I'll second Rich's comments - if you're thinking UV filters for protection (there's no other purpose for them for dSLR lenses), you'll want one on each lens rather than swapping them.


I'd definitely wait for the 2x III review and tests with the 70-200 II before getting that - the 2x II has a significant negative impact on IQ.


Get a tripod. Not a cheap one. IMO, Manfrotto offers the best budget/quality compromise.


One 8 GB card will hold about 300 RAW images. If you say 'that's a lot of pictures' you may find you're wrong if you hold the shutter button for a few 8 fps bursts. Get two at least. If nothing else, you can then follow a prudent workflow and keep the images on a card even after you've transferred them to the computer, formatting the card only after the images have been processed and backed up to at least one external drive.


Quote Originally Posted by Homer
Main use will beabout 20%landscapes, 30%nature and wildlife, 20% sports, 10% macro, 10% video and 10% portraits.

That's 'a little bit of everything' - and you've got a nice collection of lenses selected. I will point out that the 'majority' (at least, the largest %) you list as nature/wildlife - for that, the 70-200mm will likely not be long enough, and you'd be better off with the 100-400mm. Don't plan on using even the 2x III with the 70-200 as a full-time solution, at least until testing shows the IQ is equivalent (and I wouldn't count on that by any means!).


For tight portraits, I'd say 85mm f/1.8 over 50mm f/1.4 - IQ is better with the 85/1.8, build quality is better too.


I should point out that you have no macro lens on your list. Don't be fooled by the 'macro' printed on the barrel of the 24-105mm...if you really mean 'close-up' (flowers, etc.) it will be ok, but then again, the difference between the 70-200 II + 2x III and the 100-400 would pretty much pay for the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS.


FWIW, I also shoot'a little bit of everything' (although not really video or sports, with more nature and portraits instead), and my most-used lenses are the 100-400 and 17-55, followed by the 24-105 and 85/1.2L. My 70-200 II delivers great results when I do use it, but IMO the focal length is more suited to FF use (on 1.6x too long indoors, too short for birds/wildlife). However, for that 20% sports it would be a great choice (unless they are indoor sports, in which case the 85/1.8 would probably be better).


Good luck with your decisions!


--John