Over the years, I've gathered some # lenses pretty close together. I'm thinking of culling the herd so to speak, but the inner hoarder in me always resists. I'm interested to hear what lenses you folks with 5d mk2s have settled on (I've one coming in the mail).
Right now I have the following:
17-40L
24-105L
35L
50 f/1.4
100 f/2.8 macro
135L
300 f/4L
Looking forward to hearing what your thought processes were.
All those lenses are sufficiently different to keep unless you never use them for some reason. In fact, I suggest adding a 70-200 to that collection. However, I tend to keep everything and am a strong believer in backups.
Ya EB/JC - I'm of the same mindset Actually, one of the reasons I was chewing on this was I am tempted by the sale of the 70-200 mk2 and considering dumping the 17-40 and 300 f/4 and put it to one.
rhyx - I shoot them all of course... thus the collection. I go in spurts where I'll shoot one lens primarily for a few months then rotate. My most used lenses in order over the years are:
Gunzorro - I sold off my 85L and 50L a couple years ago. Don't miss them really, the 35L gets a lot more use then they did combined and the 50 f/1.4 is better for my purposes. Ya know, I never considering the 28- 300, but I was mulling over the 100-400. I'll need to check that one out
I think the 16-35/2.8L II on 1DsIII and 28-300/3.5-5.6L IS on 1DIV would be a nice general-purpose combination. The only part I'm lacking right now is the 16-35L II.
mark petri wrote:
Over the years, I've gathered some # lenses pretty close together. I'm thinking of culling the herd so to speak, but the inner hoarder in me always resists. I'm interested to hear what lenses you folks with 5d mk2s have settled on (I've one coming in the mail).
Right now I have the following:
17-40L
24-105L
35L
50 f/1.4
100 f/2.8 macro
135L
300 f/4L
Looking forward to hearing what your thought processes were.
JC - I had the 16-35II and wasn't impressive vs the 17-40 to account for the gap in price (thus sold the 16-35 and kept the 17-40). I don't use that range a lot, but when I do I'm usually stopped down and the 17-40 holds it own quite well IMHO.
Kewl - on paper it looks good. Shooting wise, tho my most expendable lens is the 17-40. The 300 f/4 edges it out because while use a bit less than the 17-40, when I do reach for it - I'm darn happy it's there.
The more I write, the more I realize I'm probably gonna hang on to them all and perhaps just add the 70-200.
I know what you mean about the 17-40L. It's a fine lens. I sold mine a few months ago to help pay for a 300/2.8L IS. I'll probably get a 16-35/2.8L II next year for sports and indoor events. I have most of the fast L primes, but the flexibility offered by a fast ultra-wide zoom is an advantage. I recently sold my 24-70/2.8L because most of my needs are satisfied by the 24-105/4L IS, except for right now, as my wife has it on a trip to the US.
EB-1 wrote:
All those lenses are sufficiently different to keep unless you never use them for some reason. In fact, I suggest adding a 70-200 to that collection. However, I tend to keep everything and am a strong believer in backups.
However, I tend to keep everything and am a strong believer in backups. 
Actually, one of the reasons I was chewing on this was I am tempted by the sale of the 70-200 mk2 and considering dumping the 17-40 and 300 f/4 and put it to one.