Things to come.

[jwass]

Was wondering if I could avail myself of the vast knowledge of this great forum. This is my plan. Currently have a 350D a 50 1.8, 70-200 F4 IS, Tokina 12-24. Love these lenses including the nifty fifty which I have been using a lot lately. Next up is the 17-55 2.8 IS (Just waiting on the spring rebates which I hope are coming soon). Then comes the 40d. With this set of zooms I think I will have a decent range covered.

Then I'm off into primes. I was thinking for sports I would pick up the 200 2.8 L. I think mostly outdoor sports like kids baseball. I know it's a little short but with a 1.4 ext. I should be able get where I need to. Cost is the consideration otherwise I'd go with the 300 2.8L.

Then I was thinking for wildlife and birding I'd pick up the 400 5.6L. Love the image quality of the primes and I think the loss of versaltility that a zoom provides is an equal tradeoff. I'll use my feet.

Later I'm might pick up some portrait and indoor sports lenses the 85 1.8, 135 L. Opinions?

 

[jwass]

I also thought I was in the Canon lense forum but hopefully most Canon folks won't mind opining on what are good prime lens to go on my future 40 D. Thanks.

 

[tocarver]

Looks like a great plan to me!! The 85 F1.8 + 17-55 + 400, will cover alot of ground, coupled with your existng lenses, with the 40D and maybe a converter to use on the 70-200 F4 and 400 ( static shots) and your covered for Low light/wide/long. That's basically how I went, when I switch systems from Pentax, but got the Sigma 17-70 Macro instead of the 17-55. Needed the difference in cost for a flash etc. As I shoot more wildlife/birds, it seemed like a sensible trade-off.

I don't know about the 135 or 200, have read great things, but guess it depends so much on what YOU shoot the most! I spent more on my birding lense, because that's what I shoot the most, if I shot landscape/portraits/street, I would have spent more at that range instead.
Good luck, sounds like you'll make the right choices.
--
Jerry
http://www.pbase.com/tocarver
Equipment, to date, (+: In profile

 

[dwalby]

At first glance the 200 prime and 70-200 zoom seems redundant. Sure the prime is a faster lens, but I'm not sure its going to help out all that much.

with the 400 prime you now have a big gap between 200-400, so the 100-400 is another alternative if you need to fill that gap.

Was wondering if I could avail myself of the vast knowledge of this
great forum. This is my plan. Currently have a 350D a 50 1.8, 70-200
F4 IS, Tokina 12-24. Love these lenses including the nifty fifty
which I have been using a lot lately. Next up is the 17-55 2.8 IS
(Just waiting on the spring rebates which I hope are coming soon).
Then comes the 40d. With this set of zooms I think I will have a
decent range covered.
Then I'm off into primes. I was thinking for sports I would pick up
the 200 2.8 L. I think mostly outdoor sports like kids baseball. I
know it's a little short but with a 1.4 ext. I should be able get
where I need to. Cost is the consideration otherwise I'd go with the
300 2.8L.
Then I was thinking for wildlife and birding I'd pick up the 400
5.6L. Love the image quality of the primes and I think the loss of
versaltility that a zoom provides is an equal tradeoff. I'll use my
feet.
Later I'm might pick up some portrait and indoor sports lenses the 85
1.8, 135 L. Opinions?

 

[killingbuddha]

I have the 40D with
17-55 2.8
50 1.4
85 1.8
200 2.8

I love them all. However, the one I will get rid of is the 200 2.8 when I get the 70-200 2.8 which will be followed by a 100-400. I love my primes for sure but I will love having the zoom on the long end and then the 200 prime will be redundant.

I don't think you lose much sharpness by going with a zoom...what you do lose is a lot out of your wallet.
good luck,
You will love the 40D!!

--
everything together falls apart
everything rising up collapses
every meeting ends in parting
every life ends in death
-Udanavarga

 

[jchoate]

Canon just loves gearheads like you!

Jerry
--
http://jchoate.zenfolio.com/

 

[JimStrutz]

I opted for the 100mm f/2, as I think 50 - 100 - 200 is a more practical stretch. Then add a 24mm and you're all set.

 

[iomatic]

I would actually change things up a bit; for low light clouds in Winter/Spring, or stadium lights, on the sidelines of a soccer/football field, or basketball court a 70-200 2.8 IS is quite perfect, with a monopod, and an Arca Swiss clamp system. A second body with a 300 or 400 prime is good if you're an aspiring or semi-pro, but a wide is useful, albeit rarely.

For wildlife, a crop body and 100-400 for versatility (you can't always zoom with your feet, if you don't want to scare them off).

For street, a Leica. Or a GX100, or something along those lines: fast/light

 

[jwass]

That's my biggest dilemma, the right sports lens. The 70-200 2.8 IS would be great $1600.00 later. I don't want to get rid of the 70-200 F4 but I need the speed for sports. The 200 2.8 prime is around $650.00.

 

[jwass]

As far as acquiring gearhead status, this is long range plan involving years. From the info on this forum I'm trying to put together the best set of lens to cover my photographic interests without going overboard. A fine line. A good balance of zooms and primes. If I find some lens covers another area of interest, believe me I'll opt to use it instead of acquiring another lens.

For example. I'll use my 50 1.8 to cover that range as opposed to get the 50 1.4 (which has its own limitations) or a 50 1.2L which it prohibitively expensive. In the end I want to make smart choices in the first place vs impulse accumulation of lens.