i am driving myself crazy over here...

So i normally don't post what gear to buy threads but this one is really bothering me at the moment. i recently sold most of my gear because i thought that the OM-D can be enough for me but i was wrong. now i got my 5DmkIII again and need to restock on lenses.

before i sold my gear, the 24-70 V1 was my most used lens and i used it A LOT for both events and studio work but i found myself leaving it at home a lot because of its weight and size and i used my primes for walking around. Now that the 24-70 2.8 II is out and getting such amazing reviews, it was only natural that it would be the obvious choice but then i started thinking.

since i always liked the 50mm as my "standard lens" (i used the 50 1.4 for quite some time but its IQ and build quality never really blew me away), why not go with the 50 1.2L and use it as my low light and portrait lens and buy a 24-105 L F4 which are quite cheap these days and use that one as my versatile walk around lens. i used the 24-105 before and it was amazing around Disney with the family or even in the studio since you normally use a smaller aperture.

both the 24-105 f4 and 50 1.2 will cost about the same as the 24-70 2.8 L II.

advice?

btw, i know that the 50 1.2 has a "reputation" but from everything i have seen and everybody i talked to, this lens is MUCH better on the new bodies.

Were you refering to the Olympus's E-M5? Can you please tell us why it was not enough? I was looking into this camera as my possible entry into the 4/3rd system.

Have 24-70 v1, 50 1.4, and 50 1.2. I am a big fan of the 1.4. Now I'm even bigger fan of the 1.2. Love its bokeh but be warned, shooting at 1.2 is challenging.

What about just the 80mm 1.2L?

Thanks for the advice. to answer your questions:

1) yes i am referring to the E-M5. it is a FANTASTIC camera to be honest and does offer great quality when used with the good lenses (i had the 45 1.8 and the 25 1.4 Leica, both were amazing). the problem for me was that while it was much lighter system, i still much preferred the quality of the FF DSLR and my 5DmkIII with the 40 2.8 or even a 50 mm lens offered a much better IQ while still being able to fit in the same bag that i used for the OM-D. again, it is an amazing camera and i was blown away by what they were able to achieve in such a small package.

2) i did own and used the 85 1.2L for quite some time. i am used to the 1.2 and i was IN LOVE with the IQ of the 85 1.2L. the problem for me was that i was never a big fan of the 85mm focal length so i didn't get to use the lens as much as i thought i would. now i have the 85 1.8 and while it is not the 1.2, it does have great IQ in a much smaller package and much faster AF so it does the job when i need the 85 focal length.

in contrast, i was always a fan of the 40-50mm range which is why i am drawn to the 50 1.2L.

blonde wrote in post #15644926
both the 24-105 f4 and 50 1.2 will cost about the same as the 24-70 2.8 L II.

advice?

Sounds good, but personally I'd spend a little bit more and go for the Tamron 24-70 VC instead of the 24-105.

A few have given up on the 5D3 + 50L combo, unless you are only planning to use the centre points. See https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1217346

OM-D is a great little camera compared to an entry/mid level APS-C, but it's not even remotely close to a ff setup (again it's not a fair comparison and they are not really competing format).

The 24-105 is a bargain right now for around $650 in my opinion and since it will mostly be used in the studio stopped down or for landscape, I don't feel the need to get the 24-70 tamron even though I hear it is an amazing lens.

As for the om-d, I didn't really expect it to be as good as a 5D, I just wanted a smaller kit but after using it, I decided to just suck it up and stay with a DSLR.

I use the 24-105 a lot for a walk around lens and have been quite happy with the performance.
I only use long primes, but I hear that the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 is awsome and less money.

Funny post this as I have just sold my OM-D and lenses and have gone back to Canon. I have just purchased a 60D, plus a new 50L (which I have previously owned). I already have the 24-105, and that is now my gear.

I now just need some time to shoot!

Yeah, it's hard to stay away from full frame sensor, heheh. There are other perks (and limitations) but you'd be buying the 50 1.2 for mainly its better built quality, smoother bokeh, and being able to shoot at 1.2 in that order. One thing I like about the 50 1.2 is that it's the smallest L lens that I have. (For what it's worth, the 1.4 is smaller and lighter.) Another thing that surprised me about the 1.2 when I got it is that it focus ever so slightly slower than the 1.4 and that its chromatic aberration is a little bit more visible than the 1.4. On the whole, I'm very pleased with my 50 1.2.

Look over your 50 1.4 pictures and ask yourself why did you not like the IQ. Compare your reason with what I just said above and see if they are in line. Because, in my opinion, the 50 1.4 did take great quality pictures, too.

Renting the lens may help you decide.

blonde wrote in post #15645022
again, it is an amazing camera and i was blown away by what they were able to achieve in such a small package.

blonde wrote in post #115645177
As for the om-d, I didn't really expect it to be as good as a 5D, I just wanted a smaller kit

This is actually the reason for my looking into the Olympus's E-M5. Plus, I want to see what the Four Third system is all about. Thanks for the information!

alright, don't ask me why or how it happened but i now have the following lenses on route to my house:

50 1.2L, 85 1.2L, 135 2L, 70-200 2.8 II L...

of course,i will not keep all of them so i think that i will play with the 50L and then decide i should keep it. right now here are the following combos that i am considering:

option 1-

5DmkIII
24-70 2.8L II
40 2.8
85 1.8
135L
70-200 2.8L II

option 2-

5DmkIII
24-105 F4L
40 2.8
50 1.2L
85 1.8
70-200 2.8L II

Option 3-

5DmkIII
24-70 2.8 L II
40 2.8
85 1.2L
135 2L

Ha ha ha! Bold move.

You're close to having a Holy Trinity set - the Canon 35mm F/1.4 L is another great lens!

Personally, I'd go with the option you said you're not going to do.

Option 4: Keep them all.

i would gladly do option 4 if you can promise me a place on your couch and that you would pay for a good divorce lawyer.

Sorry, no can do.

Good luck with your decision!

I would go with the 24-105 and 50 f1.2. However, I had a lot of trouble with my 50 f1.2, because it had focus shift problem. If you get a good copy, then keep it. If not, 135 f2 would be a good choice, too.

5D MK3
24-70 II
70-200 II

Sell all others and its not even close.

If I had that setup, my images would still be just as crappy as they are today, I'd just sleep happier. Good luck with your decision.

The OP said:

"in contrast, i was always a fan of the 40-50mm range which is why i am drawn to the 50 1.2L."

If this is how you feel, go with the only option with that lens, #2.