another which lens....

Over the past couple of months I have been going through lots of options
trying to plan a large purchase (for me) of lenses
I have a couple $K and I am trying to organize things in my head at least.
The actual purchase will happen in another couple of months for logistic reasons.

At first I was aiming to get some fast primes - 24/21/35, 85, 135.

but then I got entranced a bit by the 18-35 f1.8 and dropped the rest of the 24/21/35s
though I am still going back and forth if not to change that decision to the s35/Canon 35IS - but let's say that I will still stick with the 18-35 since that seems to be the most interesting lens to me at this juncture.

the 85 series - I have been weighing the 2 canon versions as well as the S85. The one thing that I was worried about the S85 is that where I live I may have to pay some serious extra money to get it calibrated unless the dock can be backwards compatible (there was a rumor about this) and except for that - I like the fact that the AF is zippier than the Canon 1.2

and then the 135. Which is quite special in and of itself.

I thought briefly about the 70-200 II to replace the 135 since there is a lot of talk about the two being close....or at least close enough. and now I am again revisiting the idea - though I have the 70-200 f4IS and am quite pleased with it. An extra benefit (though not the reason I would be getting the 2.8 II lens) would be its better ability to accept X1.4 and 2.0 extensions in comparison to the f4IS

So I can attack this in a couple ways:
135, 85 1.2 or 1.4, 18-35
70-200 II, 85 1.4 or 1.8, 18-35 (skip the 135 at this time)
70-200 II, 135, either the 85 1.8, 1.4 OR the 18-35 (the other one at a later time)

As an aside: I am not interested in selling any of my lenses whatsoever, I would rather save the money over a period of time...even if it takes a long time.

In regards to my budget - I used the maximal retail prices since I am not sure exactly when I can make the purchase - I rather be surprised with a lower price than a higher one!

the major thing that can change the purchase is if the 7d mark II (or whatever they will call it) will come out and be excellent. Then a full rethinking is in order. So...only a crop DSLR...

thanks for any input. practical considerations most welcome!

Looking at your current gear list tells me you don't shoot bird or wildlife, since your longest lens being 250mm.

Therefore I wouldn't waste any more money on crop and move up to ff and start all over again.

Fact - A mediocre lens on ff > best lens with APS-C body.

Gear up for long term

kin2son wrote in post #16561324
Fact - A mediocre lens on ff > best lens with APS-C body.

Without the empirical evidence to support myself I suspect that's fiction...although one man's mediocre is another man's aspiration.

Having said that, I don't disagree with the notion that full frame may be the best path...It depends what you shoot though...if you need great autofocus and high FPS then it's an expensive path but if you can live with something like a 6D or a 5DII then it might be worth the pain...

Kin2son - as much as i respect you and your very good advice to me and others - you are annoying!!! You added another variable on the limited funds!!! ARGH!

In all honesty - I checked into the black hole of comparison of the FF bodies - both the 6D and the 5d3. The whole FF move at this point is a bit pricy considering I would also want to get a UWA - most probably the 17-40 (out of the lenses that currently exist). With that said - the decision bewtween the 5d3 and the 6d is a bit confusing for me with pluses and minuses on both sides (of course). Dunno. Maybe in the 5d4?

You are correct that the wildlife is not my focus. Every once in a while I want to catch something further away - but truly once in a blue moon. Maybe one day I will aim for a longer lens...just not now. In regards to the crop vs FF however - the use with macro has been shown nicely that there is more to work with with the mpe65 (which I am also getting - i didn't mention it above because I have no question about getting it).

Anyway, thanks for your input.

mccamli wrote in post #16561455
Without the empirical evidence to support myself I suspect that's fiction...although one man's mediocre is another man's aspiration.

Having said that, I don't disagree with the notion that full frame may be the best path...It depends what you shoot though...if you need great autofocus and high FPS then it's an expensive path but if you can live with something like a 6D or a 5DII then it might be worth the pain...

thanks for your input
but truly I was hoping for an answer a little more to the substance of my original question....

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16561526
thanks for your input
but truly I was hoping for an answer a little more to the substance of my original question....

So, what exactly are you asking then? OP seems to be running on a bit and your clear goal is not stated. What do you want to shoot?

in short:
So I can attack this in a couple ways:
135, 85 1.2 or 1.4, 18-35
70-200 II, 85 1.4 or 1.8, 18-35 (skip the 135 at this time)
70-200 II, 135, either the 85 1.8, 1.4 OR the 18-35 (the other one at a later time)

which has the least overlap, the best combination etc
what i want to shoot - portraits, environmental portraits, experimentations, everything....
which is why i gave the above background...

what do you think?

I'd go with option # 2- you would have the 85 and 100mm primes in the bag, the 18-35 (fastest wide angle zoom ever), and the 70-200 II (the highest regarded telephoto zoom ever). The 135mm is a great lens- I got to play with one the other day. But you would have the 100mm and 85mm primes, which are great, and the 70-200. You can always swap out the 85mm or 100mm for the 135 if you find yourself craving a longer prime at another time.

sell your gear (yeah i know you said you dont want to). go full frame.

35/85/135 and grab 24-105 for a walk around.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16561310
Over the past couple of months I have been going through lots of options
trying to plan a large purchase (for me) of lenses
I have a couple $K and I am trying to organize things in my head at least.
The actual purchase will happen in another couple of months for logistic reasons.

At first I was aiming to get some fast primes - 24/21/35, 85, 135.

but then I got entranced a bit by the 18-35 f1.8 and dropped the rest of the 24/21/35s
though I am still going back and forth if not to change that decision to the s35/Canon 35IS - but let's say that I will still stick with the 18-35 since that seems to be the most interesting lens to me at this juncture.

the 85 series - I have been weighing the 2 canon versions as well as the S85. The one thing that I was worried about the S85 is that where I live I may have to pay some serious extra money to get it calibrated unless the dock can be backwards compatible (there was a rumor about this) and except for that - I like the fact that the AF is zippier than the Canon 1.2

and then the 135. Which is quite special in and of itself.

I thought briefly about the 70-200 II to replace the 135 since there is a lot of talk about the two being close....or at least close enough. and now I am again revisiting the idea - though I have the 70-200 f4IS and am quite pleased with it. An extra benefit (though not the reason I would be getting the 2.8 II lens) would be its better ability to accept X1.4 and 2.0 extensions in comparison to the f4IS

So I can attack this in a couple ways:
135, 85 1.2 or 1.4, 18-35
70-200 II, 85 1.4 or 1.8, 18-35 (skip the 135 at this time)
70-200 II, 135, either the 85 1.8, 1.4 OR the 18-35 (the other one at a later time)

As an aside: I am not interested in selling any of my lenses whatsoever, I would rather save the money over a period of time...even if it takes a long time.

In regards to my budget - I used the maximal retail prices since I am not sure exactly when I can make the purchase - I rather be surprised with a lower price than a higher one!

the major thing that can change the purchase is if the 7d mark II (or whatever they will call it) will come out and be excellent. Then a full rethinking is in order. So...only a crop DSLR...

thanks for any input. practical considerations most welcome!

Heya,

If you stay crop:

70-200 F2.8 II & 18-35 1.8

If you want to be able to use any EOS:

70-200 F2.8 II & 24-70 F2.8 II (or 16-35mm F2.8 II)

I wouldn't get all the lenses you're talking about, if you're not selling your current crop of lenses. Do you really want to walk around with 6 lenses? I say this as someone who walks with 4 lenses, minimum, in a backpack for all my shooting (with some exceptions). It's not for everyone. If you just get two really amazing lenses that cover almost everything, then you can avoid needing lots of lenses. If you want those specialty lenses that allow for F1.0, F1.2, F1.4, then get them, but only if you know you need them for lots of shooting. Ultimately I would compare the level of gear, the cost, and the amount of gear you have to your actual shooting and photographs and time, and see if it's truly worth while and not just building a collection, but rather, actually using it to the fullest to make it worth while.

I think you need to really evaluate if the difference between F1.4 and F2.8 really is a big enough difference at those focal lengths for you to really need the minor stop difference. The 70-200 F2.8 II really replaces almost all of those, assuming the F2.8 is thin or fast enough for your needs. I thought I always needed F1.4 on everything, but in reality, I find F2.8 on a longer lens to be very much the same and simply not needed to be lower for fun depth of field, and it's plenty fast for light purposes because it's not a big stop difference.

Very best,

Let me muddy your waters a bit.

70-200 2.8L on a FF will have a slightly thinner depth of field than a 135L on a crop and about the same as a 85 f/1.8 on crop. So on a FF camera, that lens will literally cover the other two lens. Add in a 24-70 2.8L on a FF and you'll be again as fast as the 18-35 f/1.8 would be on a crop.

To translate, it'll give you roughly the same depth of field and crop equivilent length as a 15-44mm f/1.8 and a 44mm-125mm f/1.8.