What lenses would you buy ?

[Parthasarathi]

<p>As per my opnion, you may try the following <strong>canon L</strong> lenses:<br>

<strong>For portrait:</strong> 85mma Mk II, 200 mm f/2 (a must have lens for outdoor portrait, if money permits), 135 mm L and 70-200 Mk II 2.8 (sharp as prime lens)<br>

<strong>For Landscape:</strong> 35 mm (one of the sharpest lens), 24 mm MK II, 24-70 (a very popular lens), TS E-24<br>

<strong>For Macro:</strong> 180 mm (for best result, but use of tripod is must and Af is very very slow), 100 mm (for hand hold photography, AF is better) and for extreme macro 1x-5x MP E-65 (Non-L, Manual focus) {with a very good macro rail (like really right staff) and cable release is must have}<br>

And <strong>For Wildlife:</strong> 600 mm with 1.4 Mark III, and 100-400 is also a good option.<br>

Wish you all the best.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Re: the 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses, if you're going to hike with them the 500mm is a lot lighter. Both are excellent lenses.</p>

<p>While there are many excellent primes for portraits (including the 85/1.2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 200/2.8, and 200/2), the 70-200/2.8 IS is extremely versatile and tough to beat.</p>

<p>For landscapes, the TS-E 17mm and 24mm are awesome if the budget permits. Many people are happy with the 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4 as well.</p>

<p>Personally I don't see any reason to go exclusively with L lenses. Go with lenses that do what you need them to do.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I have lots of lens', most of them are "L" lens'. After extensive use of just about every lens Canon makes (I rent a lot too), here's what I kept. 35 1.4, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS, 100 L 2.8 Macro and the 100-400 L. Only reason I kept the 100-400 is for my aviation shots. Just sold 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 24 1.4L, efs 10-22, 100 Non L macro 24-70 2.8L and 135 2L. I still have one more EF-s lens I'm selling 17-55 2.8 IS. v/r Buffdr</p>

[lightwriting by swapan]

<p>Thanks everybody for your valuable input. It is/was a very interesting discussion.<br>

Some have wondered, why would your input help me. Simple-that is how I learn. I always listen to others opinions so that I have some ideas of what I am buying. Most of the time i dont have the time or opportunity to test a lens prior to buying and so far i have not been disappointed.</p>

<p>BTW, I have used majority of what have been suggested here. I am a little surprised that not vey many people have recommended the 70-200 2.8L (I or II) - a stellar performer by any standard!</p>

<p>I am biased towards L lenses. Forget everything- the build quality and the weather, dust sand proof character is a life saver for me as I am not vey good at taking care of my gear.</p>

<p>Here is one example. In 2007, in India, I was carrying my 1 Ds MK II attached to the 70-200 on a Gitzo tripod on my shoulders. From about a height of 9 feet, the camera fell as the base plate of the Gitzo came out. It went dancing down a full 20 feet of concrete staircase. I closed my eyes. Someone on the ground floor caught the camera! Lo and behold- the filter got dented, the lens and camera had scratches but both were perfectly fine and functioning! I continued my photography.</p>

<p>Would a normal built regular lens could handle that?</p>

 

[linda_jones1]

<p>Wow, how unfortuneate to have them drop, and so lucky that the equipment did so well! YOU'D THINK THE WEIGHT OF THE 70-200 WOULD HAVE SMASHED UP PRETTY GOOD. tHAT SAYS ALOT ABOUT cANON EQUIPMENT. sorry caps ;) I read in the canon info page that the "L" originally stood for Luxury. I kid you not!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Swapan,</p>

<p>You were very lucky the person caught it, they actually break surprisingly easily, they are designed to split to prevent internal element damage.</p>

<p>Here is my 16-35.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>Harrison - I thought it was only the 24 to 70 you break all the time - crikey you work in a tough area . . . :-)<br>

Lucky you had your Powershot50 to keep on shooting :-)<br>

. . . Best</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Swapan,</p>

<p>To be honest, it was more than likely a combination of favourable happenstances that prevented total loss. If I were you I wouldn't try it again to prove the build quality ;-)</p>

<p>My "lowly" 50 f/1.8 fell twice, once on concrete, once on tarmac. Both times while I was in full flight. Not a dent anywhere. However, physics comes into play (inertia, momentum and such like) Perhaps that's why my humble 50 survived both falls. Light as a feather so didn't develop much in the way of potential or kinetic energy, etc etc.</p>

<p>I do acknowledge that the L's have stellar build quality, so in your case, I can understand why you would insist on them. I do think you'll be better off just taking out a good insurance policy or buying a gear bag/carrying straps that suit your style. That is some pricey glass to knock around! Oh, and even tripod manufacturers recommend/warn against carrying the tripod while a body is mounted on it...</p>

<p>PS Scott, that <em>is </em>scary-looking! :)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Thanks William,</p>

<p>I never really thought of myself as hard on gear but maybe I am. I have found the 70-200's pretty much indestructible, and funnily enough my most abused lens (never intentionally merely because it gets knocked about in the bag with a little less thought), the 50mm f1.4, has an internet reputation for breaking easily, yet I have never had a problem with mine.</p>

<p>My 16-35 above was dropped attached to a 1VHS about 30" onto an airport polished hard tiled floor, I didn't drop it! It was fixed back in 2004 I think, for around $125 plus shipping. The 1VHS was fine, just pinched the hotshoe up a little.</p>

<p>All the best, Harrison.</p>

<p>P.S. The powershot died a long time ago, replaced with a G10, now that is a great little camera.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Most of my comment was tongue in cheek, but you knew that.<br>

We bought two Powershot S5IS a few years ago. They both get a caning each week and still work absolutely fine and make very good pictures (for the uses they are targeting) at ISO80 to ISO200.<br>

If I were still shooting weddings, I would get a Gxx as the last final, absolute, standby camera, and keep it in my pocket all day.<br>

On the matter of lens abuse – I have some mates (two actually) who shoot those fancy sporting shots for money all the time. One particular fellow has a kit bag, somewhat like the duffle bags army men carry – in it he keeps an assortment of zoom lenses – the three f/2.8’s - and a 400/2.8 and one other Prime, I have forgotten which. Often, on the bottom of the bag there a some lens caps and rear caps jiggling about, sometimes an empty coke can (the drink, not the powder) and I found a banana once, too.<br>

I borrow his 400/2.8 often and not so often his 70 to 200IS also (yes, I do use IS, sometimes). His lenses seem to work fine: but just look very cruddy.<br>

Best back to you.<br>

WW </p>