SchnellerGT wrote in post #10371728
I have been agonizing for months over what lenses to buy for my 5DII.
I made the decision to sell my 70-200 F4L IS (sale still pending).
At this point, I am debating these two options in the end:
#15DII
17-40 F4L
24-105 F4L IS
Sigma 50 1.4
135 F2L
OR
#25DII
17-40 F4L
24-105 F4L IS
35 1.4L
85 1.8
Option #2 is about $250 more than #1.
I unfortunately cannot swing BOTH the 35L and 135L at this time.
I went back and once again analyzed various photo shoots over the years and noticed that while I was mostly using two EFS zooms (10-22 and 17-55), I often saw three "spikes" in the
35mm-equivalent focal length graphs. These being around 30mm, 50mm, and 90mm. Of these three spikes, I shot mostly around 50mm and then 30mm and finally 90mm, in that order. Remember, I did not have any actual primes and was using a combo of EFS lenses and just so happened to stop quite often on these three focal lengths in 35mm terms.
(See sample graph below.)
I came to realize that the 70-200 mostly sat in my bag and was often only used at the 200mm (320mm effective) range. Meaning, I should probably some day look into the EF 300 F4L IS, but this is not something I want to do at this time.
Once again, I am looking for a versatile, light-weight bag of 4 lenses that will allow me to do a lot of indoor and outdoor portraits, candids, group photos, etc.
Any comments?
Based on your graph, I'd say you used the 10-22 mostly at 10 mm, 16 mm FF equivalent, as this graph adjusted for FF indeed indicates. That means the 17-40L is more than adequate, as from my experience the 17-40L gives better results on FF than the 10-22 on APS-C.
The next large range is 27-110, and again, that being FF equivalent, the 24-105 should cater for that range extremely well.
So far for the zooms.
Regarding your other requirements, 50, 30 and 90 mm, in that order, I would personally get lenses in that particular order too in your case.
However, personally I found with FF that my shooting habits changed going from APS-C to FF. To a degree that also follows from the quality of the glass used, but mostly because somehow different glass, FL and IQ-wise, may "feel" better than similar glass, AOV wise, on APS-C.
So, rather than suggest either option 1 or 2, I'd suggest another option, and maybe even two 
.
Option #3:
5D II
17-40L
24-105L
28 F/1.8
50 F/1.4 or Sigma 50 F/1.4
85 F/1.8
This would give you time to establish wheter you really like these lenses or not, before committing larger amounts of money to them. And this would cover all of your most used AoVs. You could even get the primes used, if you like, and not lose any money at all when selling them on later. BTW, those three primes form a great low light set-up too.
Option #4:
5D II
17-40L
24-70L
85 F/1.8
135L
Faster standard zoom, which with the 5D II still provides good low light possibilities, and DoF control, with additional 85 F/1.8 (or even 100 F/2 if you like) for portraiture, and the 135L for portraits and candids. Possibly get an extender for the 135L, to shoot at 189 mm F/2.8 without any visible loss of IQ.
The thing is that F/2.8 on FF gives you about the same DoF as a lens with the same AoV on APS-C at an aperture of approximately F/1.6, so you gain here anyway, and since the 5D II has great high iso, you don't loose there either.
Of course this is still not a very light setup as the 24-70L is rather heavy .
Anyway, just my 2c.
Kind regards, Wim
