So, here's what I've ultimately come up with: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM - $2000 Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM - $2000 Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM - $1300 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM - $800 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - $600 All prices cheapest available in AUD. Prices rounded. So, in total this is about $6700. Firstly: I'm about to start taking some weddings and, if I'm lucky, get into some studios to work; I hope I'll be able to pay it off and still be able to live... somewhat. I'll not be buying these instantly, but gradually, over a three year period. In this time, would I sensibly be able to get enough money to pay for these and pay for normal expenditures as well? I haven't got up my pricing yet, but it'd be under $1500 per wedding... maybe even below $1000. Secondly, I'm not too sure about the 24-105mm f/4... is the IS worth the minus-one stop in aperture, as compared to the f/2.8 on the 24-70mm? The latter is $1000 more here... Thirdly: is there anything that I don't really need? In all, I'll also be taking landscape and bird shots, but also focusing on weddings, I think I'd need the low aperture (here referring to the above as well). There's another thing: perhaps I'll save $1000 and get the 17-40mm f/4L instead of the 16-35mm f/2.8L and use the $1000 to get the 24-70mm for the f/2.8? Thoughts? I was thinking of using the wide angle in weddings, but perhaps the 24-70mm would be more practical overall because I don't really need the f/2.8 in landscape. And yet here comes the thing on IS... I doubt Canon is releasing a f/2.8 IS model at this particular level. Anyway, thoughts on this would be appreciated too. Or, could I just not get the f/2.8 (on either lens) and instead keep the $1000? Would the 50mm, at it's fast f/1.4, suffice for most dark shots? Weddings, particularly? Do these work well enough, in terms of covering the wedding? I'm confused, as you can see, so help is appreciated.