I need a very honest opinion

One thing a new and better lens will do for you is help you see how well your present skills allow you to shoot. That is, if you've got an excellent lens and get average shots, then you know that you need to work on some aspects of your skills. On the other hand, if find the quality of your images do improve with better lenses, well then just join the club. That's what really good glass is supposed to do!

From another amateur who has recently expanded his collection, new lenses did the following for me:
1. Taught me what I was missing - namely sharpness and ability to get bokeh.
2. Taught me what I was doing wrong (i.e. I thougth a new lens would fix a specific issue, and found out that it was a user error that showed itself on both old and new lenses).
3. Let me expand my shooting. I now can shoot sports. I can also be more artistic because of my increased choices for equipment.

Did I need more/new lenses? After having the kit lens, a 24-200 and a 75-300, I had all the focal lengths I needed covered, but I still wasn't really happy. So because I get a lot of enjoyment out of photography, it was worth my investment. So the answer is "no.. but..."

I would say that if you are asking the question, you probably already feel that there is something you MIGHT want to do that you can't right now. Either figure it out and then buy a lens to fill the need, OR go out and rent a few lenses to "see what you are missing". Who knows, maybe you'll be a closet duck shooter...

Your choice of lenses should follow your artistic vision, not lead it.

if you stand before a scene you want to photograph, and you have found the spot that gives you the perspective on the elements of the scene that fits the image in your mind, then all you need is the lens that includes the right amount of the scene to conform to your composition.

So, learn to choose your viewpoint and your composition before making the lens decision. Your lens choices will get a lot easier after that.

I moved further and further into wide angle lenses as I found I couldn't include enough of the scene from the point of view that seemed to me most dramatic. But it took many years to finally get to the point where I understood how fisheye and extreme wide angle lenses would fit with my objectives.

The alternative is to buy a lens and then wander around looking through the camera to see what it's good for. I submit that this is a lot less efficient producer of good photographs.

Don't obsess on lens quality at first. Nearly all modern lenses are good enough if you use them well. A state-of-the-art lens might not be as good wide open or with too slow a shutter speed as a cheapie at f/8 on a good tripod, so the aperture you choose will have a bigger effect on your results than the quality of the lens. Learn to use excellent technique first, so that you know when you are using the lens in accordance with its strengths.

The old truism goes that beginners argue about lenses, experienced amateurs debate tripods, and commercial photographers discuss lighting. Like all such truisms, it belittles those who are starting out, and even some grizzled veterans love to argue about lenses, but there is a lot of truth in it. So, first learn to look for the light and drama in the scene, and learn to identify what it is about the scene that makes you want to photograph it. Then make sure you are using excellent technique (which will require a sturdy tripod in many cases). When you are proficient in those, then when you do upgrade your lenses you'll get your money's worth out of them and truly appreciate their quality.

An example: I frequently make photographs using a light meter that cost more than the camera (this was routinely true for me before digital came along). And I have more invested in my flashes and studio lights than in all the lenses I use for commercial work combined.

98% of what makes a good photograph comes from behind the camera.

A mistake lots of folks make is that they look at the equipment pros are using and buy the same thing. I think that this practice often slows people down in their photographic development, because they are trying to figure out what the equipment can do for them before they know what they need. Another common mistake is that people postulate needs they don't really have, such as a "need" to do sports photography, a "need" to do wildlife photography, or a "need" to do macro photography. They buy according to the need they have postulated, but without having actually put themselves in the position of executing those specialties. Someone who doesn't like to hike has no business buying a specialty lens for wildlife, for example. Commercial photographers buy a specialty lens when it becomes apparent they will get enough specialized gigs to pay for it. For one-time gigs, they rent. Every lens has to pull its weight, or they are undermining their commercial success.

On the other hand, amateurs who have the money don't have to justify their purchases to anybody. If you want fancy lenses and have the money, that's all the justification you need. But all the posts I see about people maxing out their credit cards suggests that many don't meet the "have the money" requirement. I might make a dent in a credit card or a savings account for something that really fits my vision, but short of that I'm just buying on spec, and that's risky.

Note that as we mature, our vision changes, and thus our collection of lenses grows. I own an obscene number of lenses, but then I've been buying them steadily for 35 years.

Rick "who has done a mountain of commercial work with only a normal lens" Denney

shaunknee wrote in post #2169317
Photography is much like cycling... as there is nothing like new equipment to keep the interest honed!

Being a cyclist, I agree. Of course my other hobby, woodworking, is the same. I need to find a cheap hobby!

Wow that's one long post Rick. I like your outlook and appreciate your perspective. However, I have to disagree with one of your points. You said

However,my experience has shown this not to be true. To modify it just slightly, I would say that either all modern Canon lenses or high end lenses from third party manufacturers are good enough if you use them well. I picked up a cheapo Tamron 28-80 and it's got good color and I actually like it, but the 55-200 Sigma that I bought disappointed me so much I couldn't stand it. I have the cheapo Canon 75-300 III (non-usm) and it can take some nice shots. I've never heard of a bad Canon lens - mediocre yes, bad no. I guess it comes down to the old addage, you get what you pay for. So in the range of lenses available, buying too cheaply will most likely disappoint.

Layston wrote in post #2174066
However,my experience has shown this not to be true. To modify it just slightly, I would say that either all modern Canon lenses or high end lenses from third party manufacturers are good enough if you use them well.

Try a comparison of your 50/1.4, at f/1.4, with the lens you hated at f/8 or f/11.

Of course, there are indeed some really terrible lenses out there. But if you limit your enlargements to, say, 5x7, then I'll bet that even the lens you hated wouldn't be unusable. I have made some good and even fairly large prints from some lenses that really howled at the moon.

Even a slight focusing error will create more blur than the lens faults from a really cheapo lens when used at f/8 or f/11. Ditto any camera shake at all.

Once a person has developed the technique to get the most out of cheapo lenses, I bet they'll be empowered by good technique to be the advice giver on POTN more often than the advice seeker.

Rick "who has some images made with Phoenix Garbajomat lenses on display" Denney

While I don't disagree with you Rick, I spent 4 hours diligently testing the one lens I hated. I put it on a tripod and took about 100 shots. I went through the aperture range from one extreme to the next. I manually focused and autofocused, I tried natural light and flash, all on a tripod with remote release. No matter what I tried the lens was just soft with horrible CA. I tried printing some 4x6's and in the end, the only thing I thought the lens might have been good for was portrait photography like an EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus.

Now I just wish I had that 50/1.4 to test against - reminds me of my old 50/1.4 FD that I used to have...ahh the memories

Layston wrote in post #2174416
While I don't disagree with you Rick, I spent 4 hours diligently testing the one lens I hated.

Well, there is always the exception that proves the rule. Just think of it this way, how horrible did a lens have to be in order to become that exception? It sounds as though it was pretty horrible.

I have a Quantaray 18-35 and a Phoenix 100-400, both of which are widely regarded as junk. But I've made worthy photographs with them. They are demanding, however; their sweet spots are narrow indeed. I bought better lenses just so I wouldn't have to work so hard.

Rick "who still uses the Phoenix from time to time, like at the beach to keep from getting sand and salt in a good lens" Denney