Best Complete Lens Collection

Best???

All the fast L primes + All the fast L zooms

And you did sort of say for "travel" right???

So a very fast Sherpa to lug it around for you and stay up with you as you run around.

With out the Sherpa and deep pockets some deep compromising has to happen

I think this should be a poll. (Can't believe I am saying that. So many people invent polls that make no sense, IMO.) Choices should be members names. Based on what they own now not on what they'd like to get someday. Make sure you include CanonBob.

pli wrote in post #5273374
this would be a godly setup
on ff
16-35 f/2.8
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f/2.8 L IS

35mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.2 L
85mm f/1.2 L

+1 xD

pli wrote in post #5273374
this would be a godly setup
on ff
16-35 f/2.8
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f/2.8 L IS

35mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.2 L
85mm f/1.2 L

With reference to the zooms you mentioned, I was originally going to get that combo. However, I got the 17-40 f/4 instead of the 16-35 f/2.8. Reasons were (a) I use my wide angle lenses mostly for landscapes and rarely use the 2.8 aperture capability; (b) cost was about double the 17-40; and (c) the latest version of the 16-35 takes 82mm filters. The 17-40 takes 77mm, just like the 24-70 and 70-200. Have to say, I used the 17-40 extensively at an antiques show yesterday, and I really appreciated the relatively low weight of that lens compared to The Brick.

tgara wrote in post #8300842
With reference to the zooms you mentioned, I was originally going to get that combo. However, I got the 17-40 f/4 instead of the 16-35 f/2.8. Reasons were (a) I use my wide angle lenses mostly for landscapes and rarely use the 2.8 aperture capability; (b) cost was about double the 17-40; and (c) the latest version of the 16-35 takes 82mm filters. The 17-40 takes 77mm, just like the 24-70 and 70-200. Have to say, I used the 17-40 extensively at an antiques show yesterday, and I really appreciated the relatively low weight of that lens compared to The Brick.

Ive owned the 17-40, 16-35 I, and currently own the 16-35 II. I personally think the 17-40 is not a good lens.

I've been trying, buying and trading lenses for several years and think I have come to the end of the road (for the time being). I have a Canon 50D with the following lens collection.

Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - travel kit
Canon 17-55 f/2..8 - travel kit (should be an "L")
Canon 70-200L f/4 - travel kit
Sigma 50 f/1.4 - portrait/low light/bokeh
Canon 85 f/1.8 - portrait/low light
Canon 135L f/2 -must have lens for bokeh and sharpness
Tamron 180 f/3.5 macro
Canon 400L f/5.6 - wildlife
Canon 1.4 ll extender

As you can see, I have no allegiance to any brand. I've just tried to find the best lens within it's range considering price/performance.

I added the primes for low light situations when I sold my 70-200 f/2.8 for the lighter and sharper 70-200 f/4.

All lenses are very sharp although some had to be returned and replaced. I found IQ varies between lenses regardless of make ( "L" lenses included). I buy all lenses locally where I can test them and return if necessary. All lenses will have some shortcomings but most can be corrected PP, except sharpness.

I feel no need for anything else than what i have.

16-35 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8 IS
400 2.8 IS

Throw in the 50 1.2 if you need to shoot flashless somewhere dark, and the 1.4X for even more reach.

These kind of threads remind me of why Canon is way out in front of even quality other-brands like Nikon. No two people in here have the same arsenal of lenses....and there really isn't a bad collection in the lot.

If we were Nikon or Pentax or Sony or ____________ users, we probably wouldn't even be having these conversations.....beca​use the number of quality lens options for those cameras is pretty paper-thin when compared to Canon.

Yes, we are spoiled!

IT's an impossible question to answer, as it depends on what you are shooting and your preferred style of photography.

Once all my lenses arrive, I will have:
Sigma 10-20
Canon 24-105L
Canon 70-200 (f4) L
Canon 100-400 L

This set will meet MY needs which stretch between landscape (wide end) and surfing (100-400) with the 70-200 mainly for 'general' photography.

BeritOlam wrote in post #8302537
These kind of threads remind me of why Canon is way out in front of even quality other-brands like Nikon. No two people in here have the same arsenal of lenses....and there really isn't a bad collection in the lot.

If we were Nikon or Pentax or Sony or ____________ users, we probably wouldn't even be having these conversations.....beca​use the number of quality lens options for those cameras is pretty paper-thin when compared to Canon.

Yes, we are spoiled!

Actually there's a ton of amazing glass sporting a nikon mount. You have to remember all those old manual focus lenses that can fit, also.

JAcosta wrote in post #8302835
Actually there's a ton of amazing glass sporting a nikon mount. You have to remember all those old manual focus lenses that can fit, also.

But those all fit Canon, too - and you don't have to worry about AI or AI-S to get metering. Old Pentax lenses work on Canon, Olympus OM lenses work on Canon, etc, etc. So really Canon is the bomb.

Although I do agree that Nikon is hardly lacking for quality lenses.


If you are talking about the BEST complete lens collection, then just get 1 of each Canon L prime currently made.

JAcosta wrote in post #8302835
Actually there's a ton of amazing glass sporting a nikon mount. You have to remember all those old manual focus lenses that can fit, also.

I suppose I was mostly thinking of the variety Canon gives you...

*50 1.8 for newbies, 50 1.4 for amateurs, 50 1.2 for the pros, 50 1.0 for the insanely rich, crazy, and/or lucky
*85 1.8 for amateurs, 85 1.2 for the pros
*4 versions of 70-200mm for all types of shooters
....and on we could go.

I didn't mean to suggest Nikon lacks amazing glass. Just not near the selection for fine-tuning your gear for the interested hobbiest, the pro-am shooter, and pro guru.

I agree. It's the top-class modest-speed lenses that persuaded me to go with Canon. I don't need fast glass and the cost and weight would be a heavy price to pay for good image quality if, like Nikon, high image quality only came with the fast lenses.

Let it be known I was not saying that Nikon has better glass than Canon, that Canon doesnt have a good variety, or anything like that. I was simply put off by the idea that Nikon was lacking good glass. Their 50 f/1.4 is better than the Canon, IMO.

Holy Trinity of Primes and Zooms... Check the gear list for further info... Hheheheheh...

- airbutchie