I'll preface my post with the gear I currently own:
5DmkII, 8-15L Fisheye, 50L, 24-105L
The type of photography I usually do is mainly city/landscape. I also take pictures of my pets or my friend's pets.
Now my dilemma:
I purchased the 8-15L thinking that I would use it as a "speciality" lens for when I'm doing city/landscape work. However, more often than not, the lens is left in my bag, and I find I'm using my 24-105 95% of the time. I have always wanted a little more reach and I previously owned a 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) which I used occassionally, but again, I didn't use it enough to warrant it just sitting in my bag. My 50L and 24-105 are both used equally, but my 8-15L just sits in my bag. I have thought about selling the 8-15 and picking up a 135L, but considering that I would mainly use it as a city/landscape lens and occassional pet portrait lens, is it worth it? I have also considered the 70-200 f/2.8, but again, I don't know if I'd really use it that much, and being that the 135L is a little more compact, I would be better off with that.
I think considering a 70-200 again would be a good idea as you don't need f/2 or even f/2.8 if it will be mainly for city/landscape. But since you already owned that lens and didn't seem to use it then I don't really know if you need any new lens?? Why didn't you use the 70-200f/4 before and why would you think you would use it more now? I don't really think you will pull a 135 out of the bag for only 30mm extra on the 105. That is like taking one or two steps forward at those focal lengths to equalize the FOV on the 105.
Why didn't you use the 70-200? Didn't care for the FL range? Didn't care for the f/4? maximum aperture?
If it's the former, then a 135 isn't going to do much for you. If it's the latter, then perhaps it will. You might also consider the 200 f/2.8 prime (round the same price as a 70-200 f/4) or maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.
The main reason I didn't use the 70-200 all that often was that I didn't really go past 105mm that my 24-105 already covered. Also the fact that I couldn't shoot in lowlight with the maximum aperture at f/4. However, now that I have the 50L, I have lowlight situations covered.
I suppose my rationale for wanting the 135L is that I'll have another lens in my bag that I could use in lowlight situations, and if I need the extra reach when I'm doing city/landscape work, I'll have it available to me.
You mention city photography. I use my 135mm f2 and also a 200mm f2,8 lenses to isolate components of subjects. For example, a college campus near where I live has a sculpture park. There are many buildings which can create cluttered backgrounds at the angles I want to shoot. The wide apertures allow me to isolate the components of a sculpture and turn the background into nothingness. Many people do not do this isolation in their mnd and so seem to enjoy my images that focus on detail.
There are many other examples that you could find in all of the types of shooting that you do.
On the other hand, you seem to not *need* any lens -- you just have money burning a hole in your pocket and a desire to get "something interesting" :-)
KaaX wrote:
For city/landscape you can try a TS-E lens :-)
On the other hand, you seem to not *need* any lens -- you just have money burning a hole in your pocket and a desire to get "something interesting" :-)
You nailed it!
I suppose that if I do decide to sell the fisheye, I will have extra money to burn and I'm already thinking what lens would I get that I would actually use and not sit in my bag.
KaaX wrote:
For city/landscape you can try a TS-E lens :-)
On the other hand, you seem to not *need* any lens -- you just have money burning a hole in your pocket and a desire to get "something interesting" :-)
This is what it sounds like to me, also.
As a thought, I also use a full frame body, and like landscapes. My most-used lens is the 24-105. But I really like panoramas, and I like the detail you get when you stitch frames together. So I often use my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (an absolutely fabulous lens) for landscapes, and very much like the effect.
A different lens could expand your photographic interests too...and open up new realms for you. As you're already familiar with the wide end, try some thing like the 300mm f/4 IS. It's longer than anything you've ever had, has a great MFD, and is super sharp with IS. If you don't like it...sell it and move on!
If you're just looking to spend some money and want something different, then the 70-20f2.8ii, as StarNut suggested, seems like a logic choice. The 135 seems limited in the go-out-and-shoot-whatever category. The zoom offers much more flexibility and range of shooting opportunities. If the largest lens you've used is the f4 version, then the f2.8 version my seem like a beast - I'd probably just rent one before making a final decision.
@StarNut: I am very much into panoramas, and when I had my 70-200, I used it exclusively to shoot that style of images. The more and more the 70-200 is mentioned, I feel like I want to give it another chance.
@jason: Thanks for the suggestion! That's what I certainly am doing with the 8-15mm. I've used it a couple times and feel like I'm not using it as much as I should (especially for the $1,400 I paid for it). So I expect to sell it and look over my other lens options.
@surf monkey: I think before I make a final decision to purchase a lens, I'm going to rent a few (70-200 f/2.8 for example) for a weekend and try it out. I'm also going to give the 135L a try and rent it. But renting the lenses first would be more prudent before I go dropping $1,000+ on a lens.
"rent" a $1000 lens for 3 month instead, by buying it then sell for $900 quickly if don't like. It is much cheaper, and your "testing" will be a lot more complete!
