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.