What would you do if you had $2000, a 5DII and no lenses?

[bdunbar79]

Start driving for Chicago in a big bomber beat up car, wearing shades, at night, with no gas...

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

If you don't mind used or refurbished, you could look at a 24-70 version 1, and a 70-200 f/4 IS. It would be at the peak of your $2K, but still possible. The only lens I use for candid portrait work is the 70-200 2.8 ii. It is a beast, heavy enough actually that my wife doesn't even carry it when we have a wedding or portrait shoot. If you want the optics despite the weight, I have absolutely nothing against the "beast" tele, 70-200ii.

Cheers,
-Tabor

P.S. If budget is an issue, I would go for primes as others have suggested. If you picked up a 35, 85, and 135, you would be set for just about any situation that should come your way.

 

[adhocphotographer]

This really depends on what you shoot... If you don't know which way the wind will take you, just getting a 24-105L for the moment until you see if you want wider or longer or just better in that range.

If i was in that situation i would get the 24-105L and 70-300L.... but as i said it depends what you shoot and want!!!

 

[verysimplejason]

I'm into portraits, landscapes and macro photography.

I'd buy 24-105L + 2-3 speedlights (preferrably Nissin or Canon) + remote for those speedlights + filters (polarizer, gnd, variable ND) + tripod + umbrella + umbrella holder + light-stand. If anything left, I'll buy a 100mm USM macro or a tamron 90mm macro (2nd hand will do).

 

[Haydn1971]

I like ultrawide, but like some flexibilty with walkaround and telephoto.... For £2000 in the UK, I'd either look at getting a 16-355 II for £900 secondhand, with a secondhand £250 kit 28-135 as a stopgap and 135mm secondhand for £650, a lens baby, plus some filters, alternatively if I was buying new, then probably the 17-35, 35IS & 100IS Macro, plus some filters...

 

[drjlo]

85L II.

I'm looking at my lens collection including the likes of 70-200 f/2.8 II, 35L, 100L, 135L, 17-40L, but 85L II plus 5D II (III in my case) produces the most special images.

 

[caruser]

I'd get a 135L and while using that I'd think about the 35 IS or which other 35 or 50 to get, or perhaps the 28 IS and 40 pancake.

First, I'd be thankful -- lots of folks would love to have a 5D2 and $2K!!

That's a nice answer.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I am curious to know what people that photograph other things would do too! Thats why I said that.

But if you want to know, I like to photograph people working, not rich people, people from deep Brazil, where I live now. In the farms for example.

(I'm talking about $2000 in US prices, of course).

If I only had a camera body and $2000, I'd get:
EF 24-105 f/4 L IS ... as a general purpose lens that can also be used for handheld video
EF 28mm f/1.8 ... for low light interior shots
EF 50mm f/1.4 ... when I don't want to carry too much weight for an evening of street photography
EF 85mm f/1.8 ... for portraits of lovely Brazilian beauties

 

[captainkanji]

I'd sell the 5dII and buy a 6D with 24-105 kit.

 

[Hannes]

One question to ask yourself if you really want to carry around a very conspicuous white lens while shooting people like that? Now that one is up to you and how you think people will react.

 

[StepBack]

I'd ask everyone else what 2 do because I just went out and dropped a dime on something and don't know what I'm doing.

 

[barracuda]

I'd buy a lens.

So funny... I couldn't stop chuckling after I read this. Not laughing, just a continuous chuckling. Good one. Must be late over here.

I'd sell the 5dII and buy a 6D with 24-105 kit.

After reading on, I have to agree with this post. You'd probably have over $1k left over to buy another lens too.

 

[Synomis192]

It's strange after using an NEX system I'm in love with having an all prime setup.

That being said this is what I would get with $2000

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
Sigma 35mm f/1.4
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 85mm f/1.8

 

[noncho]

24-105L
200 2.8L II
Sigma/Canon 50 1.4 or Canon 85 1.8

 

[gferdinandsen]

I'd definately get the 24-70 f2.8/L Mark II. I absolutely love this lens, it's resolution can't be beat. I use this lens about 85% of the time.

 

[cpsico]

24-70 , primes are something you get when you have special needs for them, zooms are better for general purpose

 

[CanadianInvestor]

I take photos of bridges, of people who depend on them for a livelihood, shelter etc., for example Howrah Bridge in Calcutta. Close ups, street portraits and some from a distance all with a 5D II. I managed well with a 28-135 f3.5 - 5.6 IS and picked it up new in Jessops in London 12 years ago for GBP300, I think. All the reviews about this glass slam it, but for my requirement and skill level and budget it was perfect. I now use another lens (70-200 f2.8 IS II) but do take it out my old lens now and then for old times sake.

Buy something modest, as suggested elsewhere, try it out and then decide since especially, in your locale, USD2000 is a king's ransom and can bring immense benefits if your pictures move people.

I'll be in SP in August of next year and maybe we can meet up and exchange notes!

Good luck.

 

[bitm2007]

For landscape photography. Initially the 17-40mm f4 L and 24-105mm f4 L. Then save a little more for the 70-200mm f4 L (non IS). $2500 ish in total

 

[sawsedge]

My first thought, like another earlier, was "buy a lens".

I take photos of everything. Anything interesting, hopefully with good light! So any lens is better than none. I love macro, so that would be in the back of my mind. I love landscapes, and I love tighter framing than many. I also love wildlife. So $2000 is a tough call, I could easily spend more if I had it. Within that budget, I'd try to get bargains on a 24-105 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L IS, and hopefully have enough left for the 100mm f/2.8 USM macro.

 

[gigabellone]

1) Get a Tamron 24-70/2.8 for 1000$.
2) Install Magic Lantern.
3) Have fun with your money and your great camera.