Which of these Canon lens groups would you choose

[Moody Blues]

EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
$3000

EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 50mm f/1.4
EF 85mm f/1.8
EF 135mm f/2L USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
$2650

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 50mm f/1.4
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
$2150

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
$3000

I currently have a D-Rebel and shoot a 28-105 3.5/4.5II USM. I want to upgrade my glass and cover up to 200mm

Thank you for any input

[Perfect_10]

I would say group 3

[timmyquest]

I would say group 3

I'd say either 2 or 3

2 is a nicer colection in my opinion, but 3 may be more practicle and easier to use.

[Jon]

3 or 4, depending on the budget. Cost no object, I'd incline to 4 unless you really needed either the 2 stops or the smaller size of the 50 f/1.4.

[Scottes]

I agree with TQ. Now, do you prefer image quality or convenience?

However, thinking quality, group3 is *very* high on the quality. If $3000 is your budget, you could improve a couple things, like the 70-200 IS, or maybe the 50mm f/1.4, or throw back in the 85mm f/1.8, etc.

Group 2 is *mighty* nice if you don't mind swapping a lot.

[flyfishnj]

What are you shooting?

[Moody Blues]

I like group three the best. Although I do not mind changing lenses, it is a pain when on the trail or in a hurry. I want superb quality though. I shoot alot of pics of the kids both inside and out. I thought the 50 1.4 would come in handy for that. We love to shoot landscape in Colorado and thought the 17-40 would work good for that and for a walk-around lense also. The 70-200 would be for closeups of the kids at the beach and wildlife.

I am partial to Canon and would love to get some L-series glass. My biggest want is for the sharpest pics I can get.

I also shoot an Elan IIE with that stuff called film

[Perfect_10]

I like group three the best. Although I do not mind changing lenses, it is a pain when on the trail or in a hurry. I want superb quality though. I shoot alot of pics of the kids both inside and out. I thought the 50 1.4 would come in handy for that. We love to shoot landscape in Colorado and thought the 17-40 would work good for that and for a walk-around lense also. The 70-200 would be for closeups of the kids at the beach and wildlife.

I am partial to Canon and would love to get some L-series glass. My biggest want is for the sharpest pics I can get.

I also shoot an Elan IIE with that stuff called film

All that L would work very well on the Elan 8)

[su719]

Why not go with the Tamron 28-75, Sigma 70-200 and the 17-40L you could add the 50 1.8 and then you would have most situations covered for close to half your budget there.

[Moody Blues]

Why not go with the Tamron 28-75, Sigma 70-200 and the 17-40L you could add the 50 1.8 and then you would have most situations covered for close to half your budget there.

Like I said above, I am partial to Canon. Just a thing with me. :wink:

[Perfect_10]

Why not go with the Tamron 28-75, Sigma 70-200 and the 17-40L you could add the 50 1.8 and then you would have most situations covered for close to half your budget there.

Like I said above, I am partial to Canon. Just a thing with me. :wink:

.. I couldn't agree more. 8) :)

[roanjohn]

I vote for group 3............cuz its my current set-up ;-)

Ro1

[DeeplyDigital]

Group 4

as I haven't used the 50 1,4 since I got the 17-40,
with three lenses you have less fuss and less to carry,
less decisions to make, you can take a smaller bag -
but then -
I am a girl and need space in my bag for make up & stuff

[chris.bailey]

I would go for 4, the 50/1.4 is an easy add later on. The 24-70/2.8 is a lovely lens that I now would not be without.

[sGu]

4 used to be my set up, then i found i don't use 24-70mm as much as i thought i would be, now i have 3

[Persian-Rice]

3..............and since there is almost a $1000 gap between your most expensive group and this one, you can probably add a quality lens that can reach longer then a 200mm.

Other then that, group 3 has been the group in my plans. Personally, I would save and go with the 70-200 f4 and add either the 100-300, 300 or 400 prime. Would be looking at about 2600-3000.

[billsh]

Have to go with #4. All those L's are hard to beat.

[EXA1a]

I wouldn't buy all the lenses at once. I'd go for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and have lots of fun with it. Maybe you will then yearn for more mm and buy a 1.4x 2x TC as next. And then come back to the forum and you'll get tons of more good advice (since it's not our money ;-).

Have fun & don't forget shooting!
--Jens--

[Vita Rara]

I've been seriously contemplating the same decision. I'm very torn. I have the 50mm f/1.8 and the 28mm f/2.8 and they are both very sharp lenses to me, especially the 50.

I asked almost the same question, but not as well focused as you did, a few days ago. I think I'm leaning towards your group 2, except that I'm either going to keep my 50mm f/1.8 II, or get a 50mm f/1.8 I to replace it. I might also hold off on the 200mm. At B&H I can get the 20, 85 and 135 out the door with shipping and taxes for $1,815. Then add the 200mm later.

Decisions, decisions, decisions...

Mark

[WestFalcon]

I like group 4

[drisley]

Personally, I like primes so I would pick #2.
However, overall, I would say I would recommend #3 to most.
Best part of all, it's the cheapest!

[Adam Hicks]

I like my setup as an all around usable, sharp and price conscious setup.

-28-75 2.8 Tamron. Not Canon but do your homework and you'll be at the store buying a couple.

-100mm f2.8 Macro Canon - one of the absolute sharpest lenses Canon makes, L or not. It fills the need for macro toying around, and if I'm shooting something that's stationary and needs to be razor sharp, I use it.

-100-400L IS - with the IS you forget about the 4.5-5.6 (which still isn't bad!) and this lens is also tack sharp and lightning quick. Not to mention that it covers such a versatile range at a much higher quality output than say the Bigma.

So add to that a wide angle L and you're right at or under $3k, and you've covered from 16 or 17mm up to 400mm with very little gap (75-100mm gap, that's two steps either direction :) in focal lengths. I love the setup and it fits easily into a decent sized bag and gives me predictable results in most lighting conditions. Throw in a 550ex (I'm just using the 420 for now and it's been plenty sufficient.) and you have a complete setup for under $3400 or so.

My $.02 worth. Saying that you're partial to Canon is fine and dandy.. we all are, that's why don't have Nikons. Not looking into other options that are widely regarded as excellent pieces and proven time and again, seems remiss to me. If you have all the money available to you that you could ever want, get that red ring. If not, enjoy the same (really, look at the sharpness numbers, the difference is too small for the human eye to ever know) quality for a much better price, and not feel so bad if it breaks because you have 4 extra years of warranty vs. the Canon.

Adam

[MrChad]

My vote is 3 or 4.

If you keep the 28-105 I'd go 3, then you really have all the ranges covered with some fast glass to boot.

Plus, you have a bunch of cash left to get a converter or a longer lens.
Or a really nice flash.

[tofuboy]

I would say either 3 or 4. I think as sGu briefly mentioned, with the 17-40 and the 24-70 there is a bit of overlap and you will probably find yourself using one lens more then the other. So with that said, I think I'd go for #3 over #4.

[Moody Blues]

Thank you for all of this great info.

Like I said before, my main goal of these lenses is sharpness. There is nothing like a solid, crisp image that makes me drool. Group 3 stands out to me the most. The price is right also.

I will buy the three lenses at diferent times over the next few months.
I want to get one the the three now as I have a trip planned to Washington DC in Oct with the family. I want to get the second by Christmas and the third by next Feb. for a Colorado trip.

We use the camera in the boat alot. I am wondering if the IS is worth looking in to.

Please keep the great info coming. Even though I have been shooting seriously for 14 years now, I am just getting to the point of being able to spend the money I have always wanted to spend on this hobby.

FYI - I am not looking into any of the EF-S lenses because I plan on keeping these lenses for a really long time. I know that full sensors will hit mainstream within the next 2 years.

[pcasciola]

Like I said before, my main goal of these lenses is sharpness. There is nothing like a solid, crisp image that makes me drool. Group 3 stands out to me the most. The price is right also.


Same feeling here. The sharp, solid, crisp images are what make me go wow. For that reason I'm going to vote for #2, but I'd change it around a little bit. For the same $2650, I'd drop the 85mm for now and get the 50mm F/1.8 instead of the F/1.4, which will save just about enough money for a 70-200 F/4L to go with your 28-135mm. Then, for the same cost of #2 you have a great prime set and a nice zoom set as well.

That's where I'm headed. I can't resist the power of the primes, but I will probably add one of the 70-200 Canons and some wide angle zoom at some point.

If you go that route and want to increase your range even more, drop the 200mm, get the 1.4xTC and the 300mm F/4L, and you would effectively have a 135mm F/2, a 190mm F/4, 300mm F/4, and a 420mm F/5.6. But that would cost you an extra ~$800.

[KBMphotography.com]

I have group 4 strapped to my Mk2 (not all the time though!!)

Chuck in a x1.4 mk2 and you will be on the ball!!!!

[Doom1701e]

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
$3000

[chris.bailey]

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
$3000

And a bargain at that, the same lens' would be £3,000 in the UK i.e over $5,000 :cry:

[Moody Blues]

From the reviews I have read, it seems that people have less complaints about the 24-70 2.8L than the 17-40 4.0L. I would really like to have the faster f/stop on the 24-70 2.8L. My thought is getting the following and then saving up for a nice prime wide angle and 300mm telephoto in the future.

EF 24-70 2.8L Better walk around lense and will also cover my portrait needs.
EF 70-200 2.8L All around telephoto.

1.4 Converter which will give me 448mm on 200mm and digital rebel.

[Persian-Rice]

Doom, I wonder if the 24-70 in your list is not overkill. I mean, is it worth spending a thousand bucks to cover 40-70 mm? I mean a 50mm can doo a more then suffieient jub for arouns 1/12 of the price.

This means you can go out and get something longer, but I guess people have their preferences. You can also add a 1.4 TC as stated, to even get more then the 1.6 crop out of your lenses.

[dan9]

For me it is not 'choose', but 'have chosen' , among others, over the years.:

50/1.8
85/1.8
135/2

all fine lenses.

There is a reason to this - I don't like flash, prefer natural light shooting, and often like to use wide apertures to isolate subjects.

And I bought those when I shot film.

Today I find that I use zooms more, including the 17-40 you listed. Perhaps it has something to do with digital.

Anyway, decision process is this: first determine what you want to shoot, how you want to shoot it, THEN pick your lenses.

[malla1962]

i think i would go for group 3 but add a 1.4 teleconverter. :D

[Bellavance]

EF 17-40mm f/4L
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

These are the three lenses I use the most on my 10D.

Pierre

[Bellavance]

Doom, I wonder if the 24-70 in your list is not overkill. I mean, is it worth spending a thousand bucks to cover 40-70 mm? I mean a 50mm can doo a more then suffieient jub for arouns 1/12 of the price.

Overlapping lenses are OK in my view. Sometimes, I'll leave with the 17-40/4L and sometimes I'll leave with the 24-70/2.8L depending where I'm going and what I'll photograph.

Pierre