Da lensa which keptcha on da Edga

Jim G wrote in post #2000216
Well this is quite a cheap lens compared to most of the others mentioned here but for me it's the 85mm 1.8... I'm saving to go away and as a student I don't have much spare cash but I really, really want the lens.. either that or the 28mm 1.8.. I'm torn between going for the wider option for live shows or the longer option for shows and portraits

I should get paid for my magazine work this week and we'll see how much that is.. if it's enough for the lens I think it's going to be mine within a week and I'll just work more to make up the difference

Jim, I hope you'd get the 85 f/1.8 soon....one of the all around lowest risk lenses one can buy.

and yet, it's really sharp and fun to use.

i'm pining after the 16-35L and the 35L

hoping to buy the next good used copy of the 16-35 i see.
wish me luck!

MTalley wrote in post #2000115
100-400L, for the same reasons cited by jcpoulin.

Another extremely low risk lens......not excessively expensive yet unmatched versatility/utility. Even people who own big supertelephotos (400/500/600) use the lens often.
One can even do nice flowers with it.
Or butterflies.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Cathpah wrote in post #2000324
i'm pining after the 16-35L and the 35L

hoping to buy the next good used copy of the 16-35 i see.
wish me luck!

Two spectacular lenses. The 16-35L is amazingly wide on FF, and the 35L is unmatched for IQ by any lens I've owned.

For me, the 85 f1.2L is next on the list.

I want the Sigma 120-300 so badly I can taste it. I can't imagine anything better for field sports.

Az2Africa wrote in post #2000347
For me, the 85 f1.2L is next on the list.

Very expensive compared to the 85 f/1.8, yet very versatile lens.
It can be used for wildlife and macro photography as well with minimum natural light available.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Sigma 10-20mm... I want one so bad and have the funds... just hesitant... don't know why. I am pretty sure I wont regret it.

I had the 500 in my shopping cart, but ended up with a 1D, 35L and 300 2.8L for less than the cost of the 500. I still want the 500..

16-35 2.8L - Budget issues. Pretty much the last lens I need for 90% of what I do.

300 2.8L IS - budget issues(but I've found an altenative for now). So lets jump to 400 2.8 IS. *sigh*

formula4speed wrote in post #2000468
I had the 500 in my shopping cart, but ended up with a 1D, 35L and 300 2.8L for less than the cost of the 500. I still want the 500..

Yeah, that's a classic....our hearts never stop longing....

grego wrote in post #2000476
16-35 2.8L - Budget issues. Pretty much the last lens I need for 90% of what I do.

300 2.8L IS - budget issues(but I've found an altenative for now). So lets jump to 400 2.8 IS. *sigh*

Thank you St. Anthony, the patron saint of us Italians in the New World, for not being tempted by any of the 400/500/600 biggies.....because neither my CC nor my wife could take that sort of a lens dollar hit.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2000342
Two spectacular lenses. The 16-35L is amazingly wide on FF, and the 35L is unmatched for IQ by any lens I've owned.

OK Ron, care to illustrate that comment with an image of yours taken with the lens ?
I think many folks here would be interested since the lens seems to be universaly desired and coveted.

Ar...yeah, I can find one. I haven't used it in so very long (honestly don't care for the length on FF), but I imagine there's some lying around.