What is your 4-6 lens kit? and how did you pick?

I'm trying to set myself up a little better lens-wise.

My budget is around $5000 give or take, starting from scratch. It isn't my "first lens", I just don't think I'm going to keep what I have right now, because it isn't my shooting style.

I was at one point a zoom person, I zoomed alot; but I appreciated more and more the quality of picture I took when I stopped, took some time, and thought a little....maybe even manual focused.

So I'm looking to lean more heavily on primes, so I picked out a selection that fits my budget. I'm curious what else is out there that I might substitute.

Zeiss 35/2
Zeiss 50 MP/2
Canon 135/2L
Canon 300/4L IS
Canon 24-70/2.8L

That fits my budget give or take (buying used of course). Here are the dilemmas I'm having.

Zeiss 35/2: The Zeiss 35/2 is sharp, corner to corner, and has pretty low distortion. The Cons are that it is 35mm, not very wide. These are some of the most important things to me for this lens, as it will bear the burden of what I shoot out on vacation....location-establishing landscapes, full body portraits, and street/urban/architect​ure shots. BUT, the Canon 24 3.5L TS-E is sharper, and MUCH lower distortion, zero CA PLUS perspective control, PLUS its wider. It also costs a heck of a lot more....like almost $1000 more. I really really am stuck on this one right here. The problem is, if I go with the 24 TS-E, I have to eliminate one of the other lenses.

24-70L: I really want to lose the 24-70 (to get that 24 TS-E), just because it is less sharp, higher distortion, higher chromatic abberation, etc etc etc....it just isn't a prime when it comes to image quality. I just feel like I'm going to be handicapped without a general purpose zoom for just casual 'hey lets bring the camera' situations. Or, if I do another engagement shoot, or family portraits, or (Please no..) a wedding, I feel like I NEED a gen purpose zoom or else I'm going to miss a lot of shots.

50MP2: I like shooting creative detail shots, those little bits that add to the story. I've never had a lens with a close minimum focus distance, and as such, never like my detail shots. I don't need a "1:1 Macro", I'm not into really huge blow ups of bugs and stuff, but I want to get more texture, more detail, and not have to crop as much to fill the frame with smaller objects. I also need a lens to double as a nice normal/street lens. The only problem is that this lens costs money, and takes away from the lens I really really want: the Zeiss 100 MP2.

135L: I've rented this one before. Super fast AF, Sharp, lightweight, fast aperture....just awesome lens. But it is kinda a compromise for me. I'd rather have the Zeiss 100 MP2 for my moderate telephoto, but that doesn't leave enough money for a 'normal lens', especially if I splurge on the 24 TS-E.

Skipping from 35 to 100 without the 50 is a big gap in the primes. If I left out the 24-70 and got the 24 TS-E, now I have a gap from 24 to 100.

Lastly, the 300 F4L IS. I'm not a huge wildlife shooter or anything, but for whatever reason my eye picks out good shots at super telephoto focal lengths. Some of my absolute favorite "environmental portraits" and "figure in a landscape" shots came from this lens while I owned it. Do I NEED a 300mm lens? not really, i'd definitely do well without it, which may make room in my budget for those dream lenses 24 TS-E or Zeiss 100. I just feel like i'm handicapped in regards to versatility without something 200+.

How many people here don't have any telephotos over 200? none over 135? none over 100?

The fact that I'm not a professional, I don't have a "requirement" for specific shots or markets, makes it much harder to choose, because I can do everything. I'm free to shoot anything I want because I know I'm not going to (or need to) make a dime off of it (well, I won $500 with a picture recently). By that same logic, I don't need the IQ of any of these lenses, and could easily pocket about $3000 and get a few zooms and call it good....but I'm just one of those people lol.

So I don't have any photographer friends, so I have to ask y'all, how you do pick what you get? Which types of lenses do you just say "eh, I don't need that capability" or "well, I'll settle for some distortion here, or some softness there, or a slow lens in this category"???

I currently have 5 lenses
Canon 10-22, Canon 24-70 2.8 and Canon 70-200 2.8 IS MKII
Chose these to give me 10-200mm (minus 23, I can live with that) with the best possible image quality I thought I could get with Zoom lenses with the biggest possible aperture.
24 1.4 MKII for low light wide shots, eg hockey team photos
135mm 2.0 for the extra stop of light when needed for shooting sports mainly, but cant wait to try it for outdoor portraits.
Missing one, think it might end up being the 85L, but I have no room left in my bag lol
I also have the 1.4II extender if you count that as a lens.
Personally for me I would rather have the 70-200 with the 1.4 than the 300

If you plan on using a tripod, then the 24TSE is a viable option. Whatever anyone may say, this is not a walk around, take a shot, lens, imo. If tyou are not going to be using the TS function, then get the 24LII.

So, if a tripod is not in the mix then get the 24LII. This has fast become my walk around lens on a 5DII. I'm not a big fan of the "normal" focal lengths (50mm), although I have that range covered, so I could go out with the 24L and 85/1.8 and not miss much. I had the 300 F4IS also. A high quality optic but I rarely used it. I replaced a 70-200 F4IS with the 2.8IS MKII for the times I need something longer, usually concert/events. If I really need longer (very rare), I add a 1.4x

You don't seem to see the need for a truly wide lens such as a 17-40/16-35 but I could not live without one.

Even though you say you shoot everything, everybody gravitates to a few types more than others. Decide what is more important to you and spend the bulk of the money to fit those shots.

If 2.8 is fast enough, then the 70-200 MKII can hold its own between 70-200 with just about any prime. I have the 135L and, personally, think the overall IQ from the zoom is as good or better. It deserves all the kudos it has been getting.

As much as some of the MF lenses you mentioned are best in class or near so, are you sure you can get by with what mostly looks likes a MF kit ? I'm not a fan of trading useability for the absolute best IQ lens. That opinion reflects the way and what I shoot. From what you said, it doesn't sound like you shoot things that move, so it may work out for you.

For my 7D-

Canon 35mm 1.4L- Pictures of year old daughter.
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L MKII- Shots of daughter and racetrack, and well, a lot of things!
Canon 28-300L- travel lens, zoo lens, concert lens, vacations, airshows.
Canon 15-85- walkaround lens and racetracks (around the pits etc.)
Canon 300mm f/2.8L- racetracks, airshows.
Sigma 8-16mm- minimal use on vacations and other unique situations. Nice to have around though.

That's it! My wife has a T1i with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC that I borrow once in a while, but I find the 35L and some cropping here and there is all I need in the 17-50mm range.

What you need really depends on what you like to do. The kit in my sig works perfectly for me, and reflects the compromise between focal length, aperture and weight. I mostly shoot landscapes around f/8.0-f/11.0 so speed is not an important factor and weight is. My 35 f/1.4 is my low-light lens, and actually my favorite at the moment. The 24-105 is my all-around carry lens with the 100-400 the zoo/airshow specialty lens.

bohdank wrote in post #13249529
If you plan on using a tripod, then the 24TSE is a viable option. Whatever anyone may say, this is not a walk around, take a shot, lens, imo. If tyou are not going to be using the TS function, then get the 24LII.

So, if a tripod is not in the mix then get the 24LII. This has fast become my walk around lens on a 5DII. I'm not a big fan of the "normal" focal lengths (50mm), although I have that range covered, so I could go out with the 24L and 85/1.8 and not miss much. I had the 300 F4IS also. A high quality optic but I rarely used it. I replaced a 70-200 F4IS with the 2.8IS MKII for the times I need something longer, usually concert/events. If I really need longer (very rare), I add a 1.4x

You don't seem to see the need for a truly wide lens such as a 17-40/16-35 but I could not live without one.

Even though you say you shoot everything, everybody gravitates to a few types more than others. Decide what is more important to you and spend the bulk of the money to fit those shots.

If 2.8 is fast enough, then the 70-200 MKII can hold its own between 70-200 with just about any prime. I have the 135L and, personally, think the overall IQ from the zoom is as good or better. It deserves all the kudos it has been getting.

As much as some of the MF lenses you mentioned are best in class or near so, are you sure you can get by with what mostly looks likes a MF kit ? I'm not a fan of trading useability for the absolute best IQ lens. That opinion reflects the way and what I shoot. From what you said, it doesn't sound like you shoot things that move, so it may work out for you.

Ive thought over the 70-200 2.8II, Ive seen some great output from it. It is a big lens, pricewise, chopping out maybe 2200 of the budget, in theory replacing the 135 and 300. I could see it working, I've found my 70-200 f4L a very useable range, f4 is a touch slow, and I gravitate towards shallow DoF when shooting at longer focal lengths. The 2.8 gets me 1 stop better, the 135 gets me 2 stops better at a single focal length, the zeiss 100 gets me two stops AND a close MFD, so it's better in terms of shallow DoF potential as well, again, at a single FL.

I'll defintely rent the zeiss and 70-200 mkII, it's worth giving each some time.


I did have the 17-40 at one point. I generally stuck to around 24-35. In retrospect, when I look at my library and how I rated my photos, the sub 21mm pictures rarely make my favorites. I love other peoples pictures at UWAs, but not my own. I don't think it's my strong suit. 24 is plenty wide, I'd even go for a zeiss 21, but with the zeiss 21 and canon 24tse so close in price, I'd go for the tilt and shift features and zero distortions over the zeiss look and 3mm.

I hear you on the 50 normal lens as not a particular need. I've gone with a gap from 40 to 70 for a long time, never bothered me. I did use 40 and 70 often though, so in the absence of a 70, 50 seems a good compromise between 35 and 100/135.

I could consider going 24tse, canon 35L, 70-200 mkII. Thats close, used, if I get good prices all around. It lacks any macro capability, but an extension tube on the 70-200 might satisfy me until I can land a zeiss 50mp2.


Good suggestions though, for my wheels turning again

I have been through quite a few lenses and looking back most all where good enough for me but gear gets addicting and it really is part of the fun.

How I arrived at my setup.
• 100L - I would not be without a macro and the 100L is a great one. With extension tubes it gets you some really fine detail and even without its pretty cool how sharp it is. Works well for portraits and snaps too. I had the 100 non L first but I felt the IS made it a worthwhile upgrade to make it more versatile.

• 24-70 is one I always want to sell off but its such a useful high quality lens. Its one I always fall back to, especially when using flash. I had the Tamron 28-75 then the Canon 24-105 before and I find the 24-70 to be a better lens but all of these where pretty good.

• 70-300L. I had the 70-200 2.8 non IS and while it was excellent The 70-300 is a more compact, has IS and more range. I also would only use a lens like this outdoors so I felt I could live with the slower variable aperture.

• 50L - I had the 50 1.4 before and while it was a great lens I wanted a good mid range prime. Took a lot of time to decide on this one. The 35L was very tempting and while also an excellent lens I am always drawn to 50.

• 24L II. Got this to round out my prime setup but really I only purchased it because I found a great deal on a mint used one. After getting a 60D to go with my 5D2 I am finding this to be a favorite.

I always consider something else, I will probably pick up a 17-40 sometime in the near future and I am always tempted to get a 35 ( if a good non L existed ) a 20 or 40 Voightlander or 85 1.8 but when I think about it I really don't need anything else. I put the 24 on my 60D and its like a 35, its not like I do huge prints very often so its close enough for me but I do want to ad something small and light but I keep fighting off the craving :-}

Anyway after spending way to much stressing over which lens to get, my advice would be to go slow and start with 1 good lens and shoot a lot. What lenses you should get just depends on how and what you shoot, how much you want to carry etc.

My current kit is in my signature... I landed to this setup because I really like to shoot everything, so I wanted a versatile setup.

My 24-105 is my go-to walkaround, when I need a lens that could do just about anything. It may not make the most special photos, but it does it's job very well. I should really use it more!

My 70-200 is my powerhouse for IQ and versatility on the long end. It perfectly compliments my 24-105 as far as zooms go. With these two lenses, I feel I could have most anything covered.

The 135L is my "speciality" lens when I crave extremely shallow DOF and something a bit faster then f/2.8. Used to be an 85L, but was a bit too expensive for what I used it for. The 135L is such a fun lens to use, and probably my favorite lens at the moment.

The Samyang 14mm was due to my craving to go wide wide wide. And it blows me away with it's IQ and extremely low price.

The 17-40 I bought before the Samyang 14mm, and I enjoy using it. However, it overlaps so much with my 24-105 and now that I have my wider Samyang 14mm, I use it very little. I have thought about selling it, just to clear up some money. I just feel like at some point I will need an UWA with AF, but in reality I am not very sure. I have thought about switching to the Sigma 12-24 II lens, to get even wider then 14mm.

So my only "conflict" currently is on my wide end... Sell the 17-40 and get the Sigma 12-24, or keep both for now or just sell the 17-40 and use the 14mm when I need UWA. I have a feeling if the 5D3 looks tempting though if released, the 17-40 will be sold to clear money up for the upgrade.

My current kit is 4 lenses:

- 17-40 f/4L
- 35 f/1.4L
- Sigma 50 f/1.4L
- 85 f/1.4L mkII

The only thing I may look into here is a 135L, since the 85 can be a bit short sometimes. And perhaps getting rid of the 17-40 altogether and replacing it with a 24L (the 17-40 is by far my least used lens...I don't shoot a lot of landscapes, and the DoF is much too large at f/4 at these focal lengths). But I can live with this lens lineup on FF for the foreseeable future.

edge100 wrote in post #13249984
My current kit is 4 lenses:

- 17-40 f/4L
- 35 f/1.4L
- Sigma 50 f/1.4L
- 85 f/1.4L mkII

The only thing I may look into here is a 135L, since the 85 can be a bit short sometimes. And perhaps getting rid of the 17-40 altogether and replacing it with a 24L (the 17-40 is by far my least used lens...I don't shoot a lot of landscapes, and the DoF is much too large at f/4 at these focal lengths). But I can live with this lens lineup on FF for the foreseeable future.

So there is someone who gets along without focal lengths over 100. Ever run into a situation that doesn't work out for you?

NatDeroxL7 wrote in post #13250093
So there is someone who gets along without focal lengths over 100. Ever run into a situation that doesn't work out for you?

Hardly ever. Most of my work is lifestyle portraiture, so the 35mm to 85mm range is where I live, with only the occasional need to go above or below this.

There are some occasions where I'd like to have something a bit longer than the 85, which is why I'm considering adding the 135L (though I'm getting by just fine without it for now). I sold my 100 f/2 when I bought the 85L, and I don't really miss it. But the 135L could be very nice to have.

When I shoot events (which is maybe 10% of what I do), I rent a 70-200 f/2.8L, since I can't justify actually buying it. That goes on my 1D2 and the 35L goes on my 5D2.

And for my own personal shooting (travel, family, etc), the 35L + 85L + 5D2 does everything I need.

I can see how that would work well. I generally shoot in the same situations. I try to get outdoors and to exotic places, but I can always rent when I get those chances I suppose.

When I got back from Afghanistan I had a these f4 zooms, because they were light and gave me options without having to change lenses in the dust.

Now I'm home, I'm not shooting nearly as much, and when I do, it's family things and vacation photos.

I really don't need any of this for being at home, but i already have all the money invested in my guitar hobby, so it isnt coming out of pocket.

I cook all the time, but somehow kitchen knives and cookware doesn't get me as excited as camera gear

I chose my lens setup for travel and video. For this I need versatility and constant aperture. Aside from that weight and budget were a factor in my decision.

Tokina 11-16: Specialty lens for when I need to go wider for architectural or interior shots and if I want to get everything in a scene when recording video.
Canon 17-55: This is my walkaround.
Canon 70-200 F4: Telephoto purpose for race tracks, zoos, concerts, and landscapes from a distance. IS is a must for video. The 2.8 version would be better but the F4 is ideal for lighter travel.
Sigma 30: This is my walkaround alternative. I'll use this if I don't want to carry the weight of the 17-55. Its size pairs up nicely with my 60D. Main use for night shots and if I need to use f1.4
Canon 50 F1.8: I picked this one because it's the best bang for the buck. Perfect for family shots, self portraits, and kids. I couldn't justify buying the 50 1.4 because there wasn't much of a difference between the two.
Kenko extension tubes: Not a lens, but serves the macro purpose. I'll use it to photograph food dishes, flowers and for close up scenes in video. A dedicated macro is better but these tubes get the job done!

I can carry all of this with me in my travels and not be bothered by the weight. It's perfect because I can shoot f2.8 from 11-55mm and f4 from 70-200mm with IS and USM throughout the range. In addition, I got two smaller primes to choose from.

NatDeroxL7 wrote in post #13250156
I really don't need any of this for being at home, but i already have all the money invested in my guitar hobby, so it isnt coming out of pocket.

I got out of that a while back. I only kept my '85 Japanese E-series Squier Strat (with Kinman Woodstocks) and my '82 Rickenbacker 320 (my first guitar...saved up for it when I was 16), plus an Ovation acoustic.

Well, so far I'm at;

10-22
24-105
100-400 (next lens on my list)
50mm 1.8

Once I'm able to get my 100-400 then I'll be covered from 10-400 which should take care of most any situation for me.

I'd like to eventually pick up a tilt shift or fisheye to tool around with. The 50mm is sort of a toy lens for me however it does take some nice pics so can't complain. However I'd also like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but that's a pretty big chunk of change to part with so that might come a little later...way later.