Which L lens to get next ?

My remaining L options are as follows:

(1) 14L....very undecided about its performace. Seems rather pricey for what one gets.

Errr.....that's about it, I guess .
Neither 24-105 nor 28-300 interest me.
Anything over 1.5 kg I can not carry.
So I am kinda at the rope's end.

Is there anyone who can make a reasonable IQ case for 14L acquisition ?

what about the new 50 1.2.... you cant have that yet...

Gelatin filter, built in hood, only 1.2lbs....perfect for the 'El General Captain of the order of LOW'

Check my sig, and you'll see that the the only non-Canon lens I have is a 14mm f2.8. . .

When I wanted the lens, I had to struggle with the price of the L. I got the Tamron used from KEH for around $800, and I like what I got. I have not matched it up against the Canon, but the $1000 difference could buy another lens.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

If you're a collector, it's kind of a must. However, considering how much you'll probably use it, I'd say forget it. You've got a dandy fisheye that probably performs even better than the L!

Go for the 50. Have you got the 24 TS-E? The 180 macro? Classic L's like the 28-80L, the 20-35L, the 17-35L, 35-350L, etc?

Be a man, get a 400 F/2.8L IS

Too old and hobbled to carry such a load.

CoolToolGuy wrote in post #2133853
Check my sig, and you'll see that the the only non-Canon lens I have is a 14mm f2.8. . .

When I wanted the lens, I had to struggle with the price of the L. I got the Tamron used from KEH for around $800, and I like what I got. I have not matched it up against the Canon, but the $1000 difference could buy another lens.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

Rick, it's nice to see someone else had dealt with the 14L issue cost-effectively.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2133774
what about the new 50 1.2.... you cant have that yet...

Still back ordered.

I really wish I had this problem.

sugarzebra wrote in post #2133804
Gelatin filter, built in hood, only 1.2lbs....perfect for the 'El General Captain of the order of LOW'

Scott, that thing is about $1,800US for crying out loud ! Add shipping and 15% tax and it's over $2,000. For a lens that some say it has inferior IQ to the 15mm fisheye ?

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2133855
If you're a collector, it's kind of a must. However, considering how much you'll probably use it, I'd say forget it. You've got a dandy fisheye that probably performs even better than the L!

Go for the 50. Have you got the 24 TS-E? The 180 macro? Classic L's like the 28-80L, the 20-35L, the 17-35L, 35-350L, etc?

Those are "classics" of sorts but probably inferior to the current versions in more ways than one.
The 24 and 180 are in the bag already.

Yes, m'lord, but 'tis the widest L available. That makes it magically worth thousands.

Petkal wrote in post #2133983
Scott, that thing is about $1,800US for crying out loud ! Add shipping and 15% tax and it's over $2,000. For a lens that some say it has inferior IQ to the 15mm fisheye ?

I'm leaving for San Diego in the morning....let me know and I'll pick one up for you. You can take another $20 off as our tax is only 14% now

I think the 50mm f/1.2L is the one to watch here... C'mon. You can hold out another few weeks.