Hi. I'm hoping to prevail on the collective wisdom of CR regulars for advice on building my lens kit after making the change from crop sensor to FF (I've got the 6D - great camera). I got rid of the last of my crop sensor lenses, leaving me with the following lenses: 24-105 f4L, 50 f1.8II, and an older Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM (no OS) that I've had since my Elan IIe days. I shoot landscapes, occasional portraits, and I would like to get into macro. I don't shoot sports and don't plan to. I see two possible paths forward: go mostly with primes or rely mostly on zooms. In either case, I plan to keep the 24-105 because of its versatility as a walk around lens.
Plan 1. Add the 24mm f2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm f2.8L IS, and 200mm f2.8L. Sell the Sigma. Perhaps add a Rokinon 14mm manual focus later. On hikes when I want to keep the weight down, I could go with the 24, 35, and 100 and have most of the bases covered.
Plan 2. Add the 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L IS, and 100mm f2.8L IS. Sell the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I don't want to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS) both because of the weight and the fact that for most landscape I don't need shallow DOF. Similar comments apply for the 16-36mm f2.8L. On hikes when I want to minimize weight, I would go with the 17-40, the 50, and the 70-200 f4L. I suppose that I could add macro ability by swapping the 50 1.8 for a 50 2.5 macro.
Any thoughts about either of these plans or other recommendations? Thanks.
Plan 2. Is very similar to what I have - 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200f/4L IS. Add the 100 for macro instead of my 135 for portraits and you've got yourself a very solid package.
As someone mentioned about walking a kilometer - a zoom is ideal if you are going to be walking around a lot in a short space of time. If you have all the time in the world and are only shooting say one thing at a time then a prime would make more sense, that way you set up your framing and composition just right, which takes time.
My thoughts on the 17-40L - at the wider focal lengths, stopped down around f/8-11 it is really good. The extreme corners may be a little soft but depends on subject matter. For example sky and water makes no difference. I publish to web so none of that is an issue. 95% is good enough for me. Regular people will not notice or care.
Also I prefer the 17-40 to the 24-105 for landscapes. The 24-105 has a lot of distortion at the wide end.
If I didn't like the ultra wide look so much I would have went with the 24mm IS. It sounds like the perfect solution for landscapes.
Oh and +1 on the Samyang 14mm f/2.8
(this and 24IS could be a good alternative to the 17-40L)