Which L Lenses?

I'm getting a portion of my annual bonus in another few weeks. I'm planning on using some of it to upgrade my lenses. I'm looking at four L lenses, anticipating getting two.

The four I'm looking at are:
24-70mm f/4L IS USM
24-105mm f/4L IS USM
16-35mm f/4L IS USM
17-40mm f/4L USM

I'm leaning towards the 17-40 (I'm okay losing the image stabilization to save $) & 24-105 (I like the idea of having a longer zoom). I plan on eventually picking up the 70-200 f/4L USM.

Which ultra-wide zoom and standard zoom lenses do you recommend?

On a cropper, I'd recommend the 17-55 2.8 IS before the Ls.

My main concern with getting EF-S lenses is if I upgrade to a FF body down the road, I'd have to sell the EF-S lenses but an L lens will also work on a crop sensor body.

DGStinner wrote in post #17287520
My main concern with getting EF-S lenses is if I upgrade to a FF body down the road, I'd have to sell the EF-S lenses but an L lens will also work on a crop sensor body.

What month in the next year are you hoing full frame? If you cant answer that, then buy the lens you need for the camera you have. I love the 17-40 on full frame but its a poor choice on a crop. A 17-55 2.8 is a shadow L In terms of quality and holds its value such that you can flip it at no loss if you buy used and sell it in a year or two. Getting caught up in ghe L and getting the wrong lens for yor camera is a way to disappointment.

DGStinner wrote in post #17287520
My main concern with getting EF-S lenses is if I upgrade to a FF body down the road, I'd have to sell the EF-S lenses but an L lens will also work on a crop sensor body.

Get the 17-55. Even if that's your only EF-S lens, it's super easy to resell later if need be, and there's a very good chance you'll keep your crop anyway, even if you do get a FF. The f/2.8, along with the better range and similar-quality glass, make it superior in the meantime. Don't live in the future.

DGStinner wrote in post #17287520
My main concern with getting EF-S lenses is if I upgrade to a FF body down the road, I'd have to sell the EF-S lenses but an L lens will also work on a crop sensor body.

The solution is to not sell the EF-S lenses when you "upgrade".

Some folks with 35mm format cameras are upgrading to the 7D Mark II because the crop format has advantages. (The 35mm format also has advantages.)

gonzogolf wrote in post #17287530
What month in the next year are you hoing full frame? If you cant answer that, then buy the lens you need for the camera you have. I love the 17-40 on full frame but its a poor choice on a crop. A 17-55 2.8 is a shadow L In terms of quality and holds its value such that you can flip it at no loss if you buy used and sell it in a year or two. Getting caught up in ghe L and getting the wrong lens for yor camera is a way to disappointment.

Would you still recommend either the 24-70 or the 24-105?

DGStinner wrote in post #17287576
Would you still recommend either the 24-70 or the 24-105?

??

Those are FF lenses. No wide angle on a crop camera.

Archibald wrote in post #17287578
??

Those are FF lenses. No wide angle on a crop camera.

I know they're FF lenses. If I were to go with the EF-S 17-55, I would like to have a better lens to go beyond 55mm.

As others have said get the 17-55. Buy it used and you'll get your money back if you decide to go to ff.

It has IS and is a stop faster than the 17-40. It's also has a greater focal length range.

I'd then decide whether you want wider or longer. Sounds like you want more reach so get yourself whichever of the 70-200s is within your budget. The f/4 IS seems a good compromise.

DGStinner wrote in post #17287581
I know they're FF lenses. If I were to go with the EF-S 17-55, I would like to have a better lens to go beyond 55mm.

Have a look at the 55-250mm STM. Not expensive, not heavy, very sharp. Make sure it is the STM.

DGStinner wrote in post #17287576
Would you still recommend either the 24-70 or the 24-105?

To be honest, no. They are both phenomenal lenses, but the purpsed of the 24-105 is to act as a walkaround (general purpose) lens. On a full frame its wide at 24 and short tele on the long end, enough for flattering headshots. On a crop body its no longer wide but the extra length doesnt compensate. The same applies to the 24-70. There are guys who dont mind losing the wide end, but not me. If you take away the wide end it loses the versatility that keeps it on my 5DII a lot of the time. You've stumbled on why EF-S lenses exist, the narrowing of the field of view just makes certain workhorse lenses less useful. This is also why people switch to full frame, if not for the benefits ofthe bigger sensor thrn to get good glass to serve its purpose.

17-55 and 70-200 has pretty much everything covered.

Heya,

So you're ok with buying into that much money of lenses, and getting a bunch of F4 stuff from wide to telephoto?

Dropping that kind of money for entry L lenses, I'd be instead looking at good mid-tier primes and maybe a decent general zoom.

I'd get the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC over the Canon 24-105 & 24-70 F4.

Then when you do get a 70-200, of whatever flavor, you're set.

From there, if you want wide, get a wide based on what camera system you shoot. 17mm isn't wide on APS-C. And you can always sell whatever lens you get. For a wide, look at the new EF-S 10-18 STM. It's inexpensive and does the job for your wide needs.

So:

Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC
Canon EF-S 10-18 STM
Canon 70-200 F4L IS (when you can get it)

Very best,

I used these for a while: 10-22 Efs, 50 1.8 and 70-200 f4. Used the three would cost around $1,100.