If you could buy one expensive lens...

[KarenAylwood]

What would it be?

I'm a Canon owner and I want to save up to buy an L series lens. If I put money into an L series- I want it to be something I can use a lot.

This is what I have so far:
18-55mm kit lens
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon
100mm f/2.8 Canon macro lens
30mm f/1.4 Sigma lens

I'd like something with a bit of a zoom on it, but something I could still carry around on a regular basis (almost like how my 18-200mm stays on my camera most of the time). I want something I can use in low light, indoors without a flash too.

I was looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8L Canon- it's about $1200. I'm looking to spend somewhere between $1,000 and $1,500.

Any ideas? What high quality lens(es) do you have that you just LOVE?

 

[boBQuincy]

For me it would be between Canon's 24-70 and 24-105. Similar price, size, build quality, and image quality but different in almost every other way. It might come down to whether you prefer the wide aperture or IS, and how you feel about the weight. IS is good for stationary subjects but a wide aperture works on moving subjects and allows more selective focus. The 24-70 is a good bit heavier but has a much more effective lens hood system.

I have the 24-105 and it is on my camera more than any other lens.

 

[KarenAylwood]

For me it would be between Canon's 24-70 and 24-105. Similar price, size, build quality, and image quality but different in almost every other way. It might come down to whether you prefer the wide aperture or IS, and how you feel about the weight. IS is good for stationary subjects but a wide aperture works on moving subjects and allows more selective focus. The 24-70 is a good bit heavier but has a much more effective lens hood system.

I have the 24-105 and it is on my camera more than any other lens.

Well how bout I'd like a wider aperture, with IS and light to carry?



I didn't actually look at the weight of each of these until you mentioned it. I had dismissed the 24-105 because of the aperture. Looking at the weights though, I don't know how much I could handle the 24-70. I have my 18-200 on most of the time, and it's 1.3lbs whereas the 24-105 is 1.5lbs and the 24-70 is a whopping 2.1lbs!

I'd love the further zoom on the 24-105, but is the f/4.0 enough for indoor shots without a flash? I'd like the IS it offers but then some reviews say the IS isn't worth it. Is it fast enough to catch, say an indoor show at Disney like Lion King? I have my 30mm f/1.4 for dark rides, but wanted something that was good for shows. The extra zoom would help out, but I'm worried that f/4.0 isn't enough. Although now I'm worried about being able to handle that extra 0.6lbs on the 24-70 (I sometimes get tired with my 18-200 on there!). Can you get good indoor shots with this? Say for a Disney show or a wedding?

 

[My2Girls66]

If I could I would buy the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 but at like $1700 it won't be happening anytime soon. One kid at BU, who also needs braces again and another 3 yrs away from college
I have Nikon's..
18-135mm
70-300mmVR
50mm 1.8
35mm 1.8
and an assortment of older Nikon lenses. I use the 18-135 mostly because it covers a good range of useful focal lengths.
Looks like Canon's 24-70 2.8 might be a good one for what you are looking for- aside from the added weight issue.

 

[Suburbanmom]

I have never once regretted buying the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. My right bicep is now significantly stronger than my left one.

 

[Furgus]

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Some day....we will be together.....

 

[zackiedawg]

Sony SAL-300F28G AF 300mm F2.8 G SSM

When the lottery ticket hits. Until then...food, gas, and electricity for a year take precedence!

 

[Alztybrn]

Easy for me...Canon 70-200 IS

 

[Gdad]

If you are talking about actually 'buying' one expensive lens I would say the Nikon 28mm f/1.4 which I already have- if we are talking dream lenses then the Nikon 58mm f/1.2 or Leica 50mm f/0.95 come to mind.

 

[Cory_D]

I have 3 Canon L lenses, and ever since seeing the IQ, colors, and details they produce, I haven't looked back. My bank account, on the other hand...not so much haha.

 

[Coach]

My choice would have to be the NIKKOR AF-S VR Zoom 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED.

It's one awesome lens. But at $6200.00 its just a bit out of my price range... just a bit!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

My choice would have to be the NIKKOR AF-S VR Zoom 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED.

It's one awesome lens.

I'm with you on this one. If Canon had an equivalent, I'd order it today. The other Nikon lens I covet is the 14-24mm.

For Canon lenses, the ones I want the most are the 400mm f/2.8 or the 400mm f/4 DO. I'd also like the 85mm f/1.2, the 17mm T/S, the 24mm T/S, and the 200mm f/2.

 

[Quicklabs]

Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR or Nikon 14-24mm. And what Suburbanmom said. Hated paying the credit card bill for my 24-70, but oooooh, it's just too good!

 

[wenrob]

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Some day....we will be together.....

*sigh* Someday...

DH would like me to start coming to some of the shows he broadcasts from and take pictures. I'm sure with time I can convince him I must have it.

 

[jann1033]

a lens i would like but won't be getting soon is the canon mp e 65 mm f2.8 1-5x macro...unless i can find a nice used copy... so i'll probably settle for a canon 100mm 1:1macro( next on the list)
that or the other end of the scale like a 400 mm f2.8 but that will never happen

 

[dmccarty]

What would it be?
....
I want something I can use in low light, indoors without a flash too.

I was looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8L Canon- it's about $1200. I'm looking to spend somewhere between $1,000 and $1,500.

Any ideas? What high quality lens(es) do you have that you just LOVE?

A lens I can sorta kinda afford and I WANT is a 300/F4. I might starting doing some event photography where I will NEED a 70-200/F2.8 or 80-200/F2.8. All of the lenses I currently own I love. Each is good and needed for a given circumstances.

In your list I would most like pick the 100F2.8 or the zoom lens. I only have one zoom, 35-70/F2.8, and its a perfect walk around taking a range of photos lens. I have a 105/F2.8 macro and prior to kids and the result kids photos the 105 lens was used constantly. I like macro photography because you can got to a garden, yard, forest, and find a variety of subjects that most people do not even see much less photograph. My 105/28 has had more photo taken with it than any of my other lenses. I use it to photograph kids soccer games. Its just the right length to cover a good portion of the field my kids play on.

They key requirement you have is low light. Once you require low light then you need fast lenses at F2.8 or better. And a camera that can shoot at high ISO. I have found that buying the best lens possible even on a lower end camera is better than a not so good lens on a high end camera. Good lenses stay good. A better camera is just around the corner for less money. Lenses don't drop in price very fast.

If I won the lottery I would be spending thousands of dollars on lenses, a couple more camera bodies, and more flashes.

Later,
Dan

 

[JoeDif]

For me it would be the Olympus 90 -250 F2.8 but with a $5K price tag don't see that in my bag anytime soon

 

[Chikabowa]

Every person that I know, that shoots Canon, loves their 24-70 f2.8L.

Since I have all the lenses in my arsenal that I ever wanted, I don't usually lust after anything in particular. But lately I've gotten on the Nikon 135mm f2. I want it.... so bad. But I would have to get over my laziness and sell the equipment I no longer use in order to afford it right now. So, in the meantime, I'm going to be content to rent it to play with, and then possibly invest near the end of the year.

 

[spinetnglr]

A lens I can sorta kinda afford and I WANT is a 300/F4.

I rented that lens in May to shoot some pics at The Cheasapeake Blues Festival. I hated sending it back ... its an awesome lens. Not one its very easy to shoot with hand held but an awesome lens for sure.

There are several I would buy today if I had the dough just sitting around ... 2 that come to mind are the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8. Those two I have a chance at getting at some point in time ... One I dont think I will ever see in my bag is the one Jeff already has ... the 28mm 1.4.

 

[scoot241]

I'd get the Canon 70-200 L f/2.8. Ideally, I'd get the one with IS, but that adds an additional heft to the price, so in reality I'd probably do without the IS.