Going FF - need to settle on a lens-logic!

[HDNitehawk]

I have owned all but two of these on the list. My first thought is this, the new 24-70mm F/2.8L II may be a very wise choice once it hits the market. I have been hoping the IQ would improve enough that I would not mind using it as a carry around vs my 24mm.

- Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 mk2 - decent low-light capabilities and covers a wide span of focal lengths - not quite the same play with DOF as the below contestants though. An excelent choice, if you own the 24mm and 35mm this one will probably set in your closet. My way of covering this range is with both the 24mm and 35mm. But IMO the two primes give better IQ.

- Canon 24mm f/1.4 II - good low-light capabilities, but can 24mm double for landscape and street photography? Compared to the 35mm, this one has weathersealing from what I can tell. This is my must have wide prime. In the bag I carry around I have the 70-200mm F/2.8L II and the 24mm F/1.4L II. Yes it is good for landscape and street photography, and it is wide and does take a little work to get the composition you want. It is fast but the IQ drops off significantly if you are shooting at F/1.4.

- Canon 35mm f/1.4 - again, good low-light capabilities, but can 35mm double for street photography and landscapes? Excellent lens and if I am not using the 24mm II I am using it. Very similar lenses just, similar IQ although the 24mm might edge it only slightly. Same holds true, at F/1.4 the IQ drops. The low F lets you shoot in dark places but your IQ suffers.

- Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS - good bokeh, decent low-light, IS, and has macro-capabilities, but supposedly a slowish AF. Slow AF, bah, compared to what? A super fast prime sure but it is plenty fast enough. Of the lenses you listed this one is a must have IMO.

- Canon 135mm f/2.0 - excellent bokeh, good low-light, and with an extender it can double as a proper tele-lens! I'm quite hooked on its bokeh... I have never owned it. But many love it. I think it might be a good choice, but if it were the 100mm macro vs the 135 I would go with the macro, because I like macro.

- Canon 24-105 f/4.0 IS - the swiss-knife spanning from 24mm landscapes to 105mm portraits, but never really shining at either function. I owned it for a bit and returned it. F/4 is a bit slow and if you own the three primes above the range is covered.

- Canon 70-200 f/4.0 IS - lightweight, good sharpness, but only f/4.0 - perhaps a 135mm with an extender would work just as well. The 135mm doesn't have IS. My first long zoom was the 100-400mm, I wouldn't go without a longer lens. Get the best long zoom you can afford. This one would be fine, others have there benefits as well.


You excluded the 70-200mm F/2.8L because of weight. I would suggest the 70-200mm F2.8L II and a Black Rapid strap. But honestly it is a huge lens.

Good Luck