Choose Two Lenses

[Chris White]

...and so will your wallet. :-)

True, but the OP stated:

...and budget wasn't a big deal

And as an added benefit, well maintained L's hold their value at close to investment grade. ;-)

[MacManUS]

I could not go with two.


Here are my three, and the why.


10-22 USM


The best wide angle lens you can buy on a crop 1.6


17-55 USM


takes care of the mid to long end, bokahlishous.


70-200 F4 IS


glass is as glass does. no finer.

[jfindley]

I appreciate all the replies. There is definitely a pattern in what everyone suggest. Luckily I already own the ef-s 15-85 lens. It is a great lenses. I have definitely been looking at the 70-200 lens, both the f4 and f2.8. For the purposes of carrying I believe I am going to pick the f4. Probably 90% of what I take is outside so the f4 will most likely suit my needs. The option of an extender can make it a very versatile lens. And a flash will probably cover most of my indoor needs. Definitely excited about getting my first L lens. I wish canon would put a lot more effort into turning some of their popular ef-s lens into L lens with the L glass and quality.

[Kayaker72]

That is great....but don

[Rocco]

Curious, are those the only three lenses you have Kayaker?

[Rocco]

Curious, are those the only three lenses you have Kayaker?

[Kayaker72]

Curious, are those the only three lenses you have Kayaker?

I also have the 50 f/1.8 II and two older lenses that are never used (the kit lens that came with my Elan II in 1999 and a 75-300 mm lens I bought in 2000).


I primarily use the 15-85 and the 100-400L. If you see a shot of mine that isn't a bird it was probably taken with the EFS 15-85. If it is a bird, the 100-400L. I haven't really gotten into macro photography even though I expect too. The times I use the 100L are mostly as a portrait prime, to use the f/2.8, or when I want a really sharp image (it is a beautiful lens though). I've used the 50 f/1.8 II a couple of times, but it is hardly ever on my camera. I can see some room to expand (EFS 10-22, Sigma 30 f/1.4, a TS lens or a supertele like the 500 f/4), but the lenses I have really serve me well. Right now I am trying to improve the computer/software side of my photography (and technique...constantly). Actually I spent part of today looking at Lightroom and DXO Optic Pro and I upgraded my home computer over the summer.

[erno james]

for travel and landscape?


the 50mm f/1.4 and the 10-22 EFS, respectively. could easily stuff in a backpack and not wear you out. make sure to pack a tripod.

[Homer]

Thanks to the members opinions here I got the


10-22 to cover all the wide angles


24-105L F4.0 best walk around with some reach


70-200L F2.8 IS ii - lens speaks for itself





Own 7D and could not be happier with these choices. I have had great results with 70-200 with EX1.4 but not happy with the EX2. Being spoiled with the quality of the 70-200 the EX2 just does not result in the quality I have come to expect from this lens. Much rather crop than use it. I also found that as the further you get to long end of the zoom the quality starts to fade. I am now looking for a solution for in the 400+ range debating either the new 500 or 600. I shoot lots of eagles and need the reach and 5.6 does not cut it for me.


/click on

[Jon Ruyle]

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but...

I'd pick the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

I agree exactly. IMO the only difficulty in this choice is that it would leave me macroless. If I felt this was unacceptable (and I almost do) I would replace one these lenses (a tough choice which) with the 100 IS macro.