Kit to build as a serious amateur with Pro dreams...

Hello everyone, I'm new to this forum and I look forward to all the additional learning I'll get from reading these great threads. I've already done a lot of reading in the last several days but there's so many varying opinions for so many things I just would like to get some narrowed down advice. To start I'll say what I have now, a T2i with 'kit' lens and the 75-300mm zoom I got as in a bundle. I am happy with the quality of the T2i coming from a ultra-compact point and shoot Sony camera, but I have been noticing more and more the small things with these cheap lenses and want to look into seriously upgrading aka investing in high quality lenses. For now lets say I have a good size budget because I'll save up for anything if worth it. I know the issue of EF vs EF-S lenses will come up but what I'd like to do ideally is get EF lenses because in the semi-near future(2 years or less) I'd like to get a FF camera as my final body upgrade for the foreseeable future(I'm thinking 5D but debating between II or getting the III when Canon releases a IV, still comparing specs. Any advice or experience here would be amazingly helpful). With that I'll get on to the actual questions.

My main interests are in Landscape and Macro photography, as well as a recent uprising of an attraction to portraiture after going on choir tour. I think with 3-4 lenses I can cover everything very well, this is where the big questions come in. Is it possible to have a single lens that can be a great landscape UWA lens while being a good walkaround lens? I have been really looking at the 17-40L f4 to fill that role but I have read that its an awkward lens for a crop sensor. Then there's people who recommend the 16-35L and the 24-70L but the 24 would require another wider lens for landscapes. Secondly, for portraits and an additional lens to carry when 'walking around' I plan to get the 50mm 1.4, I don't see myself needing the 1.2L because I don't think I have a serious enough need for that anytime soon, nor do I want to pay the price for it. This leaves Macro and telephoto. For Macro I'm pretty well decided on the 100mm f2.8 IS macro lens because I like the price and I'm not convinced I need the minor improvements given in the L version, nor the higher price, plus at the time being I'm not head over heels for macro so I don't want to spend that much. Lastly and possibly most controversial is telephoto. I am a big fan of having lots of zoom. With my 75-300 lens, often times for animal or wildlife shots I find myself going right to the 250-300 range usually. There's just so many choices in this area I'd just like general recommendations for that just to gauge the input.

For some final parameters of my style to help with any advice you want to give, I tend to shoot outside more than in, and I dislike using a tripod and 95% of the time I don't have mine, plus its a crappy $40 bestbuy tripod. When I do use my tripod is at night because something I'm still trying to figure out and 'perfect' is night shooting. Star/Milky Way shots fascinate me and I want to get setup so I can do that. Anyways, so outside more often, and almost never a tripod. So do with that what you will and I greatly appreciate any and all tips/advice you guys can give me to help me out. Thanks so much.

I can sum it all up by saying there is no cheep way out. Pick your battles and go from there. Good lenses keep their value; bodies come and go.
Good luck.

Note: your post was vrey hard to read on these old eyes so I skipped most of it.

I'm not really looking for a cheap way out. I know to cover what I'd like to have covered won't be very cheap. Sorry if it's hard to read, I had a lot on my mind to say. Thank you for your reply though.

A good tripod is your friend. If you want to create nice landscapes...and macros, a tripod is pretty-much essential. You might as well learn to use it, and you'll certainly need it for night photography.

What is your budget? A good-sized budget to you is very likely different than a good sized-budget to me.

Also, consider a nice shoe-mount flash for portraits.. like a 430/580 EX II.

You're not going to be able to get an ultra wide angle and "general walk-around" in one. For a crop sensor, UWA in Canon flavor is the 10-22mm. You can get third party like the Sigma 12-24mm which, by the way, the only full frame compatible lens that can be considered UWA for crop sensors.

What would you recommend for a tripod? Budget, hmm well lets say over the next year or two I could probably do $5000 at most, probably a little less. If that can include a new FF body at some point that would be great but I would understand and expect it to cost a little more than the $5k.

The non L 100 macro does not have IS.

If I had 5 k to spend with what you are shooting I would get
5d2 used - $1500 no need for the 3 for what your shooting and everyone is dumping this awesome cam
24-70 used - $1000 awesome on ff
580 flash - around $500 or at least a 430
100L $900 the non l is also very good so worth considering. Just no is or maybe just some tubes for the 24-70
Manfrotto 190 tripod and ball head $250

Save some money and see if you want wider (17-40) or longer ( 70-200)

Some extras ( nice bag, memory, filters etc)
Lightroom photoshop

I forgot about the telephoto. The 75-300 has been recently listed a few times under the category of "I regret buying" so you may want to upgrade it (https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1166070)

The 70-300 or 55-255 are cheap upgrades. If you want real quality, you'll get one of the 70-200 zooms. The 70-300L has great reviews going for it (but is pricey). Similarly priced, the 100-400L is a workhorse recommended widely despite the design's age. It would be the cheapest way to get a good image at 400mm with fast+accurate focus - Sigma's tele-zooms are cheaper but have complaints of focus accuracy/speed or weight/size comparatively.

Manfrotto makes nice tripods for a reasonable price. I have the 055XProB..it's stable, versatile, and works excellently for macro shots(you can take it down to well under a foot). The 190XProB is a little cheaper, but shorter and a tad less solid(thinner legs). That would run you in the $200-$300 range with a basic pan/tilt head like mine.. a little more($50+) with a decent ball head. There are many brands to choose from, just try and stay away from the Best Buy/Future Shop brands.

24mm is still fairly wide on FF...the same FOV as 15mm on crop. The 24-70 would excel at portraiture, be very good as a walkaround, and even has a very good MFD for closeups(with tubes would be great).

@Wun, the only problem I have with the 10-22 is its EF-S so I couldn't transfer it over to FF, though I could probably easily sell it. About zooms, I haven't decided whether I'd prefer IS or 2.8 over the 4, so between one of those in the 70-200 and buying the 100-400 which would you go for? Would one be much more usable without a tripod than the other or are both pretty good handheld? Thats usually how I get those shots since I am usually not toting a tripod unless I plan on using it on a trip.

@Tommy, if I put IS on the macro I mis-typed. I knew it didn't have it. Thanks so much for those suggestions I will definitely take that under serious consideration. What would the MkIII have over the II that is useful in real life, or anything that I would notice? Man I didn't realize I could find a MKII that cheap or I'd already have one, haha. About the 24-70, seeing as its like a 15-x on crop that would be just what I'm used to anyways. In which case that would be great because all my widest shots are 18. Oh, about the 24-70, whats the practical difference between the MKI and MKII? Thanks!

@Tanker, thanks for that tripod info! So since that 24-70 seems like a better option to fit a landscape, portraiture, and general lens would that effectively eliminate a need for the 50 1.4? What would be the advantages of having an extra lens to carry?

Thanks so much for all the advice so far, its very helpful. Keep it coming!

Good way to break into the pro/advanced amateur department is a 5D Classic body and some vintage EOS glass. You can build a decent 5D kit for under 4 bills on glass and 5D Classics are between 800 and 1000 and be covered from 20mm to 210mm with fantastic IQ.

Tommydigi gave you a good start in a full frame kit. I would say that 1600-1800 would be more realistic for the 5D2 though.

I would suggest you figure out your telephoto needs - what use do you have? It can get real expensive real fast for big apertures and long focal lengths. I would say that the 70-200mm ranges serve a good general use from portraits to close-in sports and close (zoo pens) wildlife. The big delimma people have in choosing a 70-200 is a choice in compromise between weight+price and aperture. I do a lot of general stuff and not so much portraits and thus do not need the shallower depth of field on the 2.8.

If you want to do true wildlife, you will want the 100-400 at a minimum. Reviews I've seen say that the 70-300L is also worthwhile.

By the way, the 24-70mm II has only been announced... No mention on when it would be available for sale. Even if it was, the MSRP is 2300... So it would eat a large portion of your budget.

perhaps looking into a 70-200 F4 with a teleconverter to get that extra reach? in terms of a walkaround lens, i say the 24-70 fits your needs decently well. i have to mention that the 35L is an amazing lens worth looking at. it's a good compromise between a portrait lens and a landscape lens and it'd fulfill your needs of a fast prime is you ever need one. your choice though.

if you want to save some serious coin, look into non-canon lenses.

dont forget about primes, you dont need the L variant either, unless you need weather sealing.

quite worrying about migrating the lenses to a full-frame. they are easy enough to sell when you upgrade the body. get what works for you now.