Please help do I need to cover everything?

Here's my story.

I got into photography 3 years ago and quickly found myself going from Powershot S70 to 5d via 350d and 30d. I love the 5d! Damn this forum and damn Canon!

I like outdoor photography - countryside and city centre. I have a wife and 3 young children (no pets) and they are the sole subject of my indoor shooting. I am not keen on taking pics at weddings, parties, indoor sports although have thought about outdoor sports of which my beloved Wigan Rugby League would be my subject but have so far not done that for fear of restrictions in the stadium, being self concious with the camera in a crowd and missing the action! I would like to take more shots of garden birds, macro wildlife in the garden and animals in the zoo.

So where am I going with this, well I like quality and want to invest in a lens system for life but although I am no pro and just an enthusiast - I want to be able to take my gear with me wherever I can to take as many shots as I can - in balance with family and work of course.

You can see my current gear list below. I made a mistake in buying the 70-200 2.8 IS which I have now sold, I thought that it was the be all and end all and would complete my line up, but found that I didn't use it - quality excellent but too big, too heavy, too conspicuous. I thought I might err towards all primes and replace it with the 200 f2.8 + TC + monopod (zoo, garden birds, sport) but I am thinking I don't need f2.8 except for indoor shooting - which I do at home - and the 50 and 100 covers that. So now thinking about f4 70-200 IS and then longer term getting the 24-105 f4 IS which would give me a 3 lens f4 coverage from 17 to 200 for out and about shooting saving fast primes and macro for use at home.

What do you guys think and which if any should I get first? Next April we are going on a cruise across the Atlantic to New York where we will be staying for a few days. The 70-200 would be good for arrival shots into NY, but the 24-105 better in NY itself or could the 17-40 fill in there?

Thank you for reading my long post and thank you for any advice.

You definitely do NOT need to cover all focal lengths.

Saying whether you'd prefer 17-40 or 24-105 in NYC would be a personal choice. I'd go for the wider; the 24-105 never did much for me -- but you may be different. Just don't overthink it... you aren't going to miss that perfect shot just because you can't zoom to a certain focal length.

Great shots happen because you see it coming up and you are prepared and in the right spot with the right settings... whether it is a zoom or a prime on your camera is irrelevant. Your eye and anticipation is much more important than the focal range of your lens.

I'd buy the 70-200 f4 IS (actually I have one). It is excellent at all apertures, all focal lengths... considerbaly lighter then the 2.8 you had. I bought the the f4 because I knew I would not be happy carrying the 2.8 around all day. You do have a 5D... it might not be long enough for zoos (haven't been to any NY zoos so I don't know)

With the 5D in mind, I think the 24-105 would be more useful than the 17-40.

I think the

It depends how wide you would want to go? 24 on full frame would probably wide enough for most, but personally, I would go with the 17-40 just to have the ultra-wide look.

With the 3 lens setup you mentioned you should be able to cover just about everything. (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) Keep the 1.4 TC with you and you should be set for just about anything.

My choice would actually be: 17-40 + 24-105 + 100-400! Ultra wide, all the way to super tele. The 100-400 is an excellent lens and is great for zoo/wild life photography. Never miss a shot again

5Dmaniac wrote in post #6702825
The 100-400 is an excellent lens and is great for zoo/wild life photography. Never miss a shot again

no where near as sharp as the 70-200 f4L IS though