Lenses to compliment 24-105...

[TrustDust]

Hi Everyone,

Over the last few weeks I have been looking at quite a lot of lenses to try and determine what I need. At this stage I can't really say what I like to shoot because I find every field has it's own stimulating factors. The only thing I know for sure is that I won't be shooting portraiture very soon but I really love everything else...

At this stage I only have the 24-105 and apart from it's known limitations I really love the lens and find it very easy to shoot basically anything. Sometimes I do feel it doesn't have enough reach and sometimes I feel it is just not wide enough thus the reason for this post...

So I watched a lot of YT videos on the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L II and I was thinking of getting those two to compliment the 24-105. That will give me the ability to do wide angle as well as reasonable zoom on my crop factor 60D. I am not planning to upgrade the body anytime soon because lenses are more important to me for where I am now but I also don't want a bag with 400 different lenses when I don't really need it.

To make a long story short do you guys think the combination will work ok?

Thanks

 

[bratkinson]

Your thinking about the 16-35 and 70-200 essentially mimics where I started from with the 24-105 that replaced my EF-S 18-135 that I was using with my 60D. I knew I wanted to go full frame eventually (and did, in November), so I stayed with FF lenses. I also shoot just about anything and everything I want, except I have no interest in sports/action or macro work (yet). For bugs, I figure I could always zoom in with the 24-105 from 3-4 feet and be happy with the result.

My preference is for 'overlapping zoom ranges', so I ended up with a 16-35 ii and the predecessor of the 70-200, the 80-200 f2.8L "magic black pipe". The latter, bought used for about $700 as I recall. With the range overlaps, I'm never forced to switch to a different lens unnecessarily...as in needing 85mm when I have the 24-105 mounted, or, the 80-200. I essentially think of my 3 lenses as 'wide/indoors', 'most of my shooting', and 'tele/outdoors'. I've never been disappointed by these three.

But when I want to kick it up a notch, I added an 85mm f1.2, 135 f2L, and 200 f2.8L ii. The added sharpness of these lenses and especially with the 135 wide open are jaw dropping. When I upgraded to a 5D3 3 months ago, the 135 WOWed me even more!

For just about anything I might want to photograph, I think I have my bases covered. I never carry more than 4 lenses for an outing. Otherwise, I figure I'd be switching lenses every 10 minutes or so.

 

[curtyoungblood]

Another option would be to sell the 24-105, and get the 16-35 and 70-200, which would save you a little money and still cover the ranges your looking for. Another option, if you really aren't planning to upgrade to a full frame anytime soon is the 10-22, which would have less of an overlap than the 16-35.

 

[usayit]

only have the 24-105[/B] and apart from it's known limitations I really love the lens and find it very easy to shoot basically anything. Sometimes I do feel it doesn't have enough reach and sometimes I feel it is just not wide enough thus the reason for this post...

That's one of the best things about the 24-105L..

Whenever I went on trips and needed to pack light, 5D, 24-105L, 50mm f/1.4 is all I ever really needed.

 

[TrustDust]

Thanks everyone for the input and replies I really appreciate...

@bratkinson: I think the route I was planning to take is exactly the way you moved forward. I am trying to buy the best lenses I can which will also work on a FF and once I got everything I need I will upgrade to FF not having to sell and buy lenses apart from the occasional version upgrades on some lenses.

I am also trying to buy the best of other things I need like very good travel tripod, head, bags, filters, etc etc... So a FF body is way way down my list