Do you think this is a good cross section of lens?

I only have a standard 18-55mm lens and would like to set myself up with a good cross section of lens. I am most interested in nature & landscape photography. Here is the list I have decided on:
EF 180mm f3.5 L Macro USM
EF 70 - 200mm f4 L USM
EF 17 - 40mm f4 L USM
Canon Extender EF 2x II
Do you think this is a good cross section of lens for me to buy now? If you have other ideas, I would love to hear. But keep in mind I can only spend around this amount - so if you are suggesting a more expensive lens please also suggest what you would cut/change on the list to balance the price.

Sounds good.

However,
- replace the 2x converter with a 1.4 one (better image quality, and will provide autofocus on your 20D/300D)
- throw in a 50/1.8 for good measure and sharp low light shots
- think about a good fast standard lens (e.g. 350$ Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI) as well. The money for doing so might come from replacing the EF 180 3.5 L macro with the EF 100/2.8 macro.

Best regards,
Andy

You don't mention what camera body your using. Assuming you're using a digital body with a reduced sensor area, then for landsape the 17-40 f/4L is a good choice. The 70-200 f/4L is also a good choice. Not sure about the 180 f/3.5, since it's in the range of the 70-200 and although probably a little sharper, is not much faster. I'd consider going for either a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 to fill out the middle range.

Thanks Andy, that was food for thought.

Does anyone else has any opinions on a 2x vs. 1.4x converter?

Sorry but I am set in stone about getting the 180mm Macro - I must.

Landscapes huh!

Here we go....

Canon 10-22 - or whatever lens in that range, it will cover the a great wide area, so you can get the light house shots with plenty colorful sunrise, and sunset skies.

Canon 24-70, or Tamron 28-75 lens for your mid range. -- great for portraits, and a great sharp mid zoom. Both have big apertures of F2.8. So you can work with them in low light, and they are still sharp when stoped down.

Canon 70-200 f4L or 2.8 non IS (or IS) ... -- which ever you can afford, you will love either, or all of them.

90mm macro/ 100 macro/ 180 macro / 60 macro.. - just decide which fits you .. you need light to work a 180 macro.. ( trust me I know ) .. The 60's are nice, the 50's are nice. Tamron makes a woowee 90, and Canon's 100 is pretty good also.

I am running along these lines.

Converter 1.4x ... saves detail.
Then looking into a longer lens, like the 300 f4 IS, or 400 f5.6 whichever.

Thanks Griff. I currently have a 300D which I am going to upgrade at the same time. I was going to buy a 20D but seeing the 350D I think I'll get that instead which gives me a little more cash to play with for the lens. I did want a mid range lens as well, but I thought I might wait till later in the year.

Food for thought !

the 70 - 200 f4 needs about 2 feet minimum to focus..
The 180 macro needs 1 foot minimum..
see examples.
http://www.pbase.com/b​rucescott/image/412708​69
http://www.pbase.com/b​rucescott/image/416656​89

Looks very good. Personally, though, I will replace Canon 180 macro with some other macro, such as Tamron 180, Sigma 180 or (my choice) Sigma 150 Macro. They are almost as good as Canon L macro, but cost a lot less than that...