Wallet full of $1 bills...

[btaylor]

Hey guys,


I love vicariously spending other peoples' money when they ask for advice on purchases, so now it's your turn to return the favour to me. []


My current kit (well the important bits anyway) consists of:


5D Mark II + 40D


70-200mm f/4<span style="background-color: #ff0000;"]<span style="background-color: #ffffff;"]<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS


24-70mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L


50mm f/1.8 II


580 EX II, 430 EX II, Yongnuo YN-465 speedlites


I going to buy myself a new toy to play withbut I'm in a few different frames of mind about where to head. At the moment I'm considering:


70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS II


85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L <span style="color: #000000;"]II


Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5 - 5.6


I have always craved the 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II. Purely for that amazing background blur and low light ability. I'm mostly doing portrait and wedding photography at the moment so it would certainly suit that. However, I've found that shooting weddings has somewhat taken the enjoyment out of my photography because I find myself constantly editing photos and not getting out shooting unless it's for the next wedding. So I'm unsure as to whether it's a directionI want to head. I still crave that lens though - there's something special about it... including the price. I'm just not sold on it's versatility for everyday shooting.


The 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS II is a tricky on for me. I absolutely love my f/4L IS version, it's tack sharp and a really usable focal length for portraits on the 5D2. One of the reasons I didn't invest in the f/2.8 version in the first place was because it was a little soft wide open at f/2.8. The new f/2.8 version II appears to be fantastic wide open and everyone seems to be raving about every aspect of it. I have found that f/4 is a little too narrow for reception venue shots as well, I wouldn't mind being able to drop down the ISO a couple of stops by having the extra couple of stops of light (from the wider aperture) available. Another reason this lens is on the radar is that I'd like to invest in a teleconverter to give me a bit of extra reach while retaining a reasonably wide aperture and autofocus ability.


The Sigma 12-24mm is a bit left field and obviously doesn't fit in with the other 2 I have in mind. But I love the idea of the 122 deg diagonal field of view, minimal distortion etc on a full frame. At the moment the 24-70mm f/2.8 works pretty well as a landscape lens but I remember how amazed I was when I first got the 10-22mm for the 40D and loving the UWA perspective. This purchase has pretty much nothing to do with my wedding photography, although it would be used at times. It's more of a purchase for when I go on my random searches for the ultimate landscape shot out in the bush.


So, money isn't an issue but I still want to get the best value out of my purchase.


I can get the 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II for $1,984 (Australian Dollars - so about US$7.56 at the moment [:P] ). That's a significant investment for me when photography isn't my major source of income. If I were a professional photographer and it was my primary source of income I would buy it instantly - I'm a bit believer that if you are going to do a job, get the right tools for it and do it properly.


The 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS II I can get for AU$2,146. That's more still but in this case I would sell the 70-200 f/4L IS and I expect I could get around $900 for it. So that would make it around $1,200 for the f/2.8 II. Which is pretty acceptable.


The Sigma 12-24mm runs for about $750. Not much more to be said here.


Anyway what are peoples' thoughts? At the end of the day I'll find a way to justify the cost of whatever I buy to myself (and the cook) as I always do.


Thanks in advance.


Ben.

[Steve U]

G

[btaylor]

Hmmm I

[btaylor]

By the way, I did briefly consider the 135mm f/2.0L but I think the versatility of the 70-200 outweighs the wider aperture and lower cost.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I

[Kayaker72]

Ha. First of all. Love the title. Second... I buy into Steves logic as long as the weight/size difference aren

[btaylor]

True Nate but I

[Sheiky]

Hey Ben,


nice decision you have to make here []


I have recently shot 2 ice-skating events. One time I borrowed my friends 200mmL 2.8 and shot the entire thing at f4. The second time I had my own 70-200 F4L IS.


Honestly I thought it would be a lot better since I would be much more versatile with a zoom. Well, that's also the down-side I see now. The shots that I've made with the prime are much tighter and better composed, whereas with the zoom I think I got lazy and didn't dare or was to slow to compose tighter. It caused me a big increase of post-processing time.


Anyway what I'm trying to say is that the 85mm might sounds bad for certain circumstances because of the versatility. It might be more versatile than you'd think. Also for the candid-shots at weddings I love the fact that I can use my 50mm f1.4 and don't need a flash to shoot indoors. It gives very nice natural lighting and most of the time people are too busy to notice you. I think the 85mm would be a great candid-lens.


The 70-200 would be a little bit better than the 70-200 f4L IS that you have right now. Personally I don't need the F2.8 aperture, but that 1 stop of light could make the difference. It is a nice lens, but it's also a BIG lens, which would make candid-shots a little harder on you. Plus indoors even f2.8 often doesn't take it without a flash.


On the other hand it would be a great lens also to shoot some motorcross. However f4 would probably work most of the time as well.


The Sigma is really cool. I have used it for like half an hour, but it was nice. Very wide and much better than a fish-eye if you ask me. The distortion is also very limited. I was expecting the Canon 17-40 to outperform the Sigma, but in the end it was the other way around. It does have a mig front-element which can't be protected by a filter. That might be a bad thing.


Since we don't have really wide views out here, 12mm wasn't useful to me. 24mm is wide enough on 9/10 occasions for me.


Oh and I think the Sigma can also do some crazy motorcross photos. It gives you a crazy wide perspective. Very cool.


What about the Canon 85mm f1.8 by the way? You could buy that one and combine it with the Sigma.... Or the Sigma 85mm 1.4? etc etc...


Good luck chosing,


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Ben,


My first thought is that you need to change those $1's for some larger bills. [:P]


Regarding the lens choice, I can't speak for the Sigma, but you can't go wrong with either the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or the 85mm f/1.2L II lenses - personally, I love them both! The 85L is an amazing portrait lens, IMO. The 70-200mm is an excellent and versatile event lens. I suspect you'd get more use out of the 70-200mm, while the 85L would allow you to take some pics that would 'pop'.


Would trading your f/4 for the f/2.8 II leave enough in your budget for the Sigma 85mm f/1.4? I know it would leave enough for the 85mm f/1.8 (also excellent, but I never used it on a 5DII).


One observation is that you don't have a fast prime in your kit, and I really think you should. Just my 2&cent;.


Good luck with your decision!


--John