What lens should I get next?

I have a dilemma.  I have some funds coming my way in a couple of months that should be enough to purchase a new lens.  One new lens.

My dilemma is that I want TWO!  Of course 🙂

I currently own these three lenses

50mm F1.8
17-55 F2.8
70-200 F4 IS L

And they cover all my current needs.  I am in love with all of them in their own special way and don’t want to replace any.  What I want is these two:

10-22mm Ultra Wide

100mm IS Macro

Images from Canon UK website

Oh I want them both SO HARD – the 10-22 for the awesome landscape shots.  The Macro for the obvious, macro but also its usefulness at the 100mm range for portraits and stuff.

They cost a similar amount here in NZ – about $1400-1700 (the macro is the more expensive)

Both lenses fulfill a specific photographic area I want to explore in more detail, the macro gives me a bit more scope in that direction but I can’t decide!

If $1500 fell in my lap tomorrow, no strings attached, which lens should I get next?


About lensaddiction

Mad keen photographer figuring it out as she goes!
This entry was posted in For Beginners, Tech Tips, Waffle and Burbling and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to What lens should I get next?

    • lensaddiction says:

      Curious as to why?

      • peter says:

        just my own personal thing I guess – I don’t do a lot of landscapes so my initial inclination was towards the macro. I imagine for now the 17-55 probably does pretty good landscapes and a new 100 would open up the macro world and, I assume, give you better portrait opportunities as well. 100 now and WA as soon as you get another windfall 🙂

  1. Maybe the macro. You should buy the lens you think you will use most often. Have you considered getting extension tubes to save money on a dedicated macro? Then you could buy the 10-22 as well!

    • lensaddiction says:

      Thankyou, yes I am leaning towards the macro but but but then I see some awesome landscape shots!

      I did think about the extension tubes but they have significant cost here in NZ as well, plus it really cuts down on available light. One of the reasons for the 100mm IS macro is the possibility of quick handheld shots (if I am steady enuf)

  2. Sara says:

    I had the same issue a couple of years ago. I bought the Macro and am still dying for the Wide Angle. I don’t think I would have bought the WA first, but I still really want it and find myself getting ready for a specific shot saying “if only I had a WA lens…”

    • lensaddiction says:

      Yes thats exactly how I am now, but if I buy the WA then all those oppoortunities for macro *grinds teeeth* And now I have a light tent to explore food photography more….

  3. Bronny says:

    I would go for the 100mm as well, but thats just me 🙂 Decisions decisions 🙂 Good luck and let us know what you get 😉

    • lensaddiction says:

      It *is* a hard decision. Its my end of year bonus, and the final amount will depend on how I close out this month, and I won’t get it til end July so still a while to know how much I get. And then I guess I have to decide…

  4. I’m not much on macro anything but one reason I would not go for this particular WA is that it’s an EF-S mount. Lenses last a lot longer than bodies and to protect my investment I buy only EF mounts which are useable on both crop and full-frame cameras. You never know when a good deal on a 5D might come your way. You wouldn’t want ot have to pass it up because you can’t go forward with your kit of lenses.

    BTW, I’m trying to decide right now on a 70-200 f2.8 L without IS or a 70-200 f4.0 L with IS. Any feeling for this?

    • lensaddiction says:

      I am going to keep my 7D as a backup body if I ever can afford to go 5D – I already have the 17-55 which is EFS as well. So that isn’t an issue for me (and a 5D is at least 10 years before I could afford one)

      The 70-200 is a good dilemma to be in – the decider would be how much indoor/low light shooting do you do? If significant amt then get the 2.8. If not then get the F4 with the IS – its MUCH lighter and I use it as a walkabout lens when walking around local waterways and estuary. I love it, very fast and sharp. You can’t go wrong with either, but the 2.8 *is* heavy but it has the advantage of the wider aperture (and smoother bokeh as well apparently)

  5. I’d go for the 100 as mentioned above you can already get as wide as 17mm with your current kit, I do have some very cheap no name extension tubes which I got from Amazon in the UK for under £10gbp yes they’re only useful in low light and you do need to go full manual unlike the canon branded items but they’re great fun to play with.

    worth checking out if you can get anything similar locally before commiting either way.

Love to hear your thoughts on my post!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s