Need help deciding

<p>Good day to everyone!<br>

I am considering to purchase a whole lot of new canon lenses to upgrade my kit.<br>

I shoot portraits, landscapes, macro, nature and the like. I was considering the EF 85mm f/1.2L II for low light photography.<br>

My main body is the 7d and my lenses are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM</li>

<li>Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM</li>

<li>Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM 1-to-1 Macro Lens</li>

<li>Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM AutoFocus</li>

<li>Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM</li>

</ul>

<p>My questions would be:</p>

<ol>

<li>What other lenses might there be to add to my kit based on "best bang for the buck"principle?</li>

<li>Should I buy the EF 85mm f/1.2L II for low light photography?</li>

<li>What lens should I get rid off because of overlapping range?</li>

<li>Any other relevant suggestions?</li>

</ol>

<p>*My budget is limited as of this time but I am looking to buy lens/es 3-6 months from now*<br>

*Suggestions are very welcome.*</p>

<p>I am a big fan of f/1.2 lenses, but honestly they are a little less needed in the day of ISOs above 3200 than before when we were shooting GAF 500 at EI 1000. You micht want to look at the reviews of the very fine, and very much cheaper EF 85mm f//1.8.</p>

<p>Also on a 7D, the 85mm is a "full" telephoto, not a short one as it would be on a 35mm-sensor camera. Even if you really want f/1.2, the 50mm version might be more useful as a <em>short</em> telephoto for indoor shooting. There you also have two less expensive but useful low light primes-- the EF 50mm f/1.8 "plastic fantastic" for about $100, and the more expensive, but very nice EF 50mm f/1.4. 0.2 less stops is not so terribly significant, but the f/1.4 will generally outshine the f/1.2 except wide open.</p>

<p>f/1.2 lenses are very special things. They tend to not be so fine optically as many cheaper lenses when you don't need the f/1.2 aperture. What's amazing about them is that they are as good for general shooting as they are, not that they really equal the less extreme lens in the same focal length.</p><div></div>

<p><em>What other lenses might there be to add to my kit based on "best bang for the buck"principle?</em></p>

<p>50/1.4</p>

<p>Thak you <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a> and <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3688373">Arie Vandervelden</a> for your responses. Any other lens or suggestion you can add?</p>

<p>An EX Speedlite and a <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50mm</strong></a> f/1.4 lens (Canon or Sigma). Another edxcellent prime is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If you want a fast 85mm, how about the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 lens? I was surprisingly very unimpressed by Canon's f/1.2 lens.</p>

<p>50 1.4 is a lot cheaper than the 1.2<br>

It will work as a 80 1.4 on your 7D due to the 1.6 crop factor. Also check out 85 1.8</p>

<p>A Canon 5D-II?</p>

<p>That way all your lenses have more uses than they do now. (Apart from the 10-22 of course.)</p>

<p>Actually you don't seem to need much more.</p>

<p>I like the suggestion of a flash however.</p>

<p>Another option would be to spend money on photography classes, books, studio stuff or trips.</p>

<p>Indeed a superfast lens might open up new venues.</p>

<p>Have fun, Matthijs.</p>

<p>"What other lenses might there be to add to my kit based on "best bang for the buck"principle?"<br />Irving you have the exact set up I have, minus a few lenses such as the 35mm f3.5 tilt shift . The only lens I'm not really happy with on that list and it does not have anything to do with performance is the 24-70mm f2.8. That lens is now my walk-around lens, but I don't know how long my back or my knees are going to last dragging this thing around.<br />I was thinking maybe a 17-40mm f4 'L 'series , a 17-55 f2.8 IS, or a 24-105mm f4 IS. They all have their pluses and limitations which makes it hard to decide, but they are all lighter than the 24-70mm.<br />Other options would be to get some fast primes like the 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2 or one of the Carl Zeiss lenses made for Canon. That's if you got money to spare.<br />If you can find one, the 20-35mm 3.5/4.5($350) is still a very goood lens without breaking the bank. It is not an 'L' series lens, but it is very sharp, light and compact. Perfect match for the 28-105mm f3.5/4.5 (on a FF) which is my favorite travel lens.</p>

<p>"What other lenses might there be to add to my kit based on "best bang for the buck"principle?"<br>

As already indicated, EF 50mm f/1.4, I mention it over the 50 f/1.8 because of the FTM focusing that you are probably already used to.</p>

<p>That's a pretty nice collection!<br>

With the exception of the EF-S, you'll be set for a FF body when & if you decide on that move.</p>

<p>I am a great fan of fast lenses and have two copies of the 85 F1.2 and one 135 F2 for my old FD bodies. The 85 F1.2 is my all time favourite FD series lens. With EOS however, I never got around to buying the 85 F1.2. I tested the mark I lens and was disappointed with it's AF so I just bought the 85 F1.8. Somehow I have never got around to getting the 85 F1.2 MkII because the F1.8 lens is so good and other lenses (e.g. 17mm f4 TS) had more appeal to me. This is not to say that the 85 F1.2 is not a great lens - just that $2000 is a lot of money. The 85 F1.8 is probably the bargain of the EF lens series as it is a really good lens and sharp even at F2. The 50 F1.4 is another great but - especially for an APS-C body. Some people report AF issues with this lens but I find mine is fine (if somewhat slow). my 50 F1.4 is very soft wide open but very good from F2. On an APS-C body it performs even better as mine is mainly soft at the edges on full frame. For a portrait lens on the 7D the 50 F1.2 is a great buy. Another lens I really like is the 100 F2.8 L IS Macro although it tends to get used more on my 5DII than my 7D.</p>

<p>I'm also a big fan of Canon's fast primes, both FD and EF, and, like Philip, the FD 85/1.2 is my all-time favourite prime. I also have, and very much love, the EF 85/1.2 L II, but I hardly think that it qualifies as a "best bang for the buck" lens. Primes at or around that focal length that do accord with this principle are the EF 85/1.8 and 100/2. </p>

<p>The EF 50/1.4 is also a very, very fine lens, particularly when stopped down a wee bit. One of the many virtues of most of the L primes, however, is that they are super sharp wide open. An exception is the EF 50/1.2 L, which (somewhat mysteriously) has inferior image quality to that of the FD 50/1.2 L.</p>

<p>I already have the Canon Speedlite 580EX II and Canon Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX with E-TTL.<br>

I am looking for something new to try. I guess low light portraiture for resto/bar shots. </p>

<p>Which lens should I get? The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM or the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZE? I am using a 7d.<br>

Should I replace my Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM 1-to-1 Macro Lens for the Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro Planar ZE?<br>

*"Best bang for the buck" is still the priority *</p>

<p>*Budget is around $1000-$1500.*</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess low light portraiture for resto/bar shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, try the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. And with your budget you might want to try check out the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM, too.</p>

<p>When I first looked at your set of lenses the one that seemed absent to me was the 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 L. If you plan to go full frame then the 85/1.2 L would make more sense.</p>

<p>If you plan to go full frame the next missing lens would be one of: 14/2.8 L, 17 TS-E, 16-35/2.8 L, 17-40/4 L or used 17-35/2.8 L. </p>

<p>I highly recommend used lenses to make your budget go a lot further. Used non-Canon manual lenses with adapters is also an inexpensive way to ultra lens performance. Rather than going to the current Zeiss ZF lenses you could save a lot by going with original Contax/Zeiss lenses. I used to use a Contax/Zeiss 85/1.4 T* on my 10D, and it was truly incredible. I also used all my Nikon lenses on the 10D as well before switching to Nikon bodies. So the Nikon 85/1.4 AIS and Nikon 50/1.2 AIS come to mind. Both can be had for less than half of the Canon 85/1.2 L II. These must all be used in stopped-down metering method, but at least they do meter with Canon cameras. Manual focus of course. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Should I buy the EF 85mm f/1.2L II for low light photography?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Buy the <strong><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=909607">85MM 1.2 for portraits</a></strong>. Used wide open the depth of field is paper thin. Generally this lens is acquired purely for the super creamy smooth <a href="../photo/11948713&size=lg"><strong>bokeh</strong></a>, not for low light shooting.</p>

Zeiss 50/2 MP?

<p> here's a lens that's cheap that i always enjoy shooting with and gives really good results : Canon EF 35mm f/2 . PC</p>