Lenses for 600d or oncoming replacement

[JTPAIN]

Am looking to invest in a new set of L lenses for this 1.6x crop factor DSLR

Mainly with interests in macro, landscape and wildlife, I was thinking of:

24-105mm IS L

17-40mm L or 16-35mm L

70-300mm IS L (or preferably 100-400mm replacement, if it ever comes)

100mm IS L Macro

- Would these be wise choices? - Thanks for your help

[Tijn]

That's a hefty lens selection for a crop camera. I assume that you'll be going full frame some time in the future.

Firstly, of the two lenses you mentioned (17-40 vs 16-35), the 16-35 is a lot better as far as I know. That concerns mostly full-frame cameras however; for crop cameras, there are more appropriate alternatives. 17mm and 16mm are superwide on fullframe cameras, but just 'wide' on a crop - most kit lenses go up to 17mm or 18mm on crop (which framing-wise is equivalent to about 28mm on a fullframe camera).

Consideration #1: For a crop camera, you should seriously consider the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens. Unfortunately, it's an EF-s lens which will not travel to a fullframe camera upgrade. But on the other hand, it's far more versatile on a crop camera than the 17-40 or 16-35 lenses. It doesn't have L-grade build quality, but it does have the image quality. It's sharp and very very decent.

Consideration #2: With the budget of your lens selection, you could consider upgrading to a fullframe camera rightaway. You could then skip the 17-40 or 16-35 lenses, because 24mm (from the 24-105) on fullframe is the equivalent of 15mm on crop (and your widest was 17mm), so you'd end up without superwide angles either way. Then you could spend that money (from the 17-40 and 16-35) on a fullframe body upgrade. Fullframe bodies have better ISO performance, and all of the lenses that you have listed here are fullframe-compatible lenses as well. The 24-105 lens is a great all-rounder on a fullframe camera, but it's slightly lost on a crop because it lacks the wide angles. Keep in mind though that if you really like landscapes, you will want to get the 16-35 on a fullframe as well eventually - it gives you really wide angles which are nice for a lot of landscape stuff. But because you will be 'stuck' without superwide angles whether you get a crop now (with a 16-35 lens) and a fullframe later, or whether you get fullframe now (without the 16-35 lens) and get that lens later; you might as well just go for fullframe now. Going fullframe on a budget like yours is, in my opinion, a very worthwhile choice. A second-hand 5d mkII (particularly when/if the mk3 is officially anounced) would be my suggestion.

I think those two things are the most important considerations judging your suggested lens selection.

[Rampado]

I think Tijn is right...

but if you don´t want to go full frame, you will really need wide angle for your landscape! You could buy the 8-16 L or something cheaper like the sigma 10-20 f3.5 that is a nice lens!

[Positron]

8-16 L

Oh man, if that only existed... /drool

Edit: if you were referring to the 8-15L, which does exist, that's a fisheye. Not exactly a strong general-purpose lens.

Edit 2: With a budget like that, I'd recommend the 5D Mark II with 16-35L, 100 macro, and a cheaper telephoto like the 70-200 f/4L if landscape is more important to you, or a 7D with the 100 macro, 100-400L, and a cheaper wideangle like the 17-40L if the wildlife is more important. Either way comes in at a similar budget to what you're suggesting but the full-frame will be awesome for macro/landscape while the speed and reach of the 7D will do you well for wildlife. The reason the macro is in both setups is that's something that can't be replicated with other lenses. Also, you may consider the non-L 100mm for half the price if you shoot your macros on a tripod.

Always your choice what to do with your money but hope this helps somewhat.

Edit 3: A third option could be the 5D Mark II with 24-105 and 100-400. In exchange for true macro and extreme wideangle, it does almost everything, and brilliantly. Unfortunately, landscape and wildlife tend to be at extreme opposite ends of the spectrum, so getting gear tailored to both is a costly proposition.

[Tijn]

For a wide-angle lens if you do want to stick with a crop body, consider the Canon EF-s 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. Again, it doesn't travel to a fullframe upgrade, but it provides the wide angle you'll want for some landscape photography.

[D.Sim]

Would personally go for the 70-200 2.8 over the 70-300 though, but otherwise a pretty solid set... if you're really into landscapes, one of the TS&E's instead of the 17-40/16-35 maybe?

[nicku]

Am looking to invest in a new set of L lenses for this 1.6x crop factor DSLR

Mainly with interests in macro, landscape and wildlife, I was thinking of:

24-105mm IS L

17-40mm L or 16-35mm L

70-300mm IS L (or preferably 100-400mm replacement, if it ever comes)

100mm IS L Macro

- Would these be wise choices? - Thanks for your help

I will recommend  these lenses :

17-40 f4 L
50mm f/1.4
70-200 f/4L IS

[theqspeaks]

I definitely agree with Tijn too.  The value of the 24-105L, 17-40L, and 16-35L are all largely lost on a crop sensor if you don't plan to upgrade to FF.  Ditto the recs on the EF-S 17-55mm and EF-S 10-22mm. 

And I second D.Sim's rec of the 70-200mm 2.8 IS L.  Sharper and faster than the 70-300mm.  Plus, with a 1.4x extender, it becomes a 98-280 f/4, basically as long as the 70-300 and still a full stop faster on the long end.

[Maui5150]

Depends on your purpose. 

24-105mm IS L
17-40mm L or 16-35mm L

These are all decent lenses in general.  Out of the 3, the 16-35 is probably the best lens, but it will be lost a little on the crop.  The 17-40 as well will have a lot of its short comings lost on the crop, so is a little better bang for the buck, but I think in terms of the range, if you are looking to go wide, the 10-22 is your better bet.  The 17-40 and 16-35 really are different lenses on a crop than a FF.   Now if your intent is to move up to FF in the future, these are lenses that will open up once you make your move.

the 24-105 is a very nice lens.  Not the best, but will have decent range on the crop and might make a nice walk around lens, though probably not as wide as you would like for landscape. 

I would stay away from the 18-135.  It has a nice range, but not the best lens... Extremely cheap. 

70 - 300 IS L is a decent lens... I was real close to going that way (I have both crop and FF) but stepped up into the 70 - 200.   I went the 2.8 route because then if you add an extended you are not killing yourself with the doubled F-stop, so the 2.8 on a 2X TC becomes 5.6 where as the 70-300 becomes and F/8. 

Light may not seem too much of a factor, but I find that biggest difference in the 2.8 lens is it is faster focusing in dimmer light, so that should help.  Also note though, if you do use a TC, your AF is slowed.  This is done by design, so in some cases a 70-300 or 100-400 will be faster.   

100mm IS L Macro -> very nice lens all around. 

I think bang for the buck wise, a 70-200 F/4 IS is a perfect L lens at a great price for you.  Over all I think it is a little better performer than the 70-300, and even there, if you are mainly shooting landscape on a tripod, etc, the Non-IS version can be picked up for less than $600, and the F/4 L non-IS is extremely sharp.  Probably one of Canons best bang for the bucks there is in the lens

[Steb]

24-105mm IS L
17-40mm L or 16-35mm L
70-300mm IS L (or preferably 100-400mm replacement, if it ever comes)
100mm IS L Macro

+1 for Tijn's suggestions.

This lens selection is exactly what I use on my 60D crop. I find myself switching between 16-35 and 24-105 way too often. The 24-105 is not wide enough for a walkabout lens and the 16-35 is a waste of money without using its ultrawide capabilities. The telezoom and macro lenses are excellent choices for a crop sensor body though. If you want to stay with EF-S I recommend to look into 17-55 (and maybe 10-22 for landscape).

[JTPAIN]

Would I be right to draw from what most of you have said that the 70-200mm f4 IS L with a 1.4x (or 2x) teleconverter would provide a better potion than the 70-300mm in terms of speed and IQ.

Thanks for the help

[Tijn]

Would I be right to draw from what most of you have said that the 70-200mm f4 IS L with a 1.4x (or 2x) teleconverter would provide a better potion than the 70-300mm in terms of speed and IQ.

Thanks for the help

No, not the f/4 version. It's the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the super-sharp, heavy and expensive zoom lens that could withstand the fury of a 1.4x or even 2x teleconverter and come out smiling.

It's very expensive, worth a consideration or two (or three) based on its price and weight. Apart from those, it's the sharpest zoom lens in that range - and fast too (making it very versatile). It's not a great carry-around though, weighing over 1.3kg for the lens alone. Not counting a teleconverter.

[D_Rochat]

If you plan on staying with a crop body for the long term, I suggest these

EF-S 10-22mm
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is usm
EF 70-200 f/?L (depending on what your budget dictates)

The two EF-S lenses I mentioned are argued to be as good as L glass, but they hold the EF-S title, so no L.

If you plan on going to FF sometime in the next few years,

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II usm or EF 17-40mm f/4 usm (depending on what your budget dictates)
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L I usm
EF 70-200 f/?L or the 100-400L if you really need reach for wildlife

If you need macro over general purpose, switch out the 17-55 or 24-70 for a macro L lens.

[unfocused]

Well, here is one more opinion to thoroughly confuse you.

Your interests are macro, wildlife and landscape.

I think the 15-85 EF-S is a better all-around walkabout lens outdoors. It's a 24mm equivalent at the wide end, which is wide enough for 90% of the time. It's a 136mm equivalent at the long end, which is handy when outside and you need a bit longer reach and don't have time to change lenses. With this lens, you may not need anything wider for quite awhile.

It's slower than the EF-S 17-55, but as sharp and solid. Kind of a tossup between the two, but if you don't need the faster speed, it's a less-expensive equally solid performer.

If you are interested in wildlife, I would skip over the 70-200mm lenses. They don't  have enough reach and I'm not a tele-converter fan. I haven't tried the 70-300 L, but I understand it is a great lens and very sharp. A bit slow though (f-stop, not focusing), but that's the price you pay for longer reach. It is a bit expensive to my way of thinking and hard to come buy on the used/refurbished market, probably because they haven't sold all that many yet.

The 100 L Macro is a fantastic lens. If you have any interest in macro, it's a no-brainer. Worth every cent and the IS makes it very useful for portraits, short telephoto shots, close-ups etc.

If you are seriously into wildlife, don't rule out the current 100-400. It's regularly available on the Canon refurbished site if you are in the U.S. When and if a new model is finally released, I expect to see the same price inflation that we've seen with other new Canon lenses, so unless you're prepared to go well north of $2,000, I'd consider the 100-400. I rented that lens, the 300 f4 and the 400 5.6 at various times. The 100-400 is the one I decided to buy.

If you do decide to eventually go extreme wide-angle, I like the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. They have announced an updated version that won't be available until late summer. Tokina makes very good glass. The Canon super-wide EF-S is supposed to be a fine lens as well, so no criticism there. I just like the Tokina better.

Finally, I wouldn't take my advice or anyone else's without first going to the LensRentals.Com site and reading "Roger's Take" on the lenses. He knows this stuff better than anyone here does (and since he rents every lens, he's tried them all.)

Personally I think the biggest dilemma is choosing the right telephoto zoom, because there are so many choices out there.