Seeking ideas on what to get

I decided to go for an UWA and a prime. However, to afford both lenses, I went for cheaper versions - the 17-40L and the 85 1.8. Got the former one used from a POTN member. The other one, because I have B&H gift cards, will be bought from that outfit new.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

Lbsimon wrote in post #17671468
I got about a $1000 to spend on photo equipment, probably on lenses. I like to shoot wildlife, architecture, landscapes, and I think I have all the lenses that I need (see my signature). For traveling to Europe I take the 24-105, for wildlife - 100-400 II with or without Canon 1.4x TC. I have flashes, tripods, and software. Primes maybe? But I am not sure which and where I will use them.

Any ideas?

LB.
Nice list of gear below. Maybe one area you are missing may be the Wide Angle Zoom. A 16-35 or 17-40. The 17-40 f/4 L is the smallest and lightest of the three choices for Canon's Wide a Angle Zooms. Also the lightest in terms of price. A real nice performer.
At the 16-35 you have two choices. The highest in terms of price is the 16-35 f/2.8 L Mark II. One extra stop compared to the 17-40 f/4 L. Is the extra stop and one Mil wider worth almost double the price of the 17-40 f/4 L?.....that is for you to decide.
However Canon did throw us a bone last year with the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Priced between the 17-40 f/4 and the 16-35 f/2.8 L II. Reportedly better over all sharpness compared to the two originals, plus Image Stabilization. After walking all day in the heat with the "Yips" or for lower light exposures, having IS on any focal length will have its advantages.

I will be adding the 16-35 f/4 L IS in the very near future for the reasons above. I did purchase a 17-40 in January of 2014 a few months prior to the announcement of the new 16-35 f/4 L IS. As the used prices for the 17-40 keep dropping, I will still keep the 17-40 as a great back if the new lens needs service or if I want to keep things small and light.
If I had the 16-35 f/4 L IS as an option last year, that certainly would have been my choice then and now.

Thanks Nick. I went for the 17-40 mostly due to the lower weight/size. I travel for vacations, mostly to Europe (daughter lives there), and traveling for me means walking all day long and photography. Not being young any more imposes a lot of limitations.

Paris with no WA would stink. Get the 16-35.

Lbsimon wrote in post #17673991
Thanks Nick. I went for the 17-40 mostly due to the lower weight/size. I travel for vacations, mostly to Europe (daughter lives there), and traveling for me means walking all day long and photography. Not being young any more imposes a lot of limitations.

For the money, the 17-40L is still a nice lens, IMO. It's not as sharp as the 16-35L f/4 IS and does not have image stabilization, but it is still a good value at its current used street price. Getting that and an 85 f/1.8 for your budget were smart purchases. I used to own both those lenses, BTW. I upgraded the 17-40L to the 16-35 f/4, and the 85mm focal length did not work for me when I moved to full frame, so I now own a 135L. However, if that length works for you, then you should be very happy with that prime lens.

You need a faster lens. Yours listed are all f4 and up. Either get a couple of good primes or you can sell your 24-105 and come close to getting the 24-70 mkii f2.8

esinghal wrote in post #17674203
You need a faster lens. Yours listed are all f4 and up. Either get a couple of good primes or you can sell your 24-105 and come close to getting the 24-70 mkii f2.8

I don't think faster lens will do me any good. As I said in the OP, most of my photography is on travel. I mostly shoot wildlife, architecture, and landscapes (in that order of importance), so the DOF is not an issue. For that the improvement of one F-stop is made up by the 6D's great ISO handling.

The 24-105 was chosen for a reason over the 24-70. When on vacation in Europe I try to travel light. The 24-105 offers me a great focal range, so I can do with one lens. The 24-70 would force me to bring the 70-200, while I would rather bring an ultra-wide if I had to have the second lens with me.

And the same goes for the 17-40 over the 16-35 - weight and size for traveling.

Another vote for 16-35 f4

Perhaps choose a prime for interior portraits.The 85/1.8 is a great choice, and could come in handy shooting those newborns.

I am the OP - I got the 85 1.8 from B&H (I had a few gift certificates there), and the 17-40 from a POTN member. It is time for me to try portraits and the grandkids that are coming up shortly. Buying a 16-35 in addition to the 85 would be getting over budget.

i don't understand...you already have the 17-40... people are telling you to trade up? I mean, I have the 16-35 IS and it is a nice piece of glass, but I am not sure I would have traded in the case I had the 17-40

so use that.

If it were me, I would consider a wider prime for the granddaugher/son pages
even though you mentioned that you don't do portraits...you may make the exception for your upcoming bundle of joy. For the budget of $1000 - you can get either the 24 or 35 f1.4 of sigma which has gotten rave reviews (the 35 more than the 24, but still)

You and I have a similar kit - in regards to hardware... so here I would splurge on the fast prime.

However, I am a bit confused with you last entry - in your item list you mention that you have the 85 1.8, but then others have suggested you get it/ you aren't sure if that would push you over budget....
I must be missing something.

If you dont have the 85 1.8 despite that it is in your published lineup - I would suggest that more...
If you do, I would suggest the 35/24 1.4 as mentioned....

I think he just made the purchases.

ooops.

sorry. I guess I didn't follow that
apologies
i hope you enjoy your selection