what lenses to buy to complement 24- 105 mm L kit lens

I am thinking of getting the following:
a) zoom telephoto- now narrowed to either the new Sigma 50-500 mm OS Bigma or Canon dust pump 100- 400 mm F4 zoom- for airshow, wild life and moon shots etc...(could even save to get a used Canon 70-200mm F 2.8 IS for low light grandkids indoor school programs and not carry the big 400 or 500 zooms)

b) what would be a good wide L lens zoom to go below 24 mm, or if I get the 70- 200mm to go below 70 or 50 mm if I get the Bigma for city (no tilt lens please) and landscapes and family photos.....thanks

tonyniev wrote in post #9675822
I am thinking of getting the following:
a) zoom telephoto- now narrowed to either the new Sigma 50-500 mm OS Bigma or Canon dust pump 100- 400 mm F4 zoom- for airshow, wild life and moon shots etc...(could even save to get a used Canon 70-200mm F 2.8 IS for low light grandkids indoor school programs and not carry the big 400 or 500 zooms)

b) what would be a good wide L lens zoom to go below 24 mm, or if I get the 70- 200mm to go below 70 or 50 mm if I get the Bigma for city (no tilt lens please) and landscapes and family photos.....thanks

a) I love my 100-400 for it's range and if you are thinking of pairing a 2X TC with the 70-200 f2.8 to get yourself to 400mm...you might not like the resulting IQ straight outta the camera with no PP.
But beware the 100-400 is f/5.6 on the far end (f4 - f/5.6)...not fun in dim light even though you can push your 5DII pretty far on ISO...still not fun.

I have not had any issues with dust on the 100-400 and have used it in dusty desert situations. At least it doesn't show in the resulting pics.

b) If you want to stick to f/4...the 17-40L f/4 is a great lens for going wide with your 5DII. It's filter size is still 77mm like most L's including your 24-105 and the 100-400.
An alternative is the 16-35 f/2.8 L it is faster so you can shoot lower light with out jacking the ISO as far as the 17-40 (ie: dimly lit roller skating rinks, concerts etc) However...the latest version of the 16-35 is the MKII...and Canon bumped up the filter size to 83mm.
You want a shocker...go price out a quality circular polarizer that is very low profile (so no vignetting) in 83mm size. And that's too big for most L glass

Or you could spill the lot's of bucks on a variable ND, a graduated ND and a quality C-pl filter all in 83mm size and low profile as well. And then just get step up rings for your 24-105 and what ever else you buy for your long lens.

BTW...the first gen of the 16-35 f/2.8 was still the regular 77mm filter size but in certain orientations it would produce some flaring...thus the MK II model.

Have fun deciding.

This "dust pump" nonsense is just that...nonsense. The 100-400 is the Ideal air-show lens. The other question is answered by my decision that is in my sig. However, the ultimate decision is up to you...how you shoot...what you shoot...what YOU are comfortable with. Most of the replies in this forum are "use what I have...it's AWESOME!!!" Only you can decide what is best for you.

Thanks KCMO and Rang...good points...will help me much,

Rang I have an M6 Film camera and a G type see here;

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I'm in the same boat you are. The 17-40 looks good and reviews well, but I'm wondering about how useful the f/4 will be, especially since most of that range is covered by the low end of the 24-105 (though as well? not sure. I wonder if the 30 on the 17-40 is sharper than the 30 on the 24-105).

The 24 prime doesn't seem practical, and the 16-35 is a lot of money to commit with the range and larger filter size, but the 2.8 would be quite nice.

mrturtle wrote in post #9677757
I'm in the same boat you are. The 17-40 looks good and reviews well, but I'm wondering about how useful the f/4 will be, especially since most of that range is covered by the low end of the 24-105 (though as well? not sure. I wonder if the 30 on the 17-40 is sharper than the 30 on the 24-105).

The 24 prime doesn't seem practical, and the 16-35 is a lot of money to commit with the range and larger filter size, but the 2.8 would be quite nice.

2.8 is tempting but as you said lots of moolah...anyway all these new announcements is also delaying my actual purchase...so telephoto in spring and wide by summer.

I like the 35 f1.4 L to compliment the 24-105. I find 24mm wide enough for me, but at times I want that wider aperture that only the prime can provide while still having the zoom for the range and convenience.

I would get the 70-200 2.8. I find that I use that lens so much in just walk around.

LinnBoyd wrote in post #9679312
I would get the 70-200 2.8. I find that I use that lens so much in just walk around.

Really? I would have thought that would be too big/heavy to walk around. I'd been thinking about a 70-200 f/4 IS to compliment the 24-105 b/c I'd not heard of someone using the 2.8 as a walk around.

Another vote here for the 70-200 2.8 ... awesome lense especially on a FF body.

Not sure I'd class it as a walkaround lense either ... but I do know I use it alot.

I get awesome airshow shots with my 100-400.

NeutronBoy wrote in post #9679718
I get awesome airshow shots with my 100-400.

HI I used to live in Babylon and went to the air show in the north end before Matittuck, and for the last few years the avaition week here at Nellis , home of the airforce Thunderbirds. I even had a chance to see a VIP show and my military friend took me to the vantage point of shooting at the runway...have been using my Rebel xsi and 70- 300 cheapo zoom...so I am excited and look forward to taking air show shots in Nov with a new lens. I also have occassions to take shots at Miramar home of navy Top Gun.
I do not miss the long island winter

Wide? 17-40, 16-35.

Long? 70-200, 100-400, 150-500.

Considering you have a 5DII I'd consider a 16-35L f/2.8 or the 17-40L f/4.

zoom-telephoto
Depends on how much length you really need. I have the 70-200 and with the 1.4X am very satisfied with the pictures at 200/280. If this is as long as you need I think the 70-200 2.8 for indoors plus with the 1.4 for outdoors would be a great combo. I read so many posts stating the 70-200 with the 2X did not produce good resulsts, I did not pursue that option. If you really need more than 280mm then there are many discussion on what the best way is to get to 400.