Help me pick my full-frame lens line up..

Hi melcat

Me having sigma lenses has nothing to do with my views on canon lenses. It has to do with price

In all honesty, I have been dreaming of L glass ever since I got my first dslr, but could never justify the price due to the fact im only an amature..

Now that the 5d2 is now affordable, I am considering doing volenteer work in hopes of possibly earning small amounts of money as a second job.

And thanks everyone. I am defiantly leaning towards the 70-200L f4 IS. I would normally only shoot in f4 anyway with my sigma 17-50 as I'm paranoid about everything being in focus and getting the most sharpness, and if shooting indoors ill just use my 430ex2. Plus I would have to grab the 17-40 to satisfy my landscape desires.. I have done lots of research between the 16-35 and 17-40 and from what I have gathered, the only advantage of the 16-35 is the extra stop

LucasCK wrote in post #14382360
...... from what I have gathered, the only advantage of the 16-35 is the extra stop

Which can be priceless, when you need it

For me, one who much prefers ambient light to single flash, the extra stop can be invaluable. I also like to toy around with the reduced DOF.

The combination of f/2.8 and the high ISO performance of the 5D3 has quite frankly taken me into another world. My lack of artistic skill is still a limitation though!

Steve of Cornubia wrote in post #14382387
Which can be priceless, when you need it

For me, one who much prefers ambient light to single flash, the extra stop can be invaluable. I also like to toy around with the reduced DOF.

The combination of f/2.8 and the high ISO performance of the 5D3 has quite frankly taken me into another world. My lack of artistic skill is still a limitation though!

I have to disagree. f/4 on the 17-40 isn't a huge problem at all. Landscape, for me at least, usually consists of f/8 or smaller. I just adjust the shutter as needed. I like to use low ISO unless I'm hand holding, then focal length vs shutter speed starts playing a role in my ISO usage. But overall, I have never wished I had f/2.8 at any time while shooting UWA.

I also prefer ambient/natural light over flash, but I also carry my tripod with me everywhere. My last hike I had just bought a Manfrotto Magic Arm and decided to use that instead, for weight savings, and while I was impressed with the MMR I still wished I had just brought the tripod along.

kawi_200 wrote in post #14382426
I have to disagree. f/4 on the 17-40 isn't a huge problem at all. Landscape, for me at least, usually consists of f/8 or smaller. I just adjust the shutter as needed. I like to use low ISO unless I'm hand holding, then focal length vs shutter speed starts playing a role in my ISO usage. But overall, I have never wished I had f/2.8 at any time while shooting UWA.

I also prefer ambient/natural light over flash, but I also carry my tripod with me everywhere. My last hike I had just bought a Manfrotto Magic Arm and decided to use that instead, for weight savings, and while I was impressed with the MMR I still wished I had just brought the tripod along.

Well, when f/4 is OK, then by definition you didn't NEED f/2.8. As for using a tripod in low-light situations, that won't help if your subject(s) are moving, like at party or similar indoor event. In such situations, having the option of f/2.8 might allow you to use a faster shutter and thus avoid motion blur.

It's a bit like racing cars or bikes. The difference between 120mph and 125mph might not seem much till you get onto the straight!

If I were you, I’d get a 17-40L for landscapes and 70-200 IS II for portraits... and everything else. 70-200 IS II is the best telephoto out there, period.

I would get TS-E 24mm and 135L or one of the 70-200L

I,m using the option 1 at the moment, but using the canon 50 mm 1.4 instead of the Sigma one. The 3 lenses on option 1 are very sharp with good colour rendition.