Would anyone consider this to be "pro-level" lens choices? Read on..

[AJ]

Yes 24-105 and 70-200/4 IS are smart choices.

The f/4 zooms are very portable, very high-quality, and very convenient walk-around lenses.  You'll also have some faster primes for those cases when you need shutter speed and selective focus.

I say go for it.  I agree with the idea of keeping 100/2.8 if at all possible.

[preppyak]

Point taken, but I guess I shoot a little differently than that. I generally shoot my landscapes on my 70-200 between f/11 and f/16, and my flowing water shots with that lens usually run in the .5 to a full second range. I'm not going to get out and say my way is the best way, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.

Oh, I do too usually (f/8-f/11), especially with the water. At least in ideal situations. But, in a pinch, it's that I can get that shot without a tripod if I don't have one with me. Because 1/30th is that sort of dividing line. Without IS that isn't possible. I take my gear with my while kayaking, and I don't always want to lug my tripod with me.

Same is true of large volume rivers (Potomac at Great Falls comes to mind), where the water is going so fast that 1/15th is plenty to get what you normally need 1/2 second or more to get. I can work my way to frame shots I couldn't with a tripod and still get decent results. Still a niche use, but, worth the extra money for me.

[Halfrack]

It's L glass on a FF camera - everything else is supporting equipment and personal skill.

You never mentioned what you'll be shooting so F4 L zooms are a great bang for buck.

[birdman]

OP here. I see a lot of folks with various suggestions, all of which are greatly appreciated.

My thoughts are this: 17-40; 35/1.4; 50/1.8 are the lenses I currently own AND would not consider selling. I need the 17-40 for wide angle, and frankly it never gets used past about 24mm. The 35L for low-light and street photos; same with 50/1.8.

I would replace my 28-135 w/ 24-105 because: 1) They are very cheap used now that it's been the kit lens for all (3)  three 5d camera bodies. Many, many of those in the used/new market. 2) I may get another body, either a 40D or 5dClassic in the future.

Lastly, it's not so much overlap as it is different needs. The 24-105 and 70-200 are BOTH very versatile FLs....paired to either FF or cropped bodies. I need IS because I have unsteady hands and don't use my tripod very much--only on landscape shots. I want to start doing modeling work, and hopefully that will come in time. I don't see how the 24-105 & 70-200 would be bad choices for that type of work either. The 100 macro NEVER gets touched any more. Haven't shot a single picture with it in nearly two years.

[wickidwombat]

OP here. I see a lot of folks with various suggestions, all of which are greatly appreciated.

My thoughts are this: 17-40; 35/1.4; 50/1.8 are the lenses I currently own AND would not consider selling. I need the 17-40 for wide angle, and frankly it never gets used past about 24mm. The 35L for low-light and street photos; same with 50/1.8.

I would replace my 28-135 w/ 24-105 because: 1) They are very cheap used now that it's been the kit lens for all (3)  three 5d camera bodies. Many, many of those in the used/new market. 2) I may get another body, either a 40D or 5dClassic in the future.

Lastly, it's not so much overlap as it is different needs. The 24-105 and 70-200 are BOTH very versatile FLs....paired to either FF or cropped bodies. I need IS because I have unsteady hands and don't use my tripod very much--only on landscape shots. I want to start doing modeling work, and hopefully that will come in time. I don't see how the 24-105 & 70-200 would be bad choices for that type of work either. The 100 macro NEVER gets touched any more. Haven't shot a single picture with it in nearly two years.

the 24-105 is great for studio work the reasons are as follows
1) its a sharp lens even wide open at f4 its good however
2) shooting studio you are typically shooting f8 - f16 sooo f4 is fine
3) IS is really handy on this lens (just remember to switch it off on a tripod
4) the zoom range 24-105 is great for a studio no lens changes at all and you can shoot everything
5) its not too massive, its a good size not too heavy and easily maneuvored 70-200 can be quite unwieldy at times the f4 less so than the 2.8 though

overall i think you plan to use the 24-105 for your general purpose lens is a good one

i had another thought though and i think someone else mentioned it too since the 24-105 give you pretty decent general coverage i suspect the 70-200 will spend most of its time at 200 if you are using it you will be chassing the reach
consider the  200 f2.8L II prime
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/A0475-Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-8-L-II-USM-Lens-F2-8L-Gt-5Wt-/390340094258?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item5ae2152932

since budget is a consideration save some coin its a bit more low key 1 stop faster  (no IS though) and stellar IQ
of course you can save even more and get one second hand

[Razor2012]

The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.
 

+1

images are fantastic on th 70-200 IS ii- only thing I don't like about mine is it fits a little loose at the mount, which causes it to "jiggle" a very small amount if I'm walking...etc.  I've read online that many others fit this way as well, so I just try to ignore it.

Was that right from the get go or it took a little time?  I'll keep an eye on it, seems pretty snug right now.

[Northstar]

The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.
 

+1

images are fantastic on th 70-200 IS ii- only thing I don't like about mine is it fits a little loose at the mount, which causes it to "jiggle" a very small amount if I'm walking...etc.  I've read online that many others fit this way as well, so I just try to ignore it


Was that right from the get go or it took a little time?  I'll keep an eye on it, seems pretty snug right now.

Right from get go...I've read many others are like mine, but also many are snug like yours....hard to figure out

[paul13walnut5]

One final point from me on this...  if you want to know if somebody is a pro or not look at their pictures.  If you want to know how much money somebody has spent, look at their kit.   There isn't always a correlation twixt the two.

Good luck with which ever you choose, I thought there were good technical reasons for opting for f2.8's such as improved AF performance, but there you go....

[dirtcastle]

OP here. I see a lot of folks with various suggestions, all of which are greatly appreciated.

My thoughts are this: 17-40; 35/1.4; 50/1.8 are the lenses I currently own AND would not consider selling. I need the 17-40 for wide angle, and frankly it never gets used past about 24mm. The 35L for low-light and street photos; same with 50/1.8.

I would replace my 28-135 w/ 24-105 because: 1) They are very cheap used now that it's been the kit lens for all (3)  three 5d camera bodies. Many, many of those in the used/new market. 2) I may get another body, either a 40D or 5dClassic in the future.

Lastly, it's not so much overlap as it is different needs. The 24-105 and 70-200 are BOTH very versatile FLs....paired to either FF or cropped bodies. I need IS because I have unsteady hands and don't use my tripod very much--only on landscape shots. I want to start doing modeling work, and hopefully that will come in time. I don't see how the 24-105 & 70-200 would be bad choices for that type of work either. The 100 macro NEVER gets touched any more. Haven't shot a single picture with it in nearly two years.

From what you've explained here, your choice makes a lot of sense.

If you'll be shooting models in controlled situations (strobe or daylight), then I agree that the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm f/4 will be extremely practical. If you don't need to completely blur the backgrounds of long shots... f/4 will get the job done (and 200mm f/4 does get some good blur at long distances).

The only potential gap might be a longer, fast lens. If this became an issue, you could fill the gap with a 135mm f/2.

[bdunbar79]

One final point from me on this...  if you want to know if somebody is a pro or not look at their pictures.  If you want to know how much money somebody has spent, look at their kit.   There isn't always a correlation twixt the two.

Good luck with which ever you choose, I thought there were good technical reasons for opting for f2.8's such as improved AF performance, but there you go....

Thank you!  My advice is to look at and assess what you HAVE.  It is up to YOU to make them work at a professional level.  If you have a 17-40mm f/4L, then that is what you have, so make the best of it and get all the quality out of it that you can.  You CAN make anything work for you if you are patient and make your best shots!

[aznable]

The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.

also he sigma 70-200 beats the 70-200 f/4 is canon optically and it costs the same....maybe he just doesnt need an f/2.8 lens