Just signed on to this forum. You all seem pretty decent and not creepy. I'll keep an eye out though.
But I digress.
I expect nothing less than a whole bunch of conflicting opinions on lens selection for me, so thanks in advance... and sorry for being long winded...
I've owned a Sony a700 (crop) then an a850 (full frame) with a bag full of great Minolta primes and a couple zooms over the years. It all got too big and cumbersome. I switched to Pentax for a while. But I simply came to miss "that look" of my full frame images. There also isn't a local camera shop that sells either Sony or Pentax, which is a hassle.
I'm switching to Canon and currently shopping. I like what they have to offer, and my local store carries it.
I'm a serious hobbyist, shoot a bit of everything. Travel, hike, portraits, lots of landscapes and still life, macro (but it's close-ups under available light rather than ring flash illuminated fly eyeballs). I rarely use a flash. Sometimes do a paid gig as part of my graphic design work, and the odd event. We live in the Rocky Mountains.
For me, portability is important. I'm also trying to reduce redundancy in focal lengths, and therefore reduce decisions about what to take along with me.
I have a Sony RX100 for everyday, middle of the road, video, skiing, impromptu snapshots or when I just can't take an SLR. It's been great for what it is.
I'm 100% getting a 6D body. I'm the perfect candidate. I rarely use continuous AF or burst mode. Rarely any sporting events. I'm coming from Pentax, so any AF is fast. Since film days, I habitually centre-spot-focus and pan to my subject. I like the 6D's lightness and relative simplicity. It's grip alone won me over the D600. I tend to be more slow and methodical in my photography. I've tried and really like the 6D. And I've found a 430EX for cheap for the 3-5 times a year I use a flash.
So, on to the all important lenses...
I'm thinking about getting the following:
70-200 f4 IS
-- it seems the best compromise of fast enough, small enough and could handle a 1.4xTC if I got the itch. I thought really hard about the 70-300L but I just think I'll pick up and take the 70-200 more often. I think I've found a great used one for $800 to check out this week. The 2.8's are out of the question simply for their size.17-40 f4
-- I liked my Minolta 20/2.8 (FF) and my Pentax 15 (crop), but I don't hear great things about the Canon 20. Zeiss prime options are out of my budget. Portability and flexibility are priorities. I'm typically taking landscape or shots outdoors, or if indoors I have time or a tripod. Shooting at f/5.6-11 isn't a problem. The 17-40 seems to fit the bill. Like the 77mm filter. I understand there are some mixed views on the corner quality, so I will try and test a few copies.
With these two lenses, I feel like I'm covering a nice landscape-focussed setup, and the 70-200 could be a nice portrait lens too. And it's all fairly weather sealed for my mostly outdoor shooting.
I don't plan to get a mid-range or walk-around zoom. I had a 28-75/2.8 on my Sony and found I always preferred my fast primes. I have the RX100 for walk around, and honestly it's really good. I am happy enough in the 35-85mm range to just work with primes and move around to adjust framing if I need to.
But now I'm head scratching on which primes. I'd like one or two max. (Done with LBA, and you can hold me to it!)
Ideally, I'd like something (fairly) fast for portraits
and something (fairly) macro
, but I don't really need 1:1. Is there one that covers both? I am usually satisfied with f2-4 for portraits and low-light and rarely pine for f1.4-8 in any shots. That said, except for the wide angle (like 17-40) I want to be confident in the quality I get out of my lenses wide open.
Considerations...50 f2.5 Macro
-- I'm going to try one for the first time this Friday. My small town store has none. I had a Minolta 50 2.8 macro that I really enjoyed. I like to do hand-held close-ups more than ultra-close macros. The f2.5 can also double as a fairly decent portrait lens. I understand it's pretty ancient and the AF is not USM, but hey, I'm coming from Minolta and Pentax lenses all of which were screw-driven. I found the Canon 50 1.8 to be quiet in comparison.Tamron 90 VC
-- I like that it's a little shorter, smaller and lighter than the 100s/105s, and seems excellent except maybe bokeh not as dreamy as 100L. I can get one for under $600 new. 6-year warranty. Hmm.Canon 100's
-- Not sure where to go with this. The 100L seems great but it'll be well over $1000 in Canada so that breaks the bank (whereas the Tamron is cheaper here, go figure). The non-IS Canon 100 is a consideration but the Tamron seems to appeal more.
Another consideration is to get the zooms now and just wait till 2014 and whatever the new 50mm ends up being. If they came out with a 50mm USM IS f/2 with .5x macro I'd be in heaven. But that won't happen. I hear a new 85 is a possibility too.
(I'm also used to in-camera shake reduction so don't know if I'll miss having IS on a lens. Though I have pretty steady hands.)40 STM
-- This almost takes me back to Pentax. I'm going to pass though as it's redundant with the 17-40, and I'd rather have either macro (even .5) or something faster. It doesn't offer me enough. I'll just pop the RX100 in my pocket.50 1.8 or 1.4
-- If this was my choice I think I'm happy enough to wait till 2014 and see what might be. Although for 100 bucks the 1.8 might be something to try for now. I think I feel the same about the 85/1.8 and 100/f2. When I start to talk about these ones I start looking over at the Tammy 90. I had a Minolta 100/f2 and it was simply spiffy (and no purple finger or CA to boot). But I think the benefits of the macro and VC/IS outweigh the extra stop.
There. That's it. 8000 words. I'm interested in your reflections on the matter...if you didn't hang up and leave before you got to the end.