Dear Pros, please advise this newer pro on lenses. Thanks

Hi.

I started shooting about eight years ago (2008, Rebel XS) and over the years worked my way into full frame photography (XS--T2i--EOS-M, and now 6D).

So, with my 6D I bought it new back in January to start shooting professionally. So far I've had about fifteen jobs and all have turned out well enough. The customers, all but a couple, were coworkers, neighbors, etc., and a couple of them were strangers who were referred to me.

My prices started low, like most first-time pros (generally $50 and hour and as many pictures as I could process and put on a disk), and then I went up to $100 an hour, which is about where I stand today. I will eventually make a more solid set of packages and more as I continue to develop my skills (both in photography and business).

For now, and for the foreseeable future, this will be part time. I'm an elementary school teacher and love my career (in my 20th year), so I'll be working a minimum of ten more years until I'm eligible for retirement (if I choose to retire).

Anyway, my 6D is a dream. Love it, and I also invested in a new monitor, a new desktop, Lightroom, Photoshop, a simple lighting setup (on and off camera), and more.

But my kryptonite, currently, is my lens setup. I just have the 28-135 USM IS (which is good on a full frame camera, but not good enough) and the 40mm pancake (which is good, but has no zoom capabilities, obviously).

One more piece of background: I have invested about 3 grand since January, but am very proud of myself in that I've paid myself back 2500 of it (from photography jobs) and only owe myself just under $500.

So, with that in mind, I'm trying to figure out which setup is best for me. Here's what I have in mind. Please advise about these options (including different ideas). Keep in mind that I really don't to rack up the debt to myself again (sounds weird to owe myself, but it helps me to be motivated to work to pay off what I take from savings).:

Option A: Stick with the two lenses I have and keep making extra money.

Option B: Sell the 28-135, keep the 40mm prime, and then invest in a couple more primes (28mm and something around 100). This wouldn't set me back too far.

Option C: Sell both lenses and buy a new or good used 24-105 L and stick with that for a while (this is the one I'm leaning toward).

Option D: Sell both lenses, pick up a 24-105L and the 100-400L (Love that lens but not the cost) and expand to local sporting events, etc. (I also favor this option, but don't like the added cost. This option will pretty much set me back another 1500).

Option E: Your ideas.

Thank you if you read this far. I appreciate any advice given.

Also, here is an example of the work I do: Almost all of it is simple portraits with natural light and strobes, etc. But I'd like to expand, including perhaps a shot at some local film and TV production stills (the business is booming here from The Walking Dead, Rectify, Soul Survivor, Resurrection, Devious Maids, and more).


Adoption portrait session

Add to your existing line up.
You want to sell two lenses that cost a few hundred combined and replace them with two lenses that will cost $2K combined... so quit pretending that selling your lenses is doing anything to keep you on level ground. Sell the 28-135mm when it is truly replaced by your new kit. Don't leave yourself hanging while you experiment.

Add lenses first.
Go back and upgrade later. The 24-105 is a direct upgrade. It adds nothing to your existing line up.

Keep the 40mm always.
You will always have a use for this best bang for your buck bargain of a lens.

So add something that you don't already have an equivalent of. Something wider, something longer.
The only lens you listed that is not already part of your focal range was the 100-400mm. I'd look at any of the 70-200mm as well or instead.

If low light and fast apertures is important, then start looking at the affordable primes, the 28mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 100mm f/2 etc..

I had a difficult time following you on the 28-135 vs. 24-105. The rest made sense to me, but not the two zooms. What did you mean by "direct upgrade" and "level ground?"

Heya,

I think adding something with superior depth of field control will add something to your line up of portrait. I wouldn't bother with the 24-105 F4L, it's not even that great, it's just a good lens for the cost since you can get it for $600 usually. But if it were full price ($1k or more), then it would be an obvious "avoid" lens for a lot of people. Also, why limit yourself to F4 at focal lengths under 80~105? You may find creative options with F2 in your future, even outdoors, with strobes and ND filters. I find dramatic lighting often is superior to lens properties when it comes to great portraiture.

If you're interested in doing sports stuff, don't just buy a long lens, I would suggest you consider sporting very differently from the rest. Save up and grab a Sigma 120-300 F2.8. It's more money, but you will appreciate it since you will end up buying a faster lens later anyways, along with likely, something like a 7D/70D or 1D series (MK3, MK4, etc) if you really get into sporting and you start craving that snappy autofocus and FPS.

For portrait, I would look to the 100 F2. It will pay for itself. Otherwise, might as well save up for Canon's two near-finest portrait lenses: 85L II and/or 135L. The 100 F2 will pay for itself, and then earn what you need to pay for one of those. That's where I would go. I wouldn't bother with one of the zooms, like the 24-70, and especially not the 24-105 for the kinds of things you're doing. If you really wanted a zoom for outdoor stuff like you're posting, I'd actually much more suggest a 70-200F4L IS over a 24-105. And if you need wide, you simply add a wide lens to the game. But that what you're always in telephoto, and 200/F4 is a fantastic portrait length outside on full frame. Great isolation, without the over-the-top blurring of something wider. Combine with off camera lighting outside, and you get dramatic lighting that really pops.

So basically here's what I suggest:

EF 100 F2 for the budget outdoor prime for portrait. Work towards 85L II or 135L.
EF 70-200F4L IS if you want the outdoor zoom budget option that is easily end game for you too. Sports options all over this lens.
Sigma 120-300 F2.8 for sports, just save up and work towards it. You'll appreciate how versatile this lens is.

And put some more into lighting options. A pair of Yongnuo 568II's in your future would make for some really interesting options for HSS/TTL capable speedlites off camera for interesting lighting options even in the day light.

Very best,

EOS-Mike wrote in post #17129598
I had a difficult time following you on the 28-135 vs. 24-105. The rest made sense to me, but not the two zooms. What did you mean by "direct upgrade" and "level ground?"

"Level ground" was meant financially. You stress the importance of keeping your investment in equipment low, and use that criteria as reason to sell your current lenses. (as I read your post anyway)
I was merely pointing out the futility of trying to sell your current lenses to maintain costs while incurring approx $1,600.00 more on the new stuff.

"direct upgrade" The 24-105 and 28-135mm do the same job in much the same way. One would argue that the 24015 does some of this better. It is a direct upgrade, not a different tool, but an upgraded tool.

I see. All great advice. Keep it coming.

About sports: it currently isn't an interest of mine to shoot sports. I just thought it might be nice to have that capability if someone asks. My favorite kind of work is one or two subjects who desire to be photographed. With families and large groups there are always a couple people who don't want to be there, and the more people involved the less likely I'll please everyone.

I wouldn't mind shooting extreme sports like skating, mountain bike, etc., but that's just a future option, as mentioned. I've got a pretty good thing going locally with portraits.

I think I'm leaning more toward the 70-200 route a couple of you suggested.

I'm wondering, however, if the IS is worth roughly double the cost of the non-IS.

EOS-Mike wrote in post #17129776
I think I'm leaning more toward the 70-200 route a couple of you suggested.

I'm wondering, however, if the IS is worth roughly double the cost of the non-IS.

Heya,

It's not just the IS that is there. It's the optical quality, etc, that is also superior. The classic 70-200 F4L is a fine lens. No doubt. And with a 6D, your ISO abilities make the IS not as much of something to need, as you can comfortably shoot ISO 3200~6400 with very little noticeable noise pattern on pretty large prints.

Alternatively, you could seek a 200 F2.8L II, for the same cost. Very nice portrait lens outside. Just depends if you really want to work from that distance. The 70-200 lets you have a little more choice in the matter, if your working distance is reduced. The nice thing is that you can leave these lenses wide open for shooting, they're excellent at their widest.

Very best,

I had a feeling the IS version was cleaner beyond the IS. I've scoured the galleries of both lenses and the IS version seems to get better IQ when mounted on a tripod with IS turned off, even though it would seem to be equal (somewhat same lens).

That 70-200 F4 IS has always whispered to me since it came out. Very sharp and colorful pics.

EOS-Mike wrote in post #17129847
I had a feeling the IS version was cleaner beyond the IS. I've scoured the galleries of both lenses and the IS version seems to get better IQ when mounted on a tripod with IS turned off, even though it would seem to be equal (somewhat same lens).

That 70-200 F4 IS has always whispered to me since it came out. Very sharp and colorful pics.

Heya,

One of Canon's finest affordable lenses. Can't go wrong with it.

Very best,

I've grown to not like the 70-200s for portrait work. Most of the time I ended up in the 135+ range to get that blurred background.

I love my 120-300. Portraits at 300mm 2.8 are in a league of it's own

I would evaluate your need on both the wide and the long end and then get either the 17-40 or the 100-400 depending on which would actually make you the most money. After you have both ends covered, I would consider replacing the 28-135 but that would not be my first buy. I would not want to be in the position of telling a client I didn't have the lens needed to do a job. I would also consider the one of the 70-200s or the 70-300L instead of the 100-400. Depending on your work, they might be a better choice. I still have my 28-135. It's a good lens (not the best) although it's construction does not inspire confidence and folks here tend to look down their nose at it. I will replace it soon but, in your circumstance, I would be much more concerned about extending my capability rather than just upgrading (slightly?) what my current capability.

I too agree with a 70-200 f4. Especially in those occasions where you want to keep your distance.

Someone here is selling at a very decent price:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1395927

As far as I'm concerned it has to be option "A". Just looking at the examples you have posted I'd bet
everyone was more than happy with your work. Take your time treat it as a hobby,look for some deals
and splurge when the time is right. Again beautiful work and happy clients.

From my point of view for portrait you can choose 70-200mm ( depends on your budget) or 85 mm 1.8

I guess I didn't clarify that I don't need to first sell my current gear in order to purchase another lens or two. I can sell them after picking up the new gear.

For example, if I order a 24-105L I will have it in hand before selling the 28-135. Same with my 40mm.

As far as having the right gear for the job: Like mentioned before, all my business is local portraits, both indoor and outdoor. Nobody has even asked me to shoot sports or performances.

As far as my hobby, I shoot pretty much anything that catches my eye, but it's extremely rare that I say, "I need more reach." I just don't shoot things far away.

The only sports I could see myself enjoying (for shooting purposes) are extreme sports in which I don't have to necessarily follow the action. For example, with skateboarding, mountain biking, etc. a photographer can set up the shot and anticipate where the rider will be.

I'm just not really into action for photography. I'm all about the portrait.

And outside of portraits I just shoot landscapes, cars, and anything I'm relatively close to.