If you could choose your lens set from the very beginning WHAT WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

Set #3, or whatever has the 1755IS.

Well just what if you switch to full frame some day or the 1d 1.3 factor?
Is price a consideration..?
If not i'd go with this....

35mm f1.4L or 16-35 f2.8 L
50mm f1.4
24-70 f2.8 L
70-200 f4 L or f2.8 L

BTW, don't buy for the future. But what you need now. If you go FF later, so be it. But for 1.6x bodies, the 1755IS is top gun.

I agree with you. I initially bought the 24-105 4L thinking I wanted to upgrade to FF in the near future, but after getting the 17-55 2.8 IS, I don't want to upgrade to FF...unless Canon comes up with 24-70 2.8 IS, or 24-105 2.8 IS, which I don't think they will anytime soon...so until then, I will be very content with 17-55 and a crop camera

LightRules wrote in post #2210992
BTW, don't buy for the future. But what you need now. If you go FF later, so be it. But for 1.6x bodies, the 1755IS is top gun.

you can get better value and = optics with 3rd party lenses as well check them out and save your self some serious cash. Like the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and Tokina 12-24 I have both of these and they are optically great expecally the Tamron. Sometimes their is no potion Like the Canon 70-200 f4L which is great. If you subbed the 3RD party lenses you could get the 70-200 F4 IS + a 1.4 TC which would be great.

your shooting preference should dictate what lens you require. We can recommend what WE WANT but it may not be what YOU NEED in the end. And then u'd end up selling some of them out. Something to think about...

All of your sets contain the 70-200 f/4, which is a great lens. But just for your consideration, I think the 24-105 and 100-400 make a superb duo, add in a 10-22 and a 50/1.8 and I think that would be an awesome set.

1) 10-22
2) 24-105
3) 100-400
4) 50 f/1.8

I would not want to own any set of lenses that did not include the 135 f/2.0L and the 200 f/2.8L.

Cool-cat wrote in post #2209752
Both 24-70 and 24-105 start with 24 and since I will use one of them as a walk around I'll prefer the longer 105.
Yes it will be my first SLR after the G6.

I would re-consider that decision unless you are certain you need the extra 35mm and are not willing to switch lenses for that. You must realise that f2.8 is a full stop quicker then f4, and regardless of if you think you need it or not, you might end up wanting to shoot at wide apertures to get a narrower depth of field or supplement for lack of light more then you think. Remember, a flash can only do so much, and be used in so many places.

I vote for set #4 minus the 10-22. You should really shoot awhile and then determine your need/desire for an ultrawide. For me personally, it's a specialty lens that doesn't fit my shooting needs at the moment.

If not that set then #3, again without the 10-22.

BTW, you might consider spending the money on the telephoto end (70-200) instead of the street zoom and wide angle end of the aspect. For example, getting the 70-200 2.8L IS and instead of getting the 24-105L or 17-55 IS or 24-70L or whatever, get a Sigma 24-70 2.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8.

Still, I would STRONGLY recommend that you buy a cheap telephoto (Sigma 70-300 APO Macro), cheap street zoom (17-85IS or the Tamron or Sigma I talked about above), and use the lenses for a while and get a feel for the focal lengths your using. It's like buying a car, without knowing what your looking for (i.e. convertible, what color it is, what type of engine, etc.)

I'm more leaning towards set# 2

NO EF-s lenses
Full frame camera
Most of my glass would be german

dbiggs wrote in post #2211125
you can get better value and = optics with 3rd party lenses as well check them out and save your self some serious cash. Like the Tamron 28-75 2.8....

I wouldn't go that far. The 24-70L has just as much value. It seems to me that you're equating value to price. Two different things. The Tamron is a fine lens...for the money. However, in my honest opinion, the 24-70L trumps it in every single way. Tank build, USM, genius hood design, FTM, internal focusing, and more. I also truly think the IQ is noticeably more pleasing to the eye. The Tamron feels cheap, is made of plastic, the focus ring spins very quickly while focusing, the AF is loud, etc. However, they're both a decent value.

EF-S is the way to go...Canon will support these for many years to come

10-22
17-55 IS
50 1.4
70-200 2.8 IS

will be mine 4 lens when I'm done. (I'm half way there)