What am I lacking???

Am looking to add to my kit soon. Not sure about what my total spendable budget will be. Have the FL range of 11-200,(with the exception of 17-23) covered with 2.8 glass. Have the one fast prime(35L). Plus the 10-17 FE and the 18-200 daylight kit lens.
My primary shooting is events, a large percentage of which is concerts. Wondering where I may be lacking in glass. Thinking of adding more fast primes 50 1.4/85 1.8/100 2.0/135L. Have also considered adding a macro to my mix, or just getting tubes for use with the new primes. A 1.4 TC is also high on my list along with the Lensbaby Composer. Also considered is getting the Tokina 12-24 f/4 to fill my gap and use as a land/cityscape lens.

If you can't determine any point yourself where you're lacking why buy anything at all? =)

Save yourself some cash heh. Or send it my way

Have you thought of the 300 f/4 IS? I absolutely love this lens for concerts/plays/dance/l​arge events. Often times I can't get that close (like at Tanglewood) or I want a head shot. One can easily shoot at 1/100s @ 480mm AoV with the IS engaged. Also, this lens fits in the front left pocket of my Domke vest. It's IQ is worthy of its L designation. And, surprising to me, I have never had a problem with the f/4 being too slow for any professionally or even somewhat decently lit venue. If you want pics,let me know...

Ian

PS - I just looked at your gear list again and I have to ask, what about a second body in a quality used 5d?

Thanks for your constructive input Ian. Looked at your gear list and like your setup, much as I have been thinking. The 300f/4 has been on and off my wishlist, like the FL and IS,plus what I see IQ wise. Most of my concert shooting opportunities have been within easy range of my 24-70/70-200 setup. The 300L would though be a great addition for sports/wildlife shots, but that is a small part of what I do and may not warrent the investment. Checked out the 100-300 after seeing it in your mix, never realized it exsisted. How is the image quality compared to the 300L, would it be a viable alternative?

You only have one lens faster than f/2.8, and it's kind of long at 135mm. I'd look into faster and shorter lenses. Also, how about a backup body?

Say hi to Chris Martin!

(owns a little guitar factory up your way )

nazpicman wrote in post #9132915
Thanks for your constructive input Ian. Looked at your gear list and like your setup, much as I have been thinking. The 300f/4 has been on and off my wishlist, like the FL and IS,plus what I see IQ wise. Most of my concert shooting opportunities have been within easy range of my 24-70/70-200 setup. The 300L would though be a great addition for sports/wildlife shots, but that is a small part of what I do and may not warrent the investment. Checked out the 100-300 after seeing it in your mix, never realized it exsisted. How is the image quality compared to the 300L, would it be a viable alternative?

The 100-300 compares rather favorably in IQ to the 300/4 IS. The 100-300 is slightly less sharp (but sharper than my 70-200 f2.8 IS), and has a very luxurious, rich rendering of subjects (read: contrasty). It has faster AF and is virtually free of PF in high contrast situations, i.e., white uniforms with bold black letters at high noon on a sunny day. Where the 100-300 falls short is that it has no IS. IS makes the 300/4 L much more versatile. As i wrote, 300 f/4 IS is easily hand-holdable at 1/100s @ 480mm AoV, while the 100-300 needs ~1/500s. It's also bigger and heavier than the 300/4 IS and wouldn't fit in my vest pocket.

In the end, the 100-300 is my daytime field sports lens. My 300 f/4 IS is for everything else.

gibsonla wrote in post #9131644
If you can't determine any point yourself where you're lacking why buy anything at all? =)

Not constructive but I second that.

A macro lens?
And about the 100-300 versus the 300 F4 IS, that's pretty much news to me... is the 100-300 so good? I always kinda skipped that by reputation...
If I look at the 100-300 vs the 300 F4 IS on the-digital-picture, it comes out pretty terrible in comparison. Worse even than the 70-300 - only slightly better at the 300 end, but much worse at other focal lengths.

If you are just looking to spend money to get results, the best way to do that is with lighting gear.

gibsonla wrote in post #9131644
If you can't determine any point yourself where you're lacking why buy anything at all? =)

Save yourself some cash heh. Or send it my way

Bang on. If you cannot determine what you are missing...how can someone do this for you?

Now if you said I am thinking of getting into bird photography and what would be my options...then you might get some constructive feedback.

I have to concur with the others that if you don't feel like you're missing something, why spend the money? With that said, the most obvious thing you're missing (and may not realize would be a big help) is a flash.

Get the Lensbaby Composer with double glass optic. They are such a hoot to play with. They are incredibly reasonably priced considering the entertainment value they provide, especially if you enjoy experimental types of images.

I was going to confirm the 135/2 as an addition, but introduction into FF photography with a preowned 5d classic tops that recommendation. You'll discover a whole new world with already outstanding glass you have.

In order to get 300/4IS, wouldn't a 1.4xTC get you there with little IQ compromise on your 70-200?

I would add a second body so you could have 2 bodies with different lenses mounted during gigs.

Considering you have 3 songs to shoot most bands, having to change lenses only slows you down. A 24-70 on one body and a 70-200 on another is a big advantage.

Ditto with a second body, but I'd have the 17-55 IS on it, and 70-200 IS on the other. In tight venues, the coverage gain from going down to 17 (instead of 24) is significant.