Help me decide which lens I should buy next

[bigrash]

So I shoot events every now and then, and have saved up enough to buy my next lens. Currently I use a 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens with a 5D Mark III. I like the 24-105mm, but I feel like there's a lot of lens distortion. I'll probably keep it though and use it as an all-around lens.

I also do a lot of landscape photography and tend to rent lenses whenever I travel: https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosbyrashid/. So I'm basically looking for a lens that I can use for events and also for landscape photography.

My options are:
1. 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. This would be a great lens for events and any photoshoot. However, I'm not sure how good it is for landscape.

2. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. I guess this would be a nice lens to use for both events and landscape. For events, I probably would need to use my current lens as the primary lens (specially in crowded areas)

3. 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM. Would be used for landscape only. Love the quality of this ultra wide-angle lens.

4. 85mm f1.2L II USM. I actually rented this lens last weekend for a holiday family shoot. Beautiful prime lens, but I felt very limited because of the lack of zoom.

I wish I could buy them all.

 

[Syborg1211]

Man those focal lengths are all over the place. All 4 of those options together would basically be a complete kit that could shoot almost anything. Since you mentioned specifically events and landscapes, I'd say the 16-35 is the only one that fits that bill. It depends on how you like to shoot landscapes, but 24mm is barely passable for good wide landscape shots. Events to me are usually wider angles to capture the whole setting, unless you like to do more candid zoomed in shots.

 

[MrSquished]

You are all over the place with those focal lengths as noted above. Also, as stated, for landscapes you need to go wider than 24 more so than not so the 16-35 would be the most useful and you'd be at the wider end most of the time while using it for landscapes. For events I'd keep using the 24-105, that's an ideal range for events unless they are in very tight spaces where you could throw on the 16-35mm. Maybe the 24-70 f2.8 has less distortion? That might be worth checking into.

 

[mooncancook]

No expert here, but I think the 24-70 may be the most versatile all around lens, but may be lacking for landscape shots. 16-35 good for landscape. The others should be your supplemental lens.

If you feel your current lens at the widest 24mm is limiting you, then go with the 16-35. If 24mm is wide enough for you, get one of the zoom lens as supplement. If your current lens give you trouble in low light and you hardly use the upper zoom range, get the 24-70.

 

[turtile]

If you are just looking for better quality, just sell your current lens and get both the 24-70 and 70-200 (and buy the used older model to save). And you can always you the profiles built in Photoshop to fix up the lens in RAW.

 

[MrSquished]

If you are just looking for better quality, just sell your current lens and get both the 24-70 and 70-200 (and buy the used older model to save). And you can always you the profiles built in Photoshop to fix up the lens in RAW.

He doesn't need a 70-200 based upon his post, he needs a wider lens for landscape shooting, so the 16-35, and a lens around 24-105 or 24-70 - whichever has less distortion.

 

[turtile]

He doesn't need a 70-200 based upon his post, he needs a wider lens for landscape shooting, so the 16-35, and a lens around 24-105 or 24-70 - whichever has less distortion.

I figured he wants more reach to take photos at events which the 24-70 alone doesn't cover. You can still take great landscape photos at 70+.

I usually shoot a lot of wide landscapes at 25mm and use 14mm when I'm trying to pull more close objects into the frame.

 

[Syborg1211]

Here's something you can do to help you gain more insight into your current tendencies with the 24-105mm - sort through all your current photos and see what focal length you've taken most of your photos at. You can do this easily in Lightroom, and Windows Explorer can do it too if you have jpegs with exif info. This can help tell you if you'll miss the focal lengths from 70 to 105mm if you switch to a 24-70mm, and if you have a lot of photos at 24mm then maybe you've been subconsciously wanting a wider lens.

 

[Paladin3]

I shot a lot of assignments back when I was a newspaper shoot with a 24/2.8 prime lens on a film body. I would have killed for a quality 24-105/4 back then, even if f4 is a little slow, IMHO.

24mm is a nice focal length for events because you can get up close on your main subject while still getting enough background in to set the scene and tell a story. The bad part is it will cause a lot of distortion if you don't square up on your subject properly. Nobody likes a warped head on your subject and I've had more than one editor chew me out for it.

Thing is, buying a different lens in the same focal length won't fix the wide angle distortion problem. You need to play with the angle you shoot your subjects at when using 24mm to reduce the amount of distortion, or just back up and zoom in a bit to reduce it.

And most landscapes don't need anything wider than a 24mm on a full frame camera. Sometimes we get lazy and slap on an ultra-wide lens to get everything from horizon to horizon in. It can make interesting stuff in your photo so far away it loses all impact.

I would personally stick with the 24-105 lens you have and only add something wider if you absolutely can't get everything you need to in the frame at 24mm, like for interior real estate photos and stuff like that. Then work your shooting angles to control distortion and/or correct in Photoshop.

THIS shot is a perfect example of when a wide angle lens was used, but something slightly longer would have showed the ship off better, plus sandwiched it against those lovely green trees in the background and got the side of that building out of the shot. And a few feet up in the air would have shown the deck better. I'm not trying to nitpick your photos, just offering some unsolicited advice, lol.

 

[MrSquished]

I shot a lot of assignments back when I was a newspaper shoot with a 24/2.8 prime lens on a film body. I would have killed for a quality 24-105/4 back then, even if f4 is a little slow, IMHO.

24mm is a nice focal length for events because you can get up close on your main subject while still getting enough background in to set the scene and tell a story. The bad part is it will cause a lot of distortion if you don't square up on your subject properly. Nobody likes a warped head on your subject and I've had more than one editor chew me out for it.

Thing is, buying a different lens in the same focal length won't fix the wide angle distortion problem. You need to play with the angle you shoot your subjects at when using 24mm to reduce the amount of distortion, or just back up and zoom in a bit to reduce it.

And most landscapes don't need anything wider than a 24mm on a full frame camera. Sometimes we get lazy and slap on an ultra-wide lens to get everything from horizon to horizon in. It can make interesting stuff in your photo so far away it loses all impact.

I would personally stick with the 24-105 lens you have and only add something wider if you absolutely can't get everything you need to in the frame at 24mm, like for interior real estate photos and stuff like that. Then work your shooting angles to control distortion and/or correct in Photoshop.

THIS shot is a perfect example of when a wide angle lens was used, but something slightly longer would have showed the ship off better, plus sandwiched it against those lovely green trees in the background and got the side of that building out of the shot. And a few feet up in the air would have shown the deck better. I'm not trying to nitpick your photos, just offering some unsolicited advice, lol.

some people get an ultrawide and over-use the wide end, but many dramatic landscapes need far wider than a 24mm FF equivalent for full effect. and a 16-35mm will give him a decent little zoom range to get a variety of shots.

 

[bigrash]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions! I actually got a great deal on a Mark IV last week and ended up buying that, so now I have a bit of time to decide which lens I want to buy since I'm gonna sell the Mark III first.

I might hold on to the 24-105mm for events and try to buy a wider angle lens for landscapes, so maybe I'll go with the 16-35mm.

 

[YuliApp]

i think only 85 will do what your current lens cannot.
wider then 24 is ok, but so specialty that unless it is "your style" you will not really need it. 2x zoom is here not really killer as well.
and as my father said, anything above 105 is useless because you need to be in the action to make a good shot :-D
I would also add some fast 50 for those days when you just want to have a lens able to do "everything" but not feel like lugging 3kg

 

[Skybound Photographer]

So I shoot events every now and then, and have saved up enough to buy my next lens. Currently I use a 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens with a 5D Mark III. I like the 24-105mm, but I feel like there's a lot of lens distortion. I'll probably keep it though and use it as an all-around lens.

I also do a lot of landscape photography and tend to rent lenses whenever I travel: https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosbyrashid/. So I'm basically looking for a lens that I can use for events and also for landscape photography.

My options are:
1. 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. This would be a great lens for events and any photoshoot. However, I'm not sure how good it is for landscape.

2. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. I guess this would be a nice lens to use for both events and landscape. For events, I probably would need to use my current lens as the primary lens (specially in crowded areas)

3. 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM. Would be used for landscape only. Love the quality of this ultra wide-angle lens.

4. 85mm f1.2L II USM. I actually rented this lens last weekend for a holiday family shoot. Beautiful prime lens, but I felt very limited because of the lack of zoom.

I wish I could buy them all.

Easy: 24-70mm f/2.8 IMO is one of the MUST have lenses in your camera bag. This is my 80% to go to lens. Including for landscape photography as you were questioning. Matter of fact, you'll find this lens will be very versatile for you, including city scapes.

Good luck with your selection!

 

[bigi]

Landscape, ah? Sigma 20mm, Tamron 15-30mm.

24+ is too narrow.