Complete lens kit for every situation?

Hey all,

I've had my 300D with kit lens for about 6 months now and recently bought a 90-300mm and have been on a sharp learning curve ever since....

I'm going to ask the question that's probably been asked a 100 times before but it'd be great if I could get your opinions....

I'm looking for ideas on a lens kit of only 4 lenses that would cater for (hopefully) every situation... So what do you reckon? How about replying with 2 kit suggestions? One on a budget and then another which is a "wish" list as it were? like below?

Budget Suggestion
Lens xxx - Uses = Portraits, Sport and Wild Life, and xxx?
Lens xxx - Uses = Macro and Portraits, and xxx?
Lens xxx - Uses = General walkabout lens, and xxx?
Lens xxx - Uses = Fisheye Shots, and xxx?


Wish List Suggestion
Lens xxx - Uses = Portraits, Sport and Wild Life, and xxx?
Lens xxx - Uses = Macro and Portraits, and xxx?
Lens xxx - Uses = General walkabout lens, and xxx?
Lens xxx - Uses = Fisheye Shots, and xxx?

I know I'm asking a lot but I think it would be very useful for me and many others if some of you with more experience could take the time to reply to this topic.

Thanks in advance....

Oooh, sounds like fun, we like to spend other peoples money Covering the whole range with 4 good lenses is a bit difficult, make it 5 and that's do-able.

Budget List:
- 50mm F1.8
- Tamron 28-75 F2.8
- Sigma or Tamron macro lens, around 100mm
- 70-200 F4L
- Wide angle (I don't know anything about these)

That'd cover you for most situations I think.

Wish List:
- 85mm F1.2L, fast, sharp, and good in low light, portraits
- Canon 24-70 F2.8L (think I got those numbers right) - great standard lens
- Canon 100mm macro
- 100-400L or 70-200 F2.8 IS depending on needs
- Wide angle - again no idea.

That should get you pretty nice pics if you know how to use the camera

Mine are in my sig, I'll add the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS when I can afford it. And after that, it's time to upgrade the camera.

Since the Kit lens cover the wide angle part. The List is basicly the same as Tim's, the advantage of Tim's list ishis will get you allot better Bokeh (I think that is how you spell it) with 85 f/1.2L

50 f/1.8
24-85 f/3.5-4.5
70-200 f/4
100 f/2.8 macro

16-35 f/2.8L
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
100 f/2.8 Macro

Fisheye is not practical because of the lens factor of 1.6. And if you have money leftover don't forget the 1200 f/5.6L (requires special order) my best guess its about $45,000. I think it comes w/ a hernia belt.

Lostdoggy,

I'm sorry, your bet is a bit off.
The official price for the 1200/5.6 (on the German Canon website) is EUR 105,000 (~US$ 120,000), so I assume it would be around US$ 100,000 with the different price levels in the US.

My list would be:
Canon EF 85/1.8 for sports/portrait
Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI for portraits/walkabout
Canon EF 70-200/4.0 for portraits/walkabout/wi​ldlife
Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro for macro/portraits

If you only want to use 4 lenses (we made it 5, including your EF-S 18-55), then I definitely would not dally with a fisheye lens, as it would lose its novelty factor for me after 3 weeks (maybe different for you).

Best regards,
Andy

17-40L
50 1.4
85 1.8 (or 100 macro if thay interests you)
70-200Lf4
1.4x extender

Whilst these can be considered expensive, they are relatively good value. The wide can be replaced by the 16-35L and the others can be purchased in faster versions, but this gets you up and running over a large spectrum. I added the 85 for a low light portrait lens if you need closer than 50, but could be omitted for now to save even more of your money. You could add a 24-70L for a walk about lens if you were feeling flush or opt for the Tamron 27-75 which gets good reviews.

The good thing is that all these will hold their value really well. Should you wish to upgrade later, it won't be too painful. Also Canon do not bring lenses out too often, whereas the third party manufacturers seem to change more regularly. Perhaps that is why the Canons are so sought after. Buying second hand should not be discounted either if you are not in a real hurry.

That's my take, but it depends on whether it's a hobby or for business.

Graham

My thing is best quality at the best value ... and I am happy to lose that last 5% of wish list performance while gaining a very sexy 40% of budget value Buying second hand can just about enable wish list at budget prices so the idea of budget and wishlist doesn't appeal to me.

So, am happy with my Sig. tho' I want to add a Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro once I locate one at the right price and will probably change something at the long end of my range at the end of the year. Maybe swap the 100-300 F4 for a Sigma 80-400mm OS as I'll probably need the OS/IS then ... I'd consider the 100-400 IS too at the right price. Ultra wide doesn't interest me. My Tokina is very nice for the wider range I want and one of my very best SH bargain buys!

I'd go for a 20D before I went for more lenses now.

I'll just chip in for the wish list:
70-200L IS = Sport + Wild Life + Portraits
180mm f/3.5 L = Macro
24-70L = General walkabout lens
14mm f/2.8 L = Wide angle / Fisheye Shots

Them four lens ain't 'nuff... but it covers pretty much every situation.

14mm should be better than 16-35L, probably sharper and obviously wider. The 180 macro gives you better working distance than shorter ones plus, it's an L.

Ok, trying to cover a lot with 4 lenses: 3 quality zooms (I'm thinking about my 20D, of course): 10-22 efs, 28-75 Tamrom, 70-200/4 L. 4th lens would either be: the 50/1.8 if we are leaning toward low light/indoors/port. OR 100/2.8 macro if you want macro OR the 300/4 L IS for more reach (wildlife, and such) off the end of the zooms. Does the 1.4x count as a lens?

Well until 10 days ago i had a 16-35 a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8. My next lens was going to be the 70-200 F 2.8L IS which would be very good 4 lens combo. But as i was not blown away by the 16-35 at 2.8, i sent it back meaning i have some more thinking to do, or at least having a look at another copy which i'm thinking of doing

I jokingly say I can do it in two lenses
16-35 and 35-350 (if can find one used)

The wish list is
16-35/2.8L (get this one last as you have kit lens)
24-70/2.8L
70-200/2.8L IS
and either 50/1.4 or 85/1.2 (for very low light occasions)

Add a couple of teleextenders and an extension tube and you should have it made.
The fifth lens would be the 100-400L or the 10-22 EF-s if using APS-C (1.6x) format.

But the wish list four will cover 99% of the likely situations and 90% of the reasonable situations. You would need a Tilt-shift, a fish-eye and the really long lenses to cover those extra possibilities.

BTW: The 1200mm lens has two lareg handles and so I figure if you can afford the lens you can afford the two lackeys to carry it for you. Although every picture I have seen of one, there was just the one photographer carrying it around.

I can't do it in four lenses and stay cheap.
20-35 General walkabout lens
16mm Zenitar fisheye for ultrawide
50/2.5 Compact Macro for portraits and macro
Here's where it gets tricky. The Canon 100-300 might be okay here, but there really is nothing in the telephoto zoom range that I can confidently recommend below the 70-200/4L. To stay cheap, then, I would buy an M42 adaptor, a Jupiter 85/2, a Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135/3.5 and an old Pentax Takumar 200mm lens. On a tight budget, you have to choose between convenience and image quality. These lenses will produce superior image quality when carefully used, and total half the price of the 70-200.

The total cost of this list would be less than $1000, and with the ability to produce excellent image quality over a range of situations.

Here, you can afford convenience:
70-200/4L for portraits, sports and wildlife. I've used mine for all three.
100/2.8 Macro, which makes a decent portrait lens, too, but my wish list would (and does) also include the 85/1.8 and the 50/1.4. The 24-70L does not replace these lenses in any way--it's too slow.
17-40L for general walking around.
I'd have a good ultrawide zoom before the fisheye, but the Zenitar is cheap so I would have both. If you can accept EF-S, the 10-22 and the Zenitar fisheye; if (like me) you can't, the Sigma EX12-24 and the Zenitar fisheye.

Choosing from that last, a reasonable selection would be north of $3000.

I just don't think I'm doing much wishing if I have to limit it to four lenses.

Here's my ultimate wish list with no limitations:

14mm Canon wide
15mm Canon fisheye
17-40/4L zoom
24mm/2.8L Tilt/Shift
24-70/2.8L
50/1.4
50/2.5 Macro for copy work
85/1.8
100/2.8 Macro for field work
135/2L
70-200/4L (small and light means a lot to me, especially if I'm carrying this many lenses!)
100-400/5.6L

My current list:
14mm Sigma EX
12-24mm Sigma EX
16mm Zenitar fisheye
20-35 Canon USM
28-70/2.8 Sigma EX
50/2.5 Macro (for copy work)
50/1.4 Super Takumar (adapted M42) (I use this wide open only.)
85/2 Jupiter (M42) (I'd much rather have the 85/1.8 for ergonomic reasons)
70-200/4L
135/3.5 Zeiss Jena Sonnar (M42)
135/2.8 Soft Focus (the one lens in my collection that really annoys me)
1.4 Canon teleconverter
180/2.8 Zeiss Jena Sonnar (adapted from Pentacon Six mount)
300/4 Zeiss Jena Sonnar (P6)
500/5.6 Pentacon Prakticar (P6)

As you can see, I do a lot of manual focusing, heh, heh. And I have strong arms (that Prakticar totally violates my liking of small and light lenses, and so to the P6 Sonnars, for that matter). But this collection gives me a lot of options with good image quality if I don't mind a bit less convenience.

Rick "for whom the 85/1.8 is the next priority and the 100-400 after that, but who would rather save for the new Pentax 645 digital camera" Denney