Dorman wrote in post #10977081
Just thinking out loud and always appreciate the insight from others...
I currently have a 5D + 30D and my lenses consist of the 17-40L, 70-200 F/4 IS L, and 100mm Macro (non-IS/non-IS). I have a local photographer who is interested in purchasing the macro and 70-200, and this has got me thinking about what I want from my setup, and therefore considering some changes.
I am considering letting those lenses go as I am not much into macro work, and I am not a heavy telephoto user - I also find F/4 to be a bit limiting. I am looking to add some lenses in the focal lengths I prefer to work in, and really want to add some speed to my bag.
I have owned the 24-70L in the past, and feel that it is a versatile performer with very good IQ. I do have lust for the 35L + 135L but I am not experienced with many primes and I'm not sure if I will miss the flexibility offered by the zooms.
Shooting is mostly landscape, stock, travel, and abstract, some street + environmental portraiture, and if the wife has her way in the near future, my family.
Here is what I am thinking:
17-40L, 24-70 F/2.8L, 135mm F/2L [add the 24-70L later]
17-40L, 35mm F/1.4L, 135mm F/2L [add the 35L later]
Keep the 17-40L for sure, considering what you do with it. Fine lens for, amongst others, WA landscape, travel.
The 135L is an incredible lens, and personally I found that after I got the 135L, I stopped shooting the 70-200 F/4L IS completely. I do have an Extender 1/4X, however, so if I need a bit longer, I have it available. Obviously, as you have a 30D, in a way that could serve as an extender as well. BTW, it is an excellent lens for (semi)macro too, so no need to feel you miss the 100 macro either: just add a few extension tubes. You may actually be surprised. And yes, I sold my 100 macro too after getting the 135L. I am cheating a little bit however, as I do still have and plan to keep the MP-E 65.
Now, for the 24-70L. If you still plan to shoot any weddings, I would get it if I were you, and look at your flickr. You will probably like it for that, and possible for family shoots.
Regarding the 35L, the question really is whether you do like 35mm as a FL well enough to use it instead of a 24-70L. First of all, there seem to be those who love 35 mm, and those who just don't gel with it. However, this is also true for the alternatives, namely 24L and/or 50L. Considering you have/had a gap between 40 and 70 I reckon you won't go for a 50L very likely, so that leaves the 24L or 35L instead of a 24-70L. These lenses do allw well for street, and environmental portraits. For family I would personally prefer a shorter and a longer lens, where 135L may be a little long, even on the 5D, and either 24L or 35L will do fine (as does the 24-70L).
The 17-40L has a geometrical midpoint of 26 mm, IOW, close to 24 mm and hence a 24L, the 24-70 has a geometrical midpoint of 41 mm, hence relatively close to 35 mm, and therefore a 35L.
So, three questions remain: do you need F/1.4 or is F/2.8 more than enough for you, do you need the flexibility of a zoom or not, and do you think you gel with 35 mm as an FL?
I think it is obvious where the answers to these questions will lead .
Kind regards, Wim