The 4 year Plan...

Hi guys,

So, I made up a 4 year plan, for my Lens purchase. That is 5 more lenses.
Note: I use a FF camera.

I right now have:
70-200 f/2.8 L IS II
28-70 f/2.8 L - needing a repair, but useable.

The plan is:
16-35 f/2.8 L II - Around February.
24-70 f/2.8 L - Mk 1. (No way I am getting MK II, as I really don't use that Focal lenght, and for some other reasons too.)
100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS - Maybe Mk II if its out at that time
+1 more lens

Question is:
What should the additional lens be?!

I shoot really everything.
I went for the 70-200 first, because its great for both portraits, and motorsport.
Would get the 16-35 next, for landscape.
Then its really up for what do I feel is needed more,
reach, or a replacement of the 28-70.

But there is 1 more lens I really feel I would like to include in my future bag, just can't make up my mind what do I need.
So now I am open for suggestions.

Rule is:
Suggest only 1 lens, and an explanation why.

Whats the most used lens, not listed by me, that you feel a photographer absolutely NEEDS.
Budget should be $3000 (€ 2300, £ 2000) for a lens.
Of course it can be stretched a little(!) bit if needed.
Also I would prefer Canon.

35L - Best lens I ever bought!

It seems that you suffer from GAS

Well, I would recommend you the 40mm pancake. Your actual or future lenses are big/heavy and it's great to have a light & discrete package.

Titi

get an L prime then plan on your next 4 year plan!

If you only want it for landscape shots; consider the 17-40L over the 16-35L. Equal in sharpness and half the price/weight.

Seems more like you want a 5th lens just for the sake of having a 5th lens.

titi_67207 wrote in post #16169143
It seems that you suffer from GAS

Well, I would recommend you the 40mm pancake. Your actual or future lenses are big/heavy and it's great to have a light & discrete package.

Titi

I was thinking the same thing. The pancake is a great travel and light weight walk around lens. It takes up almost no space in a camera bag, and has very good image quality for such an inexpensive lens.

As for your other lenses, I agree with w0m that you should consider the 17-40L instead of the 16-35L if you are going to use it strictly for landscapes. The 17-40 is not only less expensive, it is smaller and lighter, making it easier to pack and carry.

Also, you mention that you do not use the 28-70 f/2.8 much, so why even buy a 24-70 f/2.8? Maybe a fast prime lens -- 35mm, 50mm or 85mm, depending on your preference -- would be a better choice. Or maybe a 24-105L for its greater focal range if you do not need the faster aperture?

Don't buy lenses just to buy something -- each lens should have a purpose.

A fast lens!
I don´t use Canon EF lenses on my EOS 5D, but I think EF 50/1.2L or 85/1.2L could be interessting - but you have to deal sometimes with onion ring bokeh.

Or a special bokeh lens!
But for this you have to leave Canon, and buy a Nikon 135/2.0 DC Nikkor (or 105/2.0) and an adapter to Canon EF mount. These are still faster than the zoom lenses you have.
Or even a very special Sony 135mm/2.8[4.5] STF.

I know, my reccomendations for bokeh lenses will most likely get no one to buy a Nikon or Sony lens for a Canon DSLR. But probably more people thinking about such, could start Canon to realize their patented apodization lens.

You do realize that things change over time right, 4 years seems to be a very long time to plan ahead for, just get what you need now and enjoy. With what you have now i would add a 35 and call it a day.


Edit. I take back the 35, get a 17-40 for your landscape fix and barring cost fix the 28-70

There's nothing wrong with making a 4 year (or longer) plan.

Plans can always be changed, if and when needs change. So long as you are prioritizing and buying the lens you expect to use most first, you'll still be ahead in the long run. And having a plan in place allows you to take advantage of opportunities that might come up, such as a sale or a used item that's attractively priced and allows you to buy things ahead of schedule. You'll be focused in on what's important and not distracted by all the alternatives.

I agree with previous posts... For landscape photography there's no need to go to the expense of the 16-35/2.8.... The 17-40L would be fine. You are unlikely to ever "need" f2.8 for landscapes. You'll be stopping down to smaller than f4 most of the time, I'd bet. As a bonus, it uses 77mm filters (rather than 82mm), which all the other lenses you're considering use, too. And since it costs a lot less, it might allow you to accelerate your time line or put more into another of the lenses you are considering.

Only you can say if you need a fast prime or two... and what you might need them for.

If it were me, I'd want a couple portrait lenses... Primes with larger apertures such as an 85mm and 135mm.... or maybe a 100mm.

I'd also want a macro lens, perhaps in the 90 or 100mm range. I'd suggest one lens might serve both for macro and portraiture, but one problem is that most macro lenses are f2.8 at largest, so there would be no advantage over your zooms. Another thing, I personally don't care very much to use macro lenses for portraiture. Macro lenses simply often capture more fine detail than is desirable in a portrait.

The 24-70 and 70-200 both can serve for some portraiture, but aren't my choices when I can avoid them. For one, they're "only" f2.8. But also the 70-200 is large and intimidating, pretty intrusive so that it's not great for candid shots. And on FF cameras, the range of the 24-70 is kind of short for a lot of portraits (however, I like it a lot for portraits on a crop camera).

The 24-70/2.8 Mark I you're planning to get is pretty darned close focusing (and can be used with macro extension tubes to make it even closer focusing). So it can serve as at least a near macro lens and might be enough for your purposes. A 70-200 also can work well fitted with extension tubes.

I just don't know if the 100-400 is your best choice or not. Hard to say... It depends upon how you plan to use it. There's a lot of overlap with the 70-200. And it's a "push/pull" zoom, which I personally don't care for, but some people love to use. There are less expensive alternatives such as the Sigma 150-500 OS that might be worth a look. And, if you find savings elsewhere or have a windfall in the meantime you may even want to ante up more for a Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS and a teleconverter or two... Or, if it's a really big windfall, maybe the new 200-400/4 IS 1.4X! Alternatives are various prime lenses: 300/4 IS (works well with a 1.4X), 400/5.6 (lacks IS), maybe even 400/4 DO IS. It depends upon what you need, whether you want to use a tripod or not and some other factors.

I think you're smart setting up a plan, whether it's as a hobbyist or a pro. That's what I did too when I first switched to Canon. My plan was more like ten years, though! And it changed a bit here and there along the way. I had the benefit of using other camera systems for a couple decades prior, too, which made it pretty easy to make my list of lenses and priortize them.

titi_67207 wrote in post #16169143
It seems that you suffer from GAS

Well, that is why its a plan.

It has nothing to do with, I must have this, or that...
As I shoot everything from flowers, and bugs, to motorsport, and landscapes, then to portraits, and so on, I figured I need a good telephoto zoom, and later a wide angle.

Since the 28-70 cannot be rapaired (no more parts), it needs to be updated, now I would like to have another 28-70, but those have the same problem. That is why the 24-70.
Of course after picking up the 16-35, it might be that I feel I don't even need the 24-70, but don't know right now.

The 100-400 would be for those situation where the 70-200 is just not long enough.
Wildife, Motorsport (for the more dangerous parts), and so on.

Now this plan is actually based on a 10 year plan, involving a new car, renovating our house, buying photography gear, traveling to some places, etc.
Its based on an opportunity I got recently, that makes me able to plan such expanses, above of the day-to-day life.

So why 5 lenses?!
Its not a must, its just so, I calculated everything and it seems I will have the money to buy 5 lenses. (Actually a bit more, but I have also other smaller things in mind.)

So if you guys can suggest me a 5th lens, and provide a reason why would it be logical to buy it, then maybe I would add it to the "plan".
Again a lot can change maybe I decide otherwise and sell all my gear, but thats unlikely.

So im am just curious what you guys think I am missing, and maybe you will have a good point.
If not, well, then might be I come up with on my own.

-MasterChief- wrote in post #16169180
get an L prime then plan on your next 4 year plan!

Who knows, who knows...

Pompei Drasteria wrote in post #16169206
Seems more like you want a 5th lens just for the sake of having a 5th lens.

Why 5 lenses?!
Its not a must, its just so, I calculated everything and it seems I will have the money to buy 5 lenses. (Actually a bit more, but I have also other smaller things in mind.)

If you don't know what extra lens you'd need, you don't need one. Use the gear you have and when you find limitations for that gear, buy a lens that doesn't have that limitation. That can be focal length related, weight, optical performance, aperture...

Right now we could advice you what lens we'd like to see added to the kit, but it depends on your shooting style and subjects. If you really shoot 'everything', you are perfectly set with those lenses, flexible zooms with good optical quality. Why do you need an extra lens? It's not because you have the money to buy one, that you should.