What lens should I invest in next?

[seroptics]

<p>First of all I would like to thank all you guys here at photo.net for being so helpful! In the last few months I have turned photography from a hobby into a freelance side-job. <br /> My question right now is what lens should I invest in next? I find myself using my $140 50mm f/1.8 lens more than my $1300 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM lens. I own a Canon 5D3 and I kinda wished I spent that $1500 on a 50mm f/1.2 lens instead.<br /> I mostly do modeling photoshoots and newspaper assignments so the 70-200mm is not a bad deal at all. But for things like indoor dances, concerts, and indoor activities the 70-200mm is almost rendered useless. <br /> I'm thinking of buying a 50mm or 85mm 1.2 lens. But with the equipment I have right now, what is the best way to make use of it in addition to purchasing another lens that would suite my needs?</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"What lens should I invest in next?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Expanding a business; limited re-investment cash flow available for capital purchases; apparent identification of a requirement being a fast 85 Prime = <em>find best <strong>“value for purpose”</strong> option.</em><br>

Buy the EF85/1.8</p>

<p>WW</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Either a Canon 16-35mm or a 24-70mm both are very expensive, unless you get a Used version 1 in those models or 3rd party.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Judging by your images and your interior needs, I'd say either the 85/1.2 L or 135/2 L depending on your specific focal length requirements. My preference in the past has been an 85/1.4 on crop body, or 135/2 on full frame, so I have been considering the 135/2 L myself for my 5D II. Keep using your 50/1.8 for that specific focal length until you can afford the 1.2 L. You may even decide to add something like the 35/1.4 L before adding the 50/1.2.</p>

<p>I buy used lenses to maximize quality for budget.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The 50mm L is a very expensive and rather specialized lens. Just because it is an L lens and costs a lot and looks really big and "bad," it is not necessarily a good investment of the sort of photography you describe. If you feel that the current inexpensive 50mm lens isn't cutting it for you, you could get almost as much functionality (and if you are doing press photography, functionality is what you need here) at a much a much lower cost. </p>

<p>Beyond that, if you are thinking of this in business terms - and, frankly, even if not - the place to begin is by carefully analyzing what you really need for the photography you are doing. Getting the most expensive of everything is likely not the best decision on a practical, economic, or even photographic basis. </p>

<p>If you are certain that a 85mm prime is what you need, consider the utility and excellent image quality of the EF 85mm f/1.8. Many of us regard it as being a worthy surrogate for the extremely expensive and quite specialized 85mm L lens. </p>

<p>I think that you may begin to see, if you look around at others who do this work for a living (full or partial) that the infatuation with extremely expensive and specialized lenses is more a game for enthusiasts, some of whom are as interested in the gear itself as in the photography.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jerry_sousa]

<p>I use a Sigma 50mm f1.4 on my 5DII. It makes for an affordable low light lens, compared to Canon's 1.2L. I will buy a Sigma 85mm f1.4 to complement it. Again, it nicely sits between the two Canon lens' in aperture opening and price.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Before you plunk down your hard-earned cash for one of those f1.2 L lenses, be sure to check out Sigma 50/1.4 and Sigma 85/1.4</p>

[greg_gorman]

<blockquote>

<p>But for things like indoor dances, concerts, and indoor activities the 70-200mm is almost rendered useless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it is. For portraits, yeah an 85mm. But for dances, concerts, and other indoor 85mm is a bit limiting. You might want to take a look at the new Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC.</p>