# New lenses ($6800 budget)



## Goldeneye (Jan 3, 2014)

Hello fellow Canon-owners,

After holding all Canon bodies in my hands at the store, I have settled for a Canon 70D. The fullframe ones were just too large for my small hands.
Now I’m looking to invest in some quality glass, and I could really use some help.


My budget is around €5000,- ($6800) for 5 lenses in total. Even though with this amount of money I could go FF, I still don’t like the body size! Lens discussion only please 

Lens 1:
A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
I can work with the 50mm, but also the 85 and so on, so I just need 1 that is the best.

Lens 2:
A mid-range zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
Everything below 20mm to above 40mm is fine.

Lens 3:
A decent lens for macro between 85 and 100mm. I don’t have a preference for the aperture here.

Lens 4:
I have the 18-135, but I don’t find that sharp enough. I do like the zoom range though. Is there anything that comes close to the range, but sharper?

Lens 5:
A zoom that goes beyond 250/300mm. If that is achieved by a teleconverter that is fine by me, if that gives me better results.


Just a few notes:
- I don’t mind used lenses. If a great piece of glass is discontinued I’m more than happy to search the internet.
- Stabilized lenses don’t matter to me, I have steady hands.
- Autofocus is nice, but manual focus lenses are also welcome.
- I’m not a brand-whore. So I don’t care if the lenses are from Canon or a third party like Carl Zeiss. As long as the quality is good.

Some extra info:

With my current lenses I do this:

50mm 1.8: portraits, but also some macro. However I find that for macro it's too short in focal length.

18-135: I use this pretty much all of the time. But with the 70D the quality is bad to be honest.

70-300: I use this at festivals and at the zoo. I'm often at 250/300mm.

Before this I had a Canon 550D, so I already know how to work with them. With the new ones I just like to improve the sharpness of my shots and make use off all the 20 megapixels in the camera. So it is not like I just want to burn some cash, I think I really need those 5 lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 3, 2014)

Are you serious? $6800 in lenses for a 70D? You need to balance the quality of the body with the type of lenses. I'd not spend $6800 on lenses for a consumer grade crop body.

The 70D is a good body, but keep things in balance. Do get some good lighting and software. Light is the essence of photography.
You should be able to do very well buying reasonable lenses for a 70D for considerably less.

A 10-22mm ef-s, a 17-55mm ef-s would be a good start. If you want telephoto, consider a 70-300mm L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2014)

Goldeneye said:



> Lens discussion only please



Well, I would have done so…but then, you stated:



Goldeneye said:


> I have the 18-135, but I don’t find that sharp enough….
> 
> With the new ones I just like to improve the sharpness of my shots and make use off all the 20 megapixels in the camera.



For the same size output, you need to enlarge the image from an APS-C image much more, and you pay the price for that extra enlargement in reduced sharpness. 

If you really want to make the most of all the megapixels in your camera, get a FF body. The 6D isn't much bigger than the 70D.

I agree with Mt. Spokane that a 17-55/2.8, and 70-300L (or 100-400L if you want more than 300mm) will work well on the 70D. Add a 100L Macro and you'd be pretty much set

But a 6D + 24-70/2.8L II will blow away the 70D plus any f/2.8 zoom or fast prime for IQ. Get the 100L Macro, the 70-30L or 100-400L, and if you like 85mm on APS-C, get the 135/2L for FF. Done.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2014)

Restricting to lens only suggestions.

1: 50 f1.2, $1,450, it will get the high end kick out of your system and be markedly different from your 1.8, the 85 is too close to the best macro choice, the 100.

2: 17-55 f2.8, $779, great lens.

3: 100L IS Macro, $1,000, but recently on sale for as low as $720.

4: 70-300L ($1,600) and a 1.4TC ($429) for when you really do want a touch more. For compatibility see here. Or the 100-400 ($1,560) but it could well be upgraded this year, hah hah, just like every year for the last eternity!.


----------



## ahab1372 (Jan 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> 4: 70-300L ($1,600) and a 1.4TC ($429) for when you really do want a touch more. For compatibility see here. Or the 100-400 ($1,560) but it could well be upgraded this year, hah hah, just like every year for the last eternity!.



I think that was Lens 5 the OP asked for . (Edit: or it was added later)

For lens 4, you could consider the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, but I'm not sure you really want both the 17-55 and the 15-85. If you have the current 18-135, the difference in sharpness might be less than visible in most shots.
I'd decide on one of the three and spend the rest of the money on something else (tripod, lighting, filters, travel, dining, drinks, theater, museums etc)


----------



## anthonyd (Jan 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Are you serious? $6800 in lenses for a 70D? You need to balance the quality of the body with the type of lenses. I'd not spend $6800 on lenses for a consumer grade crop body.



Yes, he's serious and he's making sense too. Good lenses are going to last him ten years, or more, if he's careful with them. The body - any body - will be old news in three. Even the latest 5D won't look good three-four years down the line. Not in the hands of someone that can burn $7K on lenses just like that anyway.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Do get some good lighting and software. Light is the essence of photography.



+1 on this, I couldn't agree more.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You should be able to do very well buying reasonable lenses for a 70D for considerably less.
> 
> A 10-22mm ef-s, a 17-55mm ef-s would be a good start. If you want telephoto, consider a 70-300mm L.



Again, I don't agree with this. He is not buying the lenses _for_ the 70D. He is buying lenses. The 70D is the body he'll be using until he feels that it's not adequate any more.
While the 17-55 is a good lens, I would recommend the 24-70 f/2.8 II since you offer the 10-22 to cover the wide end (and there is room in the budget). Not only does the 24-70 offer better IQ, but if (when) the OP switches to full frame, he will not have to buy new lenses.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Are you serious?  $6800 in lenses for a 70D? You need to balance the quality of the body with the type of lenses. I'd not spend $6800 on lenses for a consumer grade crop body.
> 
> The 70D is a good body, but keep things in balance. Do get some good lighting and software. Light is the essence of photography.
> You should be able to do very well buying reasonable lenses for a 70D for considerably less.
> ...



+1....a bit unbalance. It's true that lens is more important than body. However, with $6800 I would start with FF and some L lenses.


----------



## gigabellone (Jan 4, 2014)

1) I think your 50/1.8 is good enough. If you're after large apertures, get either the 50 or the 85 1.2 L. The 85 is a better lens, but it might be slightly long on a crop sensor.

2) The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a decent performer at a bargain price (300€). If you want image stabilization and faster focus, i would suggest the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS USM.

3) The Canon 100/2.8 Macro USM is a good lens at a fair price (around 500€). The 100 Macro L IS features a stabilizer, weather sealing and rounded aperture blades for 800€ (with 100€ rebate in Italy, check your local Canon site). For double that price you can get the Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar.

4) I'm afraid there is nothing similar for crop sensor. The 24-105/4 is slightly better, but its wide end it's not that wide on crop cameras.

5) You already have the 70-300. If you want a longer zoom, the 100-400 is your only choice. If you want bigger apertures, you must blow your entire budget on a big white prime, like the 300/2.8.


----------



## leGreve (Jan 4, 2014)

Seriously.... I dont get it.

Anyways, glass will last, bodies will not.

At that price Id go solely for premium glass like Zeiss. The Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 is probably the best dslr lens around now and most likely worth the price if you know what you are doing.

Apart from that check out dxomark and see his reco for the 7D.

But hey... Dont get the 7D, its not that great anymore. Sony cams are worth checking out too. And Samsung are about to release a dslr s well. Dont fall blind to the Canon hype. If I was choosing today I wouldnt go directly to Canon.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jan 4, 2014)

Dispose the D70 idea and get a FF 6D or 5D3. If size the matter get a 40 STM, however I don't think body size will be a big issue with the lenses in consideration as most of the weight and bulk will be from the lenses not the body itself.


----------



## DaveMiko (Jan 4, 2014)

Goldeneye said:


> Hello fellow Canon-owners,
> 
> After holding all Canon bodies in my hands at the store, I have settled for a Canon 70D. The fullframe ones were just too large for my small hands.
> Now I’m looking to invest in some quality glass, and I could really use some help.
> ...



I say sell the 70D. With the 5000 EUR get the 1DX. With the proceeds from the sale of the 70D and a few hundred more EUR get the 24-70 f2.8 II and you've got yourself an awesome combo!


----------



## Dick (Jan 4, 2014)

Ok, the 6D would have been small. But as for lenses for crop:

1) 17-55 IS USM - When it comes to standard zooms for crop, this one is what you want.
2) 100L - Absolutely nothing wrong with this lens. You get both close-up shots and standard 100mm (160mm) shots. The focusing speed isn't for sports, but you don't buy the lens for that purpose.

That would be around 2k spent in Europe.

3) Fast primes
4) Wide angle
5) Tele

Which ever you need the most... 3k gets you somewhere. I would get a 35mm + 85mm combo for FF. Maybe the same for crop too.


----------



## Artifex (Jan 4, 2014)

DaveMiko said:


> Goldeneye said:
> 
> 
> > Hello fellow Canon-owners,
> ...



I am not sure the 1DX would be the best choice, considering the OP stated he wanted a small body and the 1DX can hardly be considered small! For me, the 6D would be a better choice; it is significantly smaller and lighter and have similar picture quality (though not equal). Moreover, the main benefit of the 1DX don't seems to be very important for the OP; he mentioned he didn't mind MF lens, so the much better AF might not be so useful for him. Also, he never mentioned the importance of weather sealing or burst speed.

For the macro lens, I can say that the 100L is just about as good as it gets. If you want something cheaper, which doesn't seems to be the case, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 VC seems to be a very nice substitute for the more expensive but slightly better 100L.

In a more personal note, I have that being in the OP situation, I wouldn't rush and buy 4-5 lens at the same time. I personally prefer buying one lens at a time; that way, I can see what type of lens I am missing and what shoot I can't take because of it. Starting with minimal gear not only helps you master what you have and becoming better with it, but it also helps you differencing what you WANT from what you NEED. This, however, is just my point of view.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 4, 2014)

too many choices eh?
save some of that to travel, or better yet, rent a few combos before the plunge.
What kind of photography you want to do? that's the most important question to yourself.
example:
Travel set - FF body like the 6D plus 24-70 mk2, 70-200 mk1 is, and maybe the rokinon 14mm
Take a Trip to Iceland, and enjoy the new toys


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 4, 2014)

Goldeneye said:


> Hello fellow Canon-owners,
> 
> Lens 1:
> A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
> ...



1. EF 50 1.4 
2. EFS 17-55
3. EF 100L Macro
4. EF 70-200L mk II
5.0. 1.4 teleconverter III
5.5. 2.0 teleconverter III

I don't know of a 18-135 alternative.


----------



## nvsravank (Jan 4, 2014)

Goldeneye said:


> Hello fellow Canon-owners,
> 
> My budget is around €5000,- ($6800) for 5 lenses in total. Even though with this amount of money I could go FF, I still don’t like the body size! Lens discussion only please
> 
> ...



Lens 1: 85 L ($2k)
Lens 2: 24-70L find the mk 1 lens used. It is sharp enough for the 70d and you can grow into ff. 
Lens 3: 100 buy the non L lens. If you are not really interested in hand held macro, the is is not very useful and saves some $ for the 70-200
Lens 4: 70-200 L IS f2.8. This is again $2k
Lens 5: 1.4x converter

For the wide end is would suggest 10-22 ef-s

This will give a good range with only one lens away from a full frame set.


----------



## candc (Jan 5, 2014)

for the 70d i think the best 2 lens kit is:

sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and sigma 50-150 f/2.8 you can use tc's to get longer if you want. 

if you are wanting ff then maybe the 24-70ii or maybe the 24-70 f/4 (it has macro built in) and the 70-300l would make a super 2 lens kit

if you want you can get a macro or other prime but you can cover just about all that you are describing that you want with those 2 kits. if you want ultra wide or super telephoto then you need more

p.s. what i use on the 70d is the sigma 8-16, sigma 18-35, canon ef-s 60 macro, sigma 120-300 sport, and canon 1.4xiii and 2xiii. that covers just about everything with really good iq


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 5, 2014)

I strongly recommend that you do not purchase 5 lenses when getting started in photography. Even if you are already knowledgeable (say moving from Nikon) I still highly recommend that you stick with two lenses and hold the rest of your budget for later. The following are my reasons

- You aren't exactly sure what you enjoy photographing the most
- Lenses are complicated beasts. You need to spend a lot of time with a lens to understand its capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses.
- Some lenses (such as macro) require specific genre expertise that will require significant time themselves
- When trying to fit things in a budget, you may compromise on lenses that will frustrate you and be more difficult to sell

In terms of which lenses to buy, that depends on what you most want to photograph. Personally I would probably pick up a 70-200/2.8 II + 24-70 2.8 II - which would cover a very fair range.


----------



## RC (Jan 5, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> I strongly recommend that you do not purchase 5 lenses when getting started in photography. Even if you are already knowledgeable (say moving from Nikon) I still highly recommend that you stick with two lenses and hold the rest of your budget for later....


I think that is excellent advice.


I know you are asking only for lens advice but I would really consider something like this:

$6800 lens budget plus $1200 cost of 70D (B&H) = $8000

5D mk III - $3300
24-70 II - $2000
70-200 II - $2200

Total cost after rebates $7,500

The 5D3 might be more than you need but this really is a dream setup if you've got the budget and it serves your needs.

Later use the $500 towards the 100L Macro and if you buy from B&H, you will have a bunch of points which might make up the difference.

Also:
Consider renting a larger camera (5D) for a weekend and see if it really is too large for your small hands. If it is, then maybe the 6D is an option. Either way, I'd take a hard look a FF bodies before finalizing on the 70D.

Good luck


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 5, 2014)

My suggestions.

1: 50mm f1.2, as you already referred to this focal lenght, this is one of the best options for portraiture in APS-C and low light.

2: 17-55 f2.8 or 15-85mm will give you a boost in your IQ. If you move to FF, the suggestions is 24-70 f2.8L II.

3: 100L IS Macro is the best macro lens.

4: 70-300L renders a beautiful IQ and it's a good all around lng zoom but, I replaced it by the combo 70-200mm f2.8L IS II + 1.4X TC to get benefit from the large aperture and sharpness of this lens. I ramdonly found myself using a lens with focal range longer than 200mm in APS-C.

I am considering getting the Canon 6D as well due to its low light capabilities and limited budget.


----------



## preppyak (Jan 5, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> I strongly recommend that you do not purchase 5 lenses when getting started in photography. Even if you are already knowledgeable (say moving from Nikon) I still highly recommend that you stick with two lenses and hold the rest of your budget for later.


I agree with this as advice; it sounds like you've got a few things you photography regularly, so upgrading those is probably smart. But assuming the 70D is exactly what you'll want in a year, and spending $7k on lenses supporting that might not be the wisest choice.

So, based on what you currently shoot, it seems like the 70-200 f/2.8L II is a good bet. It covers the longer half of the 18-135 range and gets you up to 400mm w/ TC. Sharp, great for portraits. You could also buy the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and have that combo be as sharp as possible. A Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 would cover the wide end if you really wanted it (as 18mm vs 24mm isn't as big as 10mm vs 18mm in difference).



Reality is that if body size is a concern, maybe the Sony A7 is up your alley. Or if you havent actually picked up a 6D, you should, because the size difference from a 70D is tiny. And making all your choices based off the 70D (and getting APS-C/EF-S lenses) would lock you into choices you can't fix if you go full-frame


----------



## timmy_650 (Jan 5, 2014)

From what you said this is what I would get. I read it kinda weird. 

Canon Ef-s 10-20

Canon Ef-s 17-55 2.8

Canon Ef 70-200 2.8 Is mark 2 

Canon Ef 2X converted 

Canon Ef 100L Is macro 

I didn't put any primes bc if you dont want a fast lens (1.8-1.2) a zoom is a good choice. If want a Prime go with the Canon Ef 40 2.8 is a fun cheap lens and maybe Canon Ef 24 2.8. Or the Canon Ef 35 2.0.
But I wouldnt get a prime until you have tried the zooms.


----------



## Efka76 (Jan 5, 2014)

I fully understand you as I went similar way. I bought 7D (this is my first DSLR) as FF cameras are really expensive. However, I decided to invest into lenses, which I am planning to use at least for decade when camera after few years becomes obsolete. Also, I bought lenses with a mind that in the future I will have FF camera and., accordingly, my lenses should be FF compatible. My advices regarding lenses is the following:

Lens 1: 50 mm 1.4 - very fast prime, very good money / quality ratio. 1.2 is too expensive and 4x expensive comparing to 1.4. Also, you could consider Sigma 85 mm 1.4, which is very good.

Lens 2: Tamron 24-70 mm 2.8 VC - very sharp and quality lenses. Actually it is my walk-around lens. Quality is much better comparing Canon 24-70 2.8L MkI, however, sharpness is slightly worse than MKII version (but Tamron has vibration control (Canon IS equivalent) which gives advantage over Canon 24-70 2.8L MKII). Also, Tamron is 2x cheaper than Canon equivalent. In my opinion, Canon is very very good lens but not worth that money.


Lens 3: Cannon 100 mm 2.8L IS Macro - very sharp lenses. Very good price for the quality. 

Lens 4: You could replace your 18-135 by Canon 24-105 4L but is not worth to do that. I use my Tamron 24-70 2.8 almost 90% of all my shootings as this lens is faster and much better quality. I use 18-135 when I am in various trips abroad only when I am near the sea and I am not afraid that salt water might spoil my lenses 

Lens 5: Canon 70-200 mm 2.8L IS II USM - definitely it is the BEST telezoom in the market. Yes, it is expensive but I 100% recommend it. It is very sharp, focus is very accurate and fast. Also, its manufacture recently started and I do not expect that this lens will be replaced / improved at least for 5-10 years in the future. 

Also, consider buying TC (1.4 or 2) if you want longer reach. TC's + 70-200 are wonderful combos.


----------



## AJ (Jan 5, 2014)

Canon 15-85, Canon 100-400 L, Canon 100/2.8 L, Sigma 85/1.4 or Sigma 50/1.4


----------



## Sanaraken (Jan 5, 2014)

With all the deals going on during holiday season. I just upgraded my body and lenses. 
Sold my 6D, 24-105mm, 85mm 1.8, 430EXII and 270exii and just kept my 40mm 2.8 pancake. 
1. 6D upgrade to 5D. Sold 6D for $1200. Got the 5D kit for $3239 and sold 24-105 kits lens for $600
So $1439 to upgrade to the 5D mk3.
2. Sold the 24-105 lens that came with my 6D for $600 and got the 24-70 mk2 for $1999-$300 rebate. 
So another $1100 to upgrade my lens to the new 24-70 mk2. 
3. Sold the 85mm 1.8 for $300. Debated for a while to get the 85mm 1.2 or 70-200 2.8 mk2. 
Decided to go for the 70-200 2.8 mk2 for versatility and be able to use as a portriate lens. 
So another $2099-$300 rebate. 
4. Sold the 430exii for $200 and 270exii for $100 and purchase the 600ex rt for $450. 
Spend another $150 to upgrade the flash witch a rarely use. 
5. Decided to get the 100mm 2.8L Macro lens for $884-$150 rebate. Just in case I get interested on macro shots and 
Also be able to use as a portraite lens. Debated on this one also with the 135 2.0L, but decided to get the 100mm 
2.8L since I already have the 70-200mm 2.8 mk2. 
Spend about $5223-$750 rebate when I receive all of it. This is the best set up for me and should last me for the next couple of years. I might add the 85mm 1.2L later.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 6, 2014)

If I were you, besides getting a FF body.. ;D

Canon 10-22mm, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS, Sigma 35mm 1.4 (~4500)

You could go for the sigma 8-16mm (~600) or the tokina 11-16mm (~450) instead of the canon version. You could wait for the rumored sigma 24-70 f2 instead of the Tamron 24-70... depends though if you want to wait on a rumor.. Spend the rest on lighting (umbrellas, stands, softboxes, flashes, strobes, reflectors, etc) and maybe other accessories. Lighting is not cheap but sooo necessary for alot of things! I envy your ability to spend so much on camera equipment.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jan 6, 2014)

If I were spending your money and rewriting your lens collection, I'd sell your current lenses except the 50/1.8 (18-135 NON-STM, and 70-300 NON-L) and put that $350-400 towards the overall budget, making it $7200-ish.

Enough people have done exactly what you asked them NOT to do and talked about the CAMERA, so I'll just focus on the lenses (with one exception)...

Here goes my list...


Goldeneye said:


> Lens 1:
> A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
> I can work with the 50mm, but also the 85 and so on, so I just need 1 that is the best.



You mentioned that you use your 50mm/1.8 for portraits and some macro but that it's not ideal for macro - in my opinion, the 50mm field is a situation of picking the least of various evils. The 50/1.2 is expensive and no better than the Canon 50/1.4 at equivalent apertures so you're paying a $1000 premium for a fraction of a stop and being able to say that the bokeh is "dreamy" (and sharpness is non-existent) at f/1.2. That's a lot of coin for crappy bragging rights, IMO. The Sigma 50/1.4 is better than the Canon 50/1.4, but there seem to be some reliability issues among users when it comes to focus accuracy - so you may play the lens lottery which is a P.I.T.A. The 50/1.8 is crap until f/2.8 so... what's the point? Well, you said f/2.8 is fine - so keep it and use it there. My recommendation? 85/1.2 LII. You wanted sharp... this is $2000 worth of SUPER SHARP! If you want to replace your 50/1.8 then the new Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 is a RIDICULOUS lens when it comes to sharpness. You said you didn't mind manual focusing - this is a non-AF lens and is sharper than anything else you'll find, but it's half your budget. Personally, I say stick with the 50/1.8, use it at 2.8, and add the Canon 85/1.2 LII.

Cost: $2,000



Goldeneye said:


> Lens 2:
> A mid-range zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
> Everything below 20mm to above 40mm is fine.



Since you're keeping your 50mm/1.8, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 constant zoom lens is a REAL option. Really sharp and REALLY fast! If it's turns out not to be then the obvious choice is the Canon 17-55/2.8 as it's sharp, covers a great range, and has IS. The 50mm f/1.8 at 2.8 is roughly equal to the 17-55 at 50mm at f/2.8 in terms of sharpness - but the bokeh is better on the 17-55 and you get IS. Should you go with the 17-55, sell the 50/1.8.

Cost: $800 +/- depending on which lens you purchase. Maybe as low as $700 when you factor in that you can sell the 50/1.8 if you go with the 17-55.



Goldeneye said:


> Lens 3:
> A decent lens for macro between 85 and 100mm. I don’t have a preference for the aperture here.



Either of Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses are perfect here. If you want weather sealing and/or hybrid IS, go with the L. If not, go with the non-L. Optically, they're very similar.

Cost: $550-$850 depending on the lens chosen



Goldeneye said:


> Lens 4:
> I have the 18-135, but I don’t find that sharp enough. I do like the zoom range though. Is there anything that comes close to the range, but sharper?



Yup! The NEW 18-135 STM. But, you're well covered with the lenses above in terms of sharpness. Either skip the large range zoom OR, buy the NEW 18-135mm STM lens. The glass has been updated and it's a much sharper lens than the old 18-135 lens. As a bonus, it'll work like a CHAMP for video with your 70D. The STM lenses have focusing motors and IS systems that are made specifically for video - they're SILENT  

Cost: $300



Goldeneye said:


> Lens 5:
> A zoom that goes beyond 250/300mm. If that is achieved by a teleconverter that is fine by me, if that gives me better results.



BEYOND 300 without a teleconverter leaves only a few options. The Canon 100-400 is an obvious option. Tamron just announced a very large lens, the 150-600 that seems to test well. There's also a 70-200 or 70-300 plus 2x teleconverter. Too many options here to list - homework time 

Now... one place you're missing some critical range (for some people) and that's the UWA end. In my opinion, when you're using an UWA, you're usually out walking around a LOT. That means, LIGHT WEIGHT is GOOD! The Canon EOS M + 11-22mm IS lens is an obvious choice for this scenario, IMO. The cost is roughly the same as the Canon 10-22 and the lens is BETTER except for the max aperture and 10 vs 11mm.

Cost: $600-650. Another possible use for this money is lighting like an external flash (or 2, or 3), etc.

Total cost of all options above except the telephoto zoom = max of $4600 (before taxes) unless you buy the 55mm Zeiss. It could be $400 less if you go with the Canon 17-55 as opposed to the Sigma 18-35 and the non-L 100mm macro. That leaves you $2600-$3000 for your telephoto solution (because remember, you sold your 18-135 and 70-300 in my scenario). That's enough for the top of the line Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($2500) and 2x teleconverter! 

That's some INCREDIBLE gear!
85mm f/1.2 L II
18-35 f/1.8 OR 17-55 f/2.8 IS
100mm f/2.8 macro (L or not)
EF-S 18-135 STM (for convenience and video - sharpness isn't bad)
Any one of several telephoto zooms + teleconverter
EOS M + 11-22mm IS

With this setup, you're covered with FANTASTIC image quality from FF equivalent of 17-660mm! AND, you have IS as an option the entire way.

That's how I personally would spend the money! Except I'd find a way to add the 35mm f/2 IS ($500-600).


----------



## stilscream (Jan 8, 2014)

Prime: you have a 50 1.8? Why do you need another prime near it? I could see if you needed a 24mm f1.4L for astrophotography. Save $ here.

Medium zoom: 24-70mm f2.8 version I or ii. The lens that's always useful and brilliant.$900-2000

Macro: 100mm f2.8 non-is and use the savings on a nice quality (let me stress again, quality!!!) tripod. $300 + $500

Tele-zoom. 70-200mm f2.8 version I or ii. The most brilliant glass on the market. $900-$2000

If you really need a super telephoto on a budget wait for the new tamron zoom that's supposedly goes to 150mm-600mm f6.3 I think I saw on a recent rumor. Or the current 200-500mm. $1100 used.


----------



## Goldeneye (Jan 8, 2014)

I've been a bit too enthusiastic about photography stuff. I've decided to buy the Canon 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 and use the rest for a vacation and savings. Still thanks a lot for your suggestions all!



This topic can be closed.


----------



## Oli4 (Jan 8, 2014)

Sanaraken said:


> Decided to get the 100mm 2.8L Macro lens for $884-$150 rebate. Just in case I get interested on macro shots



Is this guy for real?
Buying a L lens "just in case" he gets interested on macro shots. Get a camera, get a lens and go out there and shoot. Find out what you like shooting the most then upgrade your lens. Are you planning on shooting wild life or sports? No? Then why go beyond 200mm? Landscapes? No? Why go below 24mm? Buying 6000K of lenses to begin with is CRAZY! You are obviously lucky to have tons of money so get the 5D mk III and the 24-70mm L II which is a DREAM COMBO! Go out and shoot. And in a few months come back with a question like "I realy like to shoot portraits and would like a little more reach, should I get the 100mm L 2.8, the 85L, the 135L or the 70-200mm L 2.8...



Sanaraken said:


> Sold the 430exii and purchased the 600ex rt ... to upgrade the flash witch a rarely use.


 :-X

I changed my mind, get the Leica M9


----------



## Oli4 (Jan 8, 2014)

Goldeneye said:


> I've been a bit too enthusiastic about photography stuff. I've decided to buy the Canon 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 and use the rest for a vacation and savings. Still thanks a lot for your suggestions all!
> 
> 
> 
> This topic can be closed.



Great combo


----------

