What if you started from scratch again? Total Loss...

[bhavikk]

I'd stick with Canon as I know their system already.

Canon 5D Mark III
50 F1.2L
24-70 F2.8L II
600EX-RT
Gitzo GT2531 + Manfrotto 468MGRC2

I'd would not purchase the 16-35 F2.8 II again as I don't shoot super wide all the time, but it was very useful on my crop sensor at the time. I'd start with the above then either get some studio lights or 70-200 F2.8L II.

[tron]

I would get the following:

5DmkIII kit (w 24-105 f/4L)
TS-E 24mm II
EF70-200 f/4L IS
EF135mm f/2.0 L
EF300mm f/4L (non-IS if I could find one as mine is phenomenal) with EF1.4X III, EF2X III

[Tcapp]

I think I would have to go back to my Crayola 110 film camera...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danipalmer/5347170720/#
NOTE- Not my photo but that was my camera.

[Axilrod]

As much as I love my L glass I should have gotten Zeiss stuff in the first place.

Why? What about autofocus? I can guess the answer, because the Zeiss is sharper!?

I am experimenting at the moment with a A-1, and logically, manual focus lenses. I have to admit, I like to manual focus very much, and I will convert my 55mm FD lens to EF!

Until I got the A-1, manual focus was no choice, 'cause as lazy as I am, I am not using the manual focus ring with my L lenses. But now I try to discover, at least the FTM, so this week there was some insect flying in front of my 100mm Macro lens, and it was too small to put it on a AF point, and also quickly moving to follow it with a AF point (60D), so I tried to catch it sharp focusing with the focus ring. Did I succeed? Well kinda, see yourself. Probably the aperture was still to wide open (f/5.6) to get the whole thing sharp.

Yes they are damn sharp, but not much sharper than L stuff (in the center anyways) but the edge sharpness is definitely superior.  Now on the wide end they are definitely sharper than Canon glass, the ZE 21 is far sharper than the 16-35 II and the 14LII (which is no slouch).  I love the color rendition, when I shoot with them I end up doing up 75% less color correction than I have to when shooting with Canon glass.  More than anything they are optimized for video (and that's what I'm doing 90% of the time) so I really don't need AF.  The throw on the focus ring is just smooth as butter and doesn't throw the subject out of focus if you move it a fraction of an inch (can't say the same for Canon).  Also, having hard stops at infinity and macro is wonderful, no more accidentally spinning past and losing focus marks.  Also they breathe much less than Canon lenses.  Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my L glass (I still haven't gotten rid of any of it despite picking up 3 ZE lenses already) but Zeiss is just a better option for me. 

[tron]

Now on the wide end they are definitely sharper than Canon glass, the ZE 21 is far sharper than the 16-35 II and the 14LII (which is no slouch).

I agree I have the Zeiss 21mm ZE and the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 (version I). The difference at the edges is shocking!

Also, having hard stops at infinity and macro is wonderful, no more accidentally spinning past and losing focus marks.

This is indeed perfect for tasks like astrophotography. No more focusing attempts at bright stars, move to manual and hoping that the lens barrel won't move at all...

[Dylan777]

I'd stick with Canon as I know their system already.

Canon 5D Mark III
50 F1.2L
24-70 F2.8L II
600EX-RT
Gitzo GT2531 + Manfrotto 468MGRC2

I'd would not purchase the 16-35 F2.8 II again as I don't shoot super wide all the time, but it was very useful on my crop sensor at the time. I'd start with the above then either get some studio lights or 70-200 F2.8L II.

I slowly getting into landscape and this lens got used most with my 5D III.