What would you buy -if you....

[lightwriting by swapan]

<p>Want <strong>only</strong> "L" lenses<br>

Shoot mainly -Portraits/Landscapes/Macro-sometimes birds or wildlife<br>

Have 1 Ds MK III and plan to buy the upcoming new version<br>

Enjoy your photography immensely<br>

and of course --have won a lotto!</p>

<p>Realistically- what would you buy in each category ?</p>

[john_bullock3]

<p>the 14mm, the 17-40, the 70-200 2.8 IS, the 180mm, the 35mm, and the 400mm 2.8</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>For zooms I like the 16-35 II, 24-70 f2.8 and either 70-200 f4 IS or a 70-200 F2.8. If you want to save money the 17-40 f4 is also not bad. I own all of the above lenses and except for sport use find the 70-200 F4L IS much more portable and just as good optically as the more expensive 70-200 F2.8 - that said for indoor sports I always use the F2.8 lens.<br>

For primes 24 f1.4, 14mm 85 F1.2 II, 135 f2 plus either the 300 f2.8 or 300 f4 (I only own two of these lenses)</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I glued the EF 50 1.2L USM to the front of my 5DII so I don't have to worry about buying new lenses. </p>

[peter_j2]

<p><strong>Portraits:</strong> <br /> ~EF 85mm f/1.2<strong>L</strong> II USM<br /> ~EF 70-200mm f/4<strong>L</strong> IS USM</p>

<p><strong>Landscapes:</strong> <br /> ~EF 17-40mm f/4<strong>L</strong> USM<br /> ~EF 300mm f/2.8<strong>L</strong> IS USM + Canon Drop-In Circular Polarizing Filter PL-C 52<br /> <br /> <strong>Macro (sorry that it is a non-L lens):</strong> <br /> ~EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM<br /> <br /> <strong>Sometimes birds or wildlife:</strong> <br /> ~EF 300mm f/2.8<strong>L</strong> IS USM + Canon Extender EF 1.4x II</p>

[andrew robertson]

Why limit yourself?

 

There are plenty of situations where I wouldn't want to schlep around 15 pounds of stuff when I didn't have to.

 

If you look in EF Lens Work you will see that there are a lot of consumer options that are almost as good as the L lenses, or even

slightly better. If you can shoot at higher ISO, you may not need the extra stop - and THAT, along with build quality, is what L

lenses are for.

 

I understand, though. I had L fever at one point too.

[ben_goren]

<p>If the lottery was big enough, I’d have at least one of each lens that Canon makes,

and at least one of each body from 7D on up.</p>

 

<p>I mean, really. If money is no object, why not?</p>

 

<p>For that matter, I might even be tempted to add to it a comparable sampling of Nikon gear.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>70-200 2.8 IS for portraits, 500 F4 for wildlife, 24-105 L for walk around lens, 100 Macro IS for the close up shots. v/r Buffdr</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Portraits: 85mm f/1.2 L II<br />Lanscapes: 16-35mm f/2.8<br />Macro: 100mm f/2.8<br />Wildlife: 400mm f/2.8 IS + 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (which can also be used for portraits)</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Well, if winning the lotto is in the mix I'd probably look into digital medium format, at least for landscapes and macro.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>everything. I'm sure I'd use it all at one time or another.</p>

[lightwriting by swapan]

<p>Thanks everybody. for your opinions.<br>

Nobody mentioned the 400 F4 DO. Dont you like it ? Nobody uses it ?<br>

Also, is it worth to buy the 85 1.2 L II if you have the original ?<br>

What about the 180 3.5 L and the new 100 2.8 L - for Macro ?<br>

What about the 200 2.8 L for portraits/some wildlife ?</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>Do you want flashy? Or do you want good stuff?<br>

I have a semi-pro (i.e. paid) photographery acquantence. We don't talk equipment. .because my equipment is NOTABLY better than hers. She takes better pictures.<br>

The 1DSIII is too flashy for my tastes. I would definately have a 7D and 5DII bodies (which one I use would depend on the event). As for lenses;<br>

Daybag;<br>

1) The 85/1.8. Not convinced the 85/1.2 is sufficently better to justify the weight in my daybag. I might have the 85/1.2 II, however, for "special occassions".<br>

2) The 10-22. Not an L. . .but I need a wide zoom in the daybag.<br>

3) 70-200/4L-IS.<br>

4) 24-105/4L-IS.<br>

Showoff bag (special occasion lenses)<br>

1) 85/1.2L-II (just because)<br>

2)24/1.4L (Just because)<br>

3) 100-400/5.6-L. Have the 100-400/5.6-L-II on preorder to get it the day they finally put it out.<br>

4)300/2.8L<br>

5) Appropriate teleconverters. </p>

<p> </p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Why only L lenses? The 85mm f/1.8 has faster AF and weighs a lot less than the 1.2L. Both DO lenses represent a unique category of compact super-telephoto. The MP-E 65mm macro is Canon's only macro that goes above 1:1 mag. Most tellingly, the 90mm TS-E tilt-shift is a product photographer's dream with excellent IQ, and no L alternative. Canon's only fisheye is non-L as well.</p>

<p>If EF-S were in the running (not with a 1 Ds MkIII, however), I would include the 17-55 f/2.8 IS as a lens that does what no other Canon lens does—provide excellent IQ in a general-purpose zoom with both IS and with f/2.8 (Canon's biggest zoom aperture).</p>

<p>Anyway, just <em>some</em> of my "lens lust" choices would be:<br /> 70-200mm f/2.8L II<br /> 100-400mm f/4.5–5.6L<br /> 35mm f/1.4L<br /> 85mm f/1.2L<br /> 135mm f/2L<br /> 200mm f/2L<br /> 400mm DO<br /> 100mm macro IS</p>

<p>And something that I am actually planning to buy in the coming years is the 300mm f/4L IS USM + 1.4X Extender. This plus a 70-200mm f/4L IS USM will give a lot of quality options without spending like a lunatic, IMHO.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Nobody mentioned the 400 F4 DO. Dont you like it ? Nobody uses it ?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not popular. Google reviews on that lens and read the negatives. The prices on eBay for a used 400/4 DO and 300/2.8 IS are minimal. I bought the latter.</p>

<p><strong><em>And,</em> </strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Also, is it worth to buy the 85 1.2 L II if you have the original ?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not unless you want faster autofocusing and reduced flare. Otherwise, keep what you have because the optics are the same.</p>

[lightwriting by swapan]

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>You broke my heart about that DO !</p>

<p>I did buy the lens ( when I knew nothing about lenses) and have used it some. All the bird pictures (on my site)were taken with it. Lately, I have discovered it is a nice one to have a cropped head shot- the background is soooo OOF! May be I will use it as my "outdoor portrait" lens!</p>

<p>I agree with your opinion about the 85 1.2 .</p>

<p>Thanks man, for ruining my Sunday evening ! Well, what the heck ! I am working the whole night !</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Thanks man, for ruining my Sunday evening ! </strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If it's any consolation, you have a compact and rare DO lens! Don't forget to read the positive reviews here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>