A question that has been on my mind

[Local Hero]

I know this question has probably been asked a number of times on the forum but it’s been bugging me for a while now so I thought it might help me get it out of my system by bringing it up.

When I moved over to Canon I started with the 60D and the 50mm f/1.4. Shortly thereafter I got the 17-40mm f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, and 430EX and I was pretty much set for a while. My primary lens of choice was the 17-40 unless I wanted to go small/light then it was the 50mm. When picking out lenses I always made sure to get EF incase I was ever able to upgrade to full frame. This is exactly what I did with the 6D earlier this year. Now that my primary camera is the 6D my lens of choice has primarily been the 50mm.

For my next purchase I intend to get the 100mm f/2.8L (in early May). I use a T3i with the 60mm f/2.8 and 65mm f/2.8 1-5X a lot at work so macro is something I’m familiar with plus I’ve wanted to be able to do macro for awhile with my personal gear.

The primary use for my gear is as a hobby and of course my 2 year old but I also do a dozen or so jobs a year on average which typically includes a wedding or two.

Now to get to my question; what lens would you get next (after the 100mm mentioned above)?

Here is a couple ideas I've considered so far but really I'm not sure where I should go next.

• Upgrading the 70-200 f/4L to the IS version.
• Getting the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
• Getting a few more primes (35 & 85mm) to compliment the 50mm and soon to have 100mm.

Any advice or recommendations are welcome. If you think I should sell everything and buy X tell me why. If it makes sense I may just do it. Thanks in advance for the advice.

PS: I forgot to mention overtime I upgraded the 430EX to the 600EX-RT, got a 40mm pancake, and picked up a ST-E3-RT.

[Sean Setters]

To me, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM II makes the most sense. It's an excellent general purpose zoom - and that seems to be where your current kit is lacking. The EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM is a fantastic lens, but there are many times when you need a good zoom lens below that focal range.

The 24-70 should come in very handy during weddings, especially with a full-frame body that handles noise as well as the 6D does. While primes are fantastic for weddings, they can be problematic if you aren't carrying two separate bodies on your person at all times. Wedding moments are so fleeting that it pays to have a single lens that can cover a wide range of situations without having to change lenses.

But jrw is right - figuring out what you want to do but are currently unable to do with the gear you own is the best way to determine exactly what you need. :-)

[Local Hero]

To me, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM II makes the most sense. It's an excellent general purpose zoom - and that seems to be where your current kit is lacking. The EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM is a fantastic lens, but there are many times when you need a good zoom lens below that focal range.

The 24-70 should come in very handy during weddings, especially with a full-frame body that handles noise as well as the 6D does. While primes are fantastic for weddings, they can be problematic if you aren't carrying two separate bodies on your person at all times. Wedding moments are so fleeting that it pays to have a single lens that can cover a wide range of situations without having to change lenses.

But jrw is right - figuring out what you want to do but are currently unable to do with the gear you own is the best way to determine exactly what you need. :-)

That is kind of what I have been thinking. When I used the 60D the 17-40mm was my go to, now with the 6D its a little wide. The 24-70mm on the 6D would cover that same range as the 17-40mm on the 60D and more.

[Local Hero]

To me, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM II makes the most sense. It's an excellent general purpose zoom - and that seems to be where your current kit is lacking.

I agree with Sean
You are lacking the 24-78 2.8 (might be able to get a good price on the older model).
This is my primary wedding lens. I actually have the original and the II.

All of that said, I agree with the others, as long as you are typically shooting in the general purpose range, that is where I would upgrade. I initially balked at the cost of the 24-70 II, but after hearing/reading such good things about it and adding up the cost of 2-3 primes to cover the same range, it seems worth the cost.

Well so far the consensus is pretty much the way I have been leaning. The biggest gap in my lineup is a general purpose lens. I'd get the most out of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II. Then with a solid foundation I can decide if I want to upgrade my 70-200 or get some more primes.

Thanks for the input everyone!

[iND]

I agree with Sean
You are lacking the 24-70 2.8 (might be able to get a good price on the older model).
This is my primary wedding lens. I actually have the original and the II.

Thanks

[Kayaker72]

Hi Patrick,

You have an interesting kit. At first glance I was thinking you were missing a general purpose zoom. But in looking at it for a bit longer I can see how your kit would work well as you have 17-40 and 70-200 are covered at f/4, filling in the 50 mm gap with the 50 f/1.4.

If you find yourself always changing lenses, I would be tempted by a general purpose zoom like the 24-70 II (or 24-105 f/4). Given that you have a two year old and shoot events like weddings, I can see wanting faster glass to get a more shallow DoF. If you shoot the general purpose range more that could be accomplished by the 24-70 II or with primes at 35 mm and 85 mm. If you shoot the telephoto range more, then I think it is hard to argue with the 70-200 f/2.8. However, I have been looking at this, as this may be my next lens purchase, and comparing the f/4 IS to the f/2.8 II. Looking at sharpness results, they are very similar with a slight nod to the f/2.8. Regarding the DoF, playing with the calculator @ 20 ft they have the following minimum total DoF (f/2.8 total DoF-f/4 total DoF): at 70 mm (2.7/3.8 ft), 100 mm (1.3 ft-1.8 ft), 135 mm (0.7 ft-1 ft), and 200 mm (0.3 ft-0.45 ft). To me, both should provide a shallow DoF if stopped down. I am sure those that own the f/2.8 can let us know if the the quality of blur is better (I am planning on asking this before I buy, which won't be for awhile). However, just playing with reviews on this website, it seems to me that the bigger benefit of the f/2.8 is vignetting. Even at f/2.8, the f/2.8 has better vignetting than the f/4. Ok, I digress a little.

All of that said, I agree with the others, as long as you are typically shooting in the general purpose range, that is where I would upgrade. I initially balked at the cost of the 24-70 II, but after hearing/reading such good things about it and adding up the cost of 2-3 primes to cover the same range, it seems worth the cost.

Good luck,
Brant

[HDNitehawk]

Previously I had stuck with primes for anything below 70MM.The IQ of Canon's older zoom offerings in this range was less than the L primes.
The 24-70mm f/2.8L II changed my thinking on this. The IQ is so good that its zoom versatility outweighs the prime’s advantage.

My suggestion is this. If you want lenses for a specialty purpose the wide prime L's are the way to go hands down.
If you want the versatility you are not giving up that much in IQ by going with the 24-70mm. The gap between what you give up and get between the two is not as wide as it was a few years ago.

The IQ difference is not noticeable to most people, but the primes do their jobs a bit better. An example in my shooting not long ago, my step daughter and her husband asked me to shoot their family. I took the 24-70mm II and the 35mm f/1.4 L. I took most with the 24-70 because we were moving around quite a bit. I switched lenses to the 35mm and within two minutes I had some of the best shots of the day. It is hard to beat f/2 bokeh of the 35mm f/1.4 L.

So it comes down to the convenience of the 24-70 vs you carrying three primes, switching lenses and foot zooming all of this to gain bokeh that is better and IQ that is only slightly improved. Personally I own the lenses to do both, but you will have to decide which is more important.

As for the 70-200mm, I would go with the f/2.8 II just to get the IQ and the super fast bokeh and separation you can get with the lens.

[Kayaker72]

Rick (and anyone else)...if you had to pick one....primes or the 24-70 II, which would you go with? "Best shots of the day" or overall versatility?

[HDNitehawk]

I mounted my 24-70mm II on my 5D II and it is my walk around kit now. This is the most accurate lens I have ever had on my 5D II.

However if I had to choose just one I would go with my 24mm F/1.4L II (or the TSE 24mm or Zeiss 21mm). This is why; my way of thinking and philosophy is that I would first want to have a lens that does what it does great. The reason I would go with the 24mm rather than other length is that I prefer landscape and streetscapes over human subjects. The subjects that require versatility are secondary to me. For instance I want the best picture I can take of the Tetons, but when I go to the Zoo I like to photograph everything and if I get a good one so be it. The Teton pictures I hang on the wall and show off. The Zoo pictures I may do something with, but are not first passion.

Edit; Brant you did mention my comment about the "Best shot of the day". The thing is while it was the best shot of the day IMO, it wasn't necessarly the most liked picture of the day. I think the 24-70mm was the best choice for that day. But then that type of photography isn't my favorite.

[Kayaker72]

I mounted my 24-70mm II on my 5D II and it is my walk around kit now. This is the most accurate lens I have ever had on my 5D II.

However if I had to choose just one I would go with my 24mm F/1.4L II (or the TSE 24mm or Zeiss 21mm). This is why; my way of thinking and philosophy is that I would first want to have a lens that does what it does great. The reason I would go with the 24mm rather than other length is that I prefer landscape and streetscapes over human subjects. The subjects that require versatility are secondary to me. For instance I want the best picture I can take of the Tetons, but when I go to the Zoo I like to photograph everything and if I get a good one so be it. The Teton pictures I hang on the wall and show off. The Zoo pictures I may do something with, but are not first passion.

Edit; Brant you did mention my comment about the "Best shot of the day". The thing is while it was the best shot of the day IMO, it wasn't necessarly the most liked picture of the day. I think the 24-70mm was the best choice for that day. But then that type of photography isn't my favorite.

Rick...thanks for the response, some very good thoughts. I think you highlight the difference between the two options well. Both are excellent, but there is a very slight trade off between level of excellence and convenience. Having just gone FF, I am slowly mulling what I eventually want my kit to look like. I am probably in the phase where I will obsess over everything that Sean was describing. Ultimately, I ended up with the 24-105 f/4 due to its good reputation, but also because it was a heckuva deal as a kit lens. Once I have sold my APS-C gear, I should have some funds to do something. That could be buy a prime lens, upgrade to the 24-70 II, maybe something in the 70-200 mm range, or I may just wait for a bit as I like to shoot until I identify a need.

Thanks again.
Brant

Edit---thanks also to the others for your posts, and iND, I missed your post while writing this response. Thanks all...