There's been some really awesome discussion in this thread, and after a few days of mulling things over, and finally managing to find and order a Mk II Body (YAY! $1675, <500 actuations!), I've come to a conclusion in terms of which lenses I'd love to add to my collection.
With that said, I feel as though I've got too many lenses picked out. Some overlapping focal lengths, etc. They all just seem like such viable options for me.
17-40L for a general purpose walk around / video lens. 28-75 Tamron make, as a general portrait zoom. 50mm 1.8 (to later be replaced by the 1.4) 70-200 f/4L for a longer-range zoom for portraits and candids 100 f/2 (to be later replaced by the 135 f/2)
I'm realizing that I should probably pick just one of the two out of the first two lenses, but they all just seem so nice and practical for my needs.
Why not get the 24-105 instead of the 17-40 and 28-75? You really don't give up much on the wide end. I'm finding that I really, really like the 24-105 as an almost do-everything lens. And the IS should help with video too.
Start with that and the 70-200 as well as the 100/2 - I just ordered the latter so I have this lineup plus the 17-40. I find I go for the 24-105 more than the 17-40 which is reserved for architectural stuff.
*just realized the Tamron is a 2.8...might have to rethink my rec...
17-40L for a general purpose walk around / video lens.
28-75 Tamron make, as a general portrait zoom.
Is the 17-28 end of it 100% necessary? if not, then go with the 28-75 only for now and let it double for portraits, walk around and video?
50mm 1.8 (to later be replaced by the 1.4)
Absolutely - many of us have taken the same route.... I had the 1.8 and actually in some ways preferred its IQ to the 1.4 I have now (not that the 1.4 is bad, they just have a slightly different "look"). It is quirky to focus (slow and NOISY - yes, they all sound like a bee in a bottle, so if yours does too no it is NOT broken), but it is a cracking good lens once you learn to work its idiosyncracies
70-200 f/4L for a longer-range zoom for portraits and candids
Wonderful lens. I bought mine for one specific shoot thinking I'd sell it again straight away, but I love it so much that I don't want to give it up. Sharp, light, and fast. I shoot crop so I do sometimes miss the 2.8 aperture for melting backgrounds but 1. I have a 135L for that 2. You'll be shooting full frame and it won't really be such an issue.
100 f/2 (to be later replaced by the 135 f/2)
Exactly my path, and it was more than acceptable. As I've said elsewhere, I made the right choice to sell my 100 to fund the 135, but that 100 remains the ONLY lens I have ever regretted having to sell. It was awesome. Look around for them used - they're very affordable (around $300)
ETA: You might be able to do without this one in the first instance, unless you specifically need a longer low-light lens; if you do, then obviously hang on to it. If not, the 70-200 f4 + 5dII's awesome high ISO might make those viable for the time being?
Comments
With that said, I feel as though I've got too many lenses picked out. Some overlapping focal lengths, etc. They all just seem like such viable options for me.
17-40L for a general purpose walk around / video lens.
28-75 Tamron make, as a general portrait zoom.
50mm 1.8 (to later be replaced by the 1.4)
70-200 f/4L for a longer-range zoom for portraits and candids
100 f/2 (to be later replaced by the 135 f/2)
I'm realizing that I should probably pick just one of the two out of the first two lenses, but they all just seem so nice and practical for my needs.
Why does this have to be so darn tough?! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Start with that and the 70-200 as well as the 100/2 - I just ordered the latter so I have this lineup plus the 17-40. I find I go for the 24-105 more than the 17-40 which is reserved for architectural stuff.
*just realized the Tamron is a 2.8...might have to rethink my rec...
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Is the 17-28 end of it 100% necessary? if not, then go with the 28-75 only for now and let it double for portraits, walk around and video?
Absolutely - many of us have taken the same route....
Wonderful lens. I bought mine for one specific shoot thinking I'd sell it again straight away, but I love it so much that I don't want to give it up. Sharp, light, and fast. I shoot crop so I do sometimes miss the 2.8 aperture for melting backgrounds but 1. I have a 135L for that 2. You'll be shooting full frame and it won't really be such an issue.
Exactly my path, and it was more than acceptable. As I've said elsewhere, I made the right choice to sell my 100 to fund the 135, but that 100 remains the ONLY lens I have ever regretted having to sell. It was awesome. Look around for them used - they're very affordable (around $300)
ETA: You might be able to do without this one in the first instance, unless you specifically need a longer low-light lens; if you do, then obviously hang on to it. If not, the 70-200 f4 + 5dII's awesome high ISO might make those viable for the time being?