need to round out the lens selection...your thoughts

I know these posts tend to get tedious, but I think it's helpful to get input from such a varied group of folks.

I shoot a variety of subjects, but do favor outdoor and nature photography. While a 500/4 would be sweet it is not in the cards right now so don't tease me with that suggestion.

Most shooting will be on a 1.3 crop. These are my current lenses:

20-35/2.8 (auto focus just died)
28/2.8 (ollllld)
35-70/3.5-4.5 (also ollllld)
80-200/2.8 (the drainpipe chugs along after 20 years of service)
100-400/4.5-5.6

I feel I need a wide angle option that will work on the 1.3 crop as well as a better walk-around lens. Perhaps a fast zoom or a very fast prime.

Some lenses I've been eyeing:
14/2.8
24/1.4
35/1.4
50/1.4
11-16/2.8 (Tokina...11-12mm NA w/ 1.3 crop)
24-70/2.8
85/1.8

Realistically I can only get two...possibly adding a third, the 50, to the mix since it is not too costly.

Thoughts and insights?
Thanks guys and gals!

FL PHOTO wrote in post #8907171
I shoot a variety of subjects, but do favor outdoor and nature photography.

Nature as in landscape? 17-40/4 or 16-35/2.8. IQ is pretty much a wash, so if you don't need f/2.8 you can save yourself some money towards additional lenses by going for the 17-40. And the fact that you'll be stopping down for landscapes most of the time makes for an easy decision.

If you want to go prime, then the 24/1.4 II is a great contender.

rvdw98 wrote in post #8907512
Nature as in landscape? 17-40/4 or 16-35/2.8. IQ is pretty much a wash, so if you don't need f/2.8 you can save yourself some money towards additional lenses by going for the 17-40. And the fact that you'll be stopping down for landscapes most of the time makes for an easy decision.

If you want to go prime, then the 24/1.4 II is a great contender.

This is exactly why I made the post. For whatever reason I was overlooking the 17-40/4. This could be a very good choice for me. Thanks!

OK, after further study I'm looking at the following:
Tokina 11-16/2.8 (usable 16-21 FF equiv)
EF 24-105/4
EF 50/1.4

I like the 17-40, but feel the FL is not enough of a difference from the 20-35 I have.
It seems the 24-105 would be a great walk-around lens on a 1.3.
The 50 should make a good portrait general low-light shooter.

Thoughts?

Did you consider the Sigma 12-24?

rvdw98 wrote in post #8913324
Did you consider the Sigma 12-24?

I don't know much about it. I've used the Tokina 11-16 and found it to be a great piece. What are your experiences with the Sigma?

I'm quite satisfied with it. When looking for an UWA solution, I wanted to make sure that I could still use it to its full extent after I went FF. And the 12-24 now performs admirably on my 5D2.

Here's a review: http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …es/sigma_12-24_review.htm

rvdw98 wrote in post #8913549
I'm quite satisfied with it. When looking for an UWA solution, I wanted to make sure that I could still use it to its full extent after I went FF. And the 12-24 now performs admirably on my 5D2.

Here's a review: http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …es/sigma_12-24_review.htm

Interesting. I wasn't aware that this lens was made for FF. I too may get a FF one day so this is a selling point. I'll have a look at your review.

FL PHOTO wrote in post #8913571
Interesting. I wasn't aware that this lens was made for FF. I too may get a FF one day so this is a selling point. I'll have a look at your review.

It's the widest rectilinear option for FF.

The review isn't mine though. I just happen to appreciate the guy's perspective on photography and gear.