Ultimate Stocked Canon Camera Bag (Lens Selection) - LIMIT 6-7 lenses please!

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Nick J, Jun 22, 2004.

  1. Nick J

    Nick J Guest

    Nothing that controversial here:

    17-40mm f4.0 $650 *
    24mm f3.5 TSE $1000
    50mm f1.4 $300 *
    85mm f1.8 $300 *
    135mm f2.0 $850 *
    180mm f3.5 Macro $1200
    300mm f4.0 IS $1100

    hmmm that comes to $5400 but luckily my retailer recognises me as a
    great customer and gives a 10% reduction accordingly.

    Also as luck would have it, I find my bag can hold 7 lenses and two
    teleconvertors so I'll chuck in the EF1.4X and EF2.0X as well ;-)

    It's actually the lens collection that, more by accident than design,
    I'm gravitating towards (the lenses marked with an *). Unsuprisingly the
    three missing from my lens bag are the special interest +$1000 lenses.
    Perhaps more realistically I'll get a 90mm tamron macro lens and that'll
    about do me!

    Nick
     
    Nick J, Jun 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nick J

    skymuffins Guest

    Hello, I'm new to this group. What would be THE ultimate lens selection a
    Canon?

    I lean a bit to the nature/wildlife side of photography, but would like to
    build an all around selection of decent glass.

    For this exercise, your camera bag can only hold 7 lenses, must have a mix
    primes and zooms, and don't just pick all "L" glass. You have $5000 to
    build your lens selection.

    Enjoy.

    - Harrison
     
    skymuffins, Jun 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements


  3. If I had $500 for lenses I would get:

    Canon EF USM 100mm F2 $300

    Canon EF TS-E 24mm $1000

    Sigma 50mm Macro $300

    Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 $1700

    Tamron XR DI 28-75mm F2.8 $300

    Canon EF USM 85mm F1.2L $1500



    My dream kit:)
     
    Robert Meyers, Jun 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Nick J

    Skip M Guest

    Well, the 5 grand pretty much eliminates a bag full of "L" lenses, doesn't
    it? But one must have "L" is the 70-200 f2.8L IS, probably with a 2x
    converter. That takes care of about 2 grand. Then I'd probably throw in
    the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 USM IS, just to keep the cost down over the 24-70 L. (I
    love my 28-135, BTW) Now you have all the focal lengths from 28-400
    covered, and you have a fast moderate telezoom. Just for hoots, throw a
    50mm f1.8 in the bag, cheap at $75 but good optically. Cheap feeling
    plastic, though. A 100 f2.8 Macro, I sometimes wish I'd gotten that lens
    rather than the 100 f2 that I have, only $80 more. Don't get me wrong, I
    really like the f2, but the macro would sometimes be nice...
    I'd probably finish it off by adding a 17-40 f4L, but since we're so far
    under budget, maybe I'd spring for the 16-35 f2.8L. Maybe a 15mm fisheye
    for less than $600. (As an aside, I bought the Sigma version of this lens,
    and the 17-35 f2.8-4 EX HSM both for under $500, but at the time the Canon
    17-40 wasn't around, if it was, I probably would have bought that lens
    instead.)
    Your hypothetical $5000 budget precludes and exotica like the 400mm f2.8L,
    500 f4L, etc. And you did say Canon lenses, so Tamron, Tokina and Sigma
    long teles are out, too.
    I'm not to convinced that the non "L" wide angle single focal length lenses
    are any better than the "L" wide zooms, and your price limits preclude any
    of the wide, fast "L" lenses like the 24mm f1.4L. All of the "L" wides run
    over $1000, and the 16-35 gives acceptable speed, though not equal by any
    means to the wide "L"s, and a good range...
     
    Skip M, Jun 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Nick J

    Mark M Guest

    7 lenses?

    Nah.
    Start with 3 superb ones:

    Canon 16-35 2.8 L
    Canon 24-70 2.8 L
    Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L
    Canon 1.4x (or perhaps a 2x)

    Whew! ...You're broke, and 4 lenses short...
    ....But you've got a GREAT set of glass to cover everything save macro.
    For that, grab a few cheap Kenko extension tubes, and you're in pretty good
    shape.

    Alternative #1:
    Substitute a Canon 17-40 f4 L for the 16-35...and use the $700 savings to
    grab the
    Canon 100mm 2.8 USM Macro lens.

    Alternative #2:
    Substitute the Canon 28-135 IS for the 24-70 2.8 L, and grab the macro with
    THAT savings.

    NOW... You're set!
     
    Mark M, Jun 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Nick J

    Mark M Guest

    PS...
    My main lenses are:
    Canon 16-35 2.8 L
    28-135 IS
    Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L
    Canon 100-400 L
    Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro
    Canon 50mm 1.4 USM
    Canon 1.4x
    Kenko Extension Tube set

    I'm tempted to trade in my 100-400 toward the 24.70 L and a 2x extender...
     
    Mark M, Jun 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Nick J

    skymuffins Guest

    Yup, I am more concerned with the long lenses than wide or macro. I want
    to build a decent camera setup. I will focus on the long glass later.

    So Far, I'm leaning toward

    Zoom:
    Canon 17-40mm f/4.0
    Canon 24-70mm f/2.8
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8

    Prime:
    50mm f/1.4
    85mm f/1.8
    300mm f/4.0

    500mm f/4 comes later.... MUCH later

    Thanks for the input.

    - Harrison
     
    skymuffins, Jun 23, 2004
    #7
  8. Nick J

    Alan Browne Guest


    Ultimate on a beer budget? Forget it. I threw in a 2x TC to
    help you get to nature range with the 200.

    Okay. (B&H catalog import prices)

    20 f/2.8 $390
    50 f/1.4 $300
    100 f/2.8 Macro $450
    200 f/2.8 USM $620 ---non IS

    70-200 f/2.8 IS $1600 IS
    24-70 f/2.8 $1250
    2xII (TC) $265


    Leaves you $125 for 'other stuff'
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Nick J

    Dallas Guest

    skymuffins said:
    I have no experience with the 17-40, but I lust after the 24-70mm and the
    70-200mm. Very good choices, but make sure that you buy the IS version of
    the latter zoom - it is noticeably better than the non-IS version.

    On the wide side I would go for the 16-35mm.
    I have the 85mm and while it is a good lens, its only really useful in
    very low light conditions where you can't use flash. Your L zooms will be
    better in normal lighting conditions.

    Don't waste your time with the 300mm f/4. You would be better off buying a
    2x converter for your 70-200mm. If you are moving up from ordinary glass
    to this lens it will seem great, but when you use the high end glass and
    compare, you'll know why I said what I just did.

    For me, first choice would be the 16-35mm, then the 24-70mm and the
    70-200mm IS. Dunno if they would cost more than $5k.
     
    Dallas, Jun 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Nick J

    Colm Guest

    17-40L f4 $675
    50 f1.8 $65
    70-200L f4 $550
    400L f5.6 $1030
    1.4x converter $260
    180 macro $1200
    MP-E 65mm macro $800
    28-135IS $380
    Total $4960
     
    Colm, Jun 26, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.