If you were to start a lens collection from scratch.

What would you get?

That is where I am thinking at the moment, the lenses I have now covers the focal length I want fine but quality wise isn't the best, not are they the fastest lens (except the nifty, which is fine but focusing is slow). Then may be a 70-200L somewhere along the line.

So...I am thinking 17-40, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 IS....But what walk about lens ?

EDIT - p.s. I do want a FF camera with my next body so like to avoiid EF-S lens if possible, hence the 17-40 over the 17-55.

Thats a good setup... maybe if the budget allows, the 24-105L, that is a nice walkaround lens, but maybe not sacrafice the 17-40, cuz then you will have no wide angle. But what you have is good for a while.

what is your defintion of a walk around lens? There seems to be some concieved notion that its ~24-70, but it depends on what you shoot. I use my 70-200 unless I have a reason for something else. the 17-40 will work too

PS... i usually shoot walkaround with 70-200 2.8, cuz i only have one body, and i hate switching lenses...lol... so i use zoom a lot.. it depends on your shooting style.

for crop cameras.... the 17-55 IS would be my ideal lens. pair that up with a 70-200 and i'll be set!

coreypolis wrote in post #2352382
what is your defintion of a walk around lens? There seems to be some concieved notion that its ~24-70, but it depends on what you shoot. I use my 70-200 unless I have a reason for something else. the 17-40 will work too

depending on the way you shoot, some like wide angles, some like to get up close and personal.

I like flowers, insects, sunrise-set, so i use my 70-700, and besides, its sharper than my 17-85... lol

Assuming that you do general photography and don't want FF camera in the near future. I'd consider the following.

Ultrawide for landscape, cityscape: Sigma 10-20 (best bang for the bucks)

Walking around flens: Sigma 18-50f2.8 macro, Tamron 17-50 Di f2.8, or upcoming Tokina 16-50 f2.8 (I'd lean toward the Toke for it's wider apeature and better build)

Portrait/sports: Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS or Non IS or a Sigma 70-200 (non Macro as it's sharper at the long end, if you can still find one.) For portraits, a wider aperature than f4 is nice. Plus an f2.8 allows for brighter viewfinder and a faster AF on 30D

Airshow/zoos/animals/b​irds: If you occassionally do this, then a real high quality 2X TC such as Kenko Pro or a Tamron Pro will do with a f2.8 lens. If not Bigma, dust pumper, or a Tamron 200-500 will do.

If you do macro, current 100mm ish macros are all good. The new Sigma 70mm macro is suppose to be really sharp as well. I'd only get this if you really like macro.

While the 17-40 is a good lens, I don't like slow lenses and it's not as sharp as some of the newer 17-50 ish lenses such as Tamron and Canon. The 50 is a very limited lens, good for low light portrait type work. I'd rather have a more usuful zoom than that for a three lens set up.

I'd use the 24-105 (even on the 30D). The 24-70 (I owned it for a while) IMO is too heavy to carry for several hours walk-about. If you already have the 17-40 on your list (one of my favorite lenses) that's another excellent w.a. lens.

well just add the Sigma 10-20 and canon 100-400 to what I have and thats it.
I should hopefully finish it up come summer

I think your setup is fine (Its alot like mine!). I use the 17-40 as my walkaround lens, as I think you'll find many 17-40 users do. The only thing I would add is the 100mm Macro. Its a great lens equally good for macro and non-macro, and really sharp.

we almost have the same lens set up, but i also have the 75-300 IS. the range of the set up works great for just about everything. however the quality isn't that great. IMO i had spending money twice for the same thing, so i have decide on the following set up. keep i mind i also like to travel somewhat light and versitle at the same time. but your choices will also depond on what you shoot. i was mostly sprots but now gearing towars PJ,portraits, with the occosional sports, and nature. i know this set up will take time to get but i will only spend the money once and all will work on any EOS so when i get the 5D will be great, here it goes

first is the 24-70 2.8 , because over range i feel most versitle for me
2nd would be the 70-200 2.8 IS or the 13-35 2.8
3rd the one i didn't get 2nd
4th either the 50 1.4 or the 15 2.8 fisheye
last would be the one that wans't 4th

this maybe not help you much but i think this range would be very versitle in just about anything your in the mood for.

When I got my 20D, I did start a new lens collection from scratch. I got Canon's 16-35 f/2.8L, 24-70 f/2.8L, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. This collection has done virtually everything for me that I have wanted to do.

I may add a prime or two for studio work (when I get people in front of the camera - so far it's been tabletop stuff in my studio), but what I have does just great even in the studio. It's just that the big zooms probably look a little intimidating in the studio.

Yeah, I do "want" a 400mm to 600mm fast prime and a 1-series body, but can't justify them yet.

For walk around, go with the 24-105. It's very sharp and colorful and has an excellent range. Of course it doesn't cover the wide angle but maybe the 17-40 for that.

JohnnyG wrote in post #2354545
For walk around, go with the 24-105. It's very sharp and colorful and has an excellent range. Of course it doesn't cover the wide angle but maybe the 17-40 for that.

Oh, I forgot to add that the 24-105 has IS too! That's very important!

I started mine from scratch last year... Got 24-70L, 17-40L and 70-200L IS.

This year I started my prime collection... 24L, 85L, 35L and am waiting for my 50L to come and am thinking of adding the 135L and 300 2.8IS sometime early next year. I also added the 600IS a month or so ago but that doesn't really count. Got that for fun shooting birds.

All on 5D's.