE lens where the EF 2X Tele-converter is a serious consideration and welcome addition. So a very useable 600mm with IS option is just a few hundred more..

Dont these intice you?
85L
35L
ts-e 24 L
ef 50 1.4
mt-24ex

Imagine what you could do with a mt-24ex as a master,your 580EX as a remote slave and your mp-e? What about the ts-e 24 L for landscape and architecture? I know its supposed to be less sharp than mr.45 and ms.90, but that only means those lenses are sharper, not that the TS-E 24 L is soft. Same idea when comparing the 35 L and 24 L.
I dont need to even begin praising the 35 and 85 L's.

I dunno guys, im so tempted that one minute im going plan A,the next im going plan B.

I know you guys,by now, are itching to ask me "what focal length do you need?". This would end the thread. But my needs are irrelevant to this decision.
I bet more people will get tempted to say " you should get the long glass because you lack any focal length after 135mm" (since I no longer own the 50-500).

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Only one thing there entices me...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Right - I don't think you (CP) can ignore what you've already got. It's, going back to the college analogy, like getting the Bachelor's in Petroleum Engineering, then going back and getting a second Bachelors in French Lit instead of going for a Masters. You're reinventing the wheel. You get more bang for the buck by building on an existing sterling collection than by coming up with a second way to get there. You have to consider either existing equipment or primary use in expanding a system. Otherwise you're not expanding it, you're refining it. Is that what you want to do?