Building my unholy tinity... Which one next?

Looking to make this my unholy trinity:

16-35 f/4 IS L
50 f/1.2 L
135 f/2 L

Got the 50, sold my 17-40 and 35. Now i'm ready to buy stage 2.... but need help deciding between the 16-35 and 135.

UWA is definitely my passion, and is why I got into photography. Eventually, I think i'll add a Rokinon 14mm and/or an iOptron tracker for astro. But that'd be lower priority right now.

Soooo between the two, what would you go for? Yup, I love UWA, but I really don't get the opportunity to get out and do it as much as I'd like (ya know, career, family, no freetime...)

The 135 I could see getting more use out of. School functions, kids at the park etc.

So it boils down to what I really am passionate about, or what I'll likely make more use of.

Things to consider, I love my 50L. I find it so useful for such a wide range of things. I would likely use the 135 in many scenarios I already use the 50 in. The only difference in my mind is the extra reach, and I don't find myself needing extra reach very often. So quite possibly I would use the 135 as much as I would the 16-35. Hard to tell.

My gut is telling me the 135L. I think I'm a sucker for those Canon primes

135L

it's not a trinity if you dont have all three, it's just a dynamic duo.

How you can live without all three is beyond me

what's a 'tinity'

Charlie wrote in post #17033801
it's not a trinity if you dont have all three, it's just a dynamic duo.

How you can live without all three is beyond me

Will eventually have all three. Right now, it's a Super Solo

I should add that my current filter collection (aimed at UWA landscape photography) is probably worth more than either my 6D or 50L. Yup, I like UWA landscape that much!

Heya,

I say get an ultrawide.

The 50 is great for portrait and functions and the park.

But if your passion is ultrawide, go ultrawide. Why compromise what you love when you already have a lens that functions for things you talked about, but doesn't function for wide?

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17033928
Heya,

I say get an ultrawide.

The 50 is great for portrait and functions and the park.

But if your passion is ultrawide, go ultrawide. Why compromise what you love when you already have a lens that functions for things you talked about, but doesn't function for wide?

Very best,

it's because the 50 isnt an ultrawide either, but produces spectacular bokeh. I'm thinking he's got the bokeh itch, and the 135 is a bokeh monster.

just a wild guess.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17033875
I should add that my current filter collection (aimed at UWA landscape photography) is probably worth more than either my 6D or 50L. Yup, I like UWA landscape that much!

In this case, get the 16-35/4L for sure.

UWA can cover 24mm and 35mm for walk around with a wide effect. On the wide end you can get some cool shots too.

135L is a niche lens. Dont kid yourself if you think your gonna get alot of use with a long 135mm lens. 50mm and 135mm would be limition for the wide. For my young growing family the 50mm almost seems to long for close proximity shooting..unless you like head shots.

UWA

I'd go wit the 16-35mm f4 as well. Like AlanU said, the 135L is a niche lens and shooting the 'kids at the park' with it will be a pill because kids don't sit still. Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens, but something like even the 24-105mm f4 might work both for your landscape and kid lens?

I don't know if you fancy buying used lens, but if you went with the Rokinon 14mm and the 24-105 you'd drop about $1500, while with the 135mm and 16-35mm, you'd drop about $2300.

BobDawg wrote in post #17034076
I'd go wit the 16-35mm f4 as well. Like AlanU said, the 135L is a niche lens and shooting the 'kids at the park' with it will be a pill because kids don't sit still. Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens, but something like even the 24-105mm f4 might work both for your landscape and kid lens?

??? Is there a rule that since kids dont sit still that the photographer should sit still and zoom in zoom out?

There's no general rule that says an ultrawide is better at capturing kids, especially at the park. If anything, you'll be chasing your kids around more often because of 35mm being the widest. If you're kids are small, then a 16-35 will work better since you HAVE to be close to them, but toddler age and up, they roam on their own. You just sit back and snap from a distance.

A normal zoom is easiest to capture kids, but not everyone is interested in the look of a normal zoom. A super zoom would be even easier to capture at the park, like a 28-200/300mm...

If you're going to get less use out of a lens that you're more passionate about that type of photography, you need to rethinking your priorities somewhere...

vengence wrote in post #17034153
If you're going to get less use out of a lens that you're more passionate about that type of photography, you need to rethinking your priorities somewhere...

Don't get me wrong, I get a lot of use out of my camera and 50. 50mm was my highest priority as I like doing stills/product type shots, artsy kind of massive bokeh plant and flower shots (for lack of a better description). It also serves me well for outings with the family, get-togethers with friends, basically everything under the sun.

UWA landscape is just the type of photography that absolutely floors me when I see good shots online. The enjoyment is getting up early to catch the sunrise at some location where all signs of civilization have melted away, enjoying the beauty of nature around me. There's fun to be had in setting up shop somewhere and trying different angles and exposures, and taking a bazillion shots. That's what it's all about for me. Sigh, I don't get enough opportunity to do it as much as I'd like.

I had the 24-105, it came kitted with the 6D. I sold it though because it wasn't wide enough. I bought the 17-40 and while I really liked it, and it served me well for my purposes of UWA, i needed something more adapted for general purpose use. I liked the 24-105, but man I enjoy the 50L so much more. But I'm missing reach obviously. The 135 would be good there. But I guess if I bought the 50 for general use, and I'm happy with it, why bother dropping the cash on a lens that will not be used as much?

I dunno. I really don't have any other gear to acquire. I've got a great tripod, filter system, camera body, and a general purpose lens.

It's "what is the bigger gap" in my lenses. Probably the UWA. I'm planning trips this fall out to the appalachians where I know I'll want it.

Charlie wrote in post #17034144
??? Is there a rule that since kids dont sit still that the photographer should sit still and zoom in zoom out?

There's no general rule that says an ultrawide is better at capturing kids, especially at the park. If anything, you'll be chasing your kids around more often because of 35mm being the widest. If you're kids are small, then a 16-35 will work better since you HAVE to be close to them, but toddler age and up, they roam on their own. You just sit back and snap from a distance.

A normal zoom is easiest to capture kids, but not everyone is interested in the look of a normal zoom. A super zoom would be even easier to capture at the park, like a 28-200/300mm...

So you say the 24-105 is a bad choice because it can zoom, but then go and recommend the 28-300mm? That makes sense.