i think it’s HILARIOUS that [url=http://www.tow.com]adam[/url] thinks that “$57,000 is actually not that bad of a price.” when it comes to the cost of buying all of the lenses he wants. sure, adam, hey, wanna lend me $57,000? =P

HILARIOUS.

but since he did a little run down of the lenses he has and wants, it sort of made me want to examine my dream line up. it’s nice to dream, you know?

lenses i own are in bold.

zooms
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

primes
EF 14mm f/2.8L USM
EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
EF 85mm f/1.2L USM
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 400mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM

Extender EF 1.4x II
Extender EF 2x II

tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD 1:2 Macro *cough*

a lot of the lenses i own, i hardly ever use, though. i would say that the majority of my pictures are shot with my EF 17-40mm f/4L. lately, i’ve really been loving the fisheye lens too, but i’m really trying hard not to overuse it.

i think every professional kit isn’t really complete until you get the three big L zooms: the 16-35mm f/2.8L, the 24-70mm f/2.8L, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. the thing is that i virtually never shoot in the latter two zoom ranges, so it’s really hard for me to justify the cost of either of those lenses. i borrowed adam’s 28-70mm f/2.8L once and i found that the range isn’t really that workable for me. i always felt like i wanted to have either more zoom or be a little bit more wide on my camera body, so i ultimately stopped seriously lusting for it and now i only casually lust for it. is that better? as for the 70-200mm, it’s a great lens, heavy, but great…but i just don’t find myself shooting in that range much at all. i guess that’s why i’ve sort of settled with the tamron 70-300 that i bought a long time ago. even though optical quality on that lens isn’t great, it’s good enough for the couple of times i use it a year.

i very rarely ever use my 28-105mm. very rarely. i like using it for portraits. the optical quality is softer than my L lens and portraits usually don’t suffer too much from a little softness. the 28-300mm would be my one lens. if i could only have one lens on my body and nothing else, that’d be it. desperate times call for desperate measures, you know?

the 70-300mm is my travel zoom. it’s small and light and that’s probably the only reason why i’d use this lens: space and weight is an issue. maybe i’d bring it along on hiking or biking trips too.

the 100-400mm is what one would need if you want to start doing wildlife stuff, perhaps? i’m not sure i would really use this spy lens since it is hard to hand-hold. but i’m sure whenever i’m in that situation where i need it, i would love it.

primes are something that i’ve not really adopted and though i’ve listed a lot of them, i feel like a lot of them are specialty lenses. the 14mm is just to cover the ultrawide range.

the 35mm covers what is about 50mm on normal cameras…sort of a standard lens to have.

the 50mm just ups the range a little bit more and when i do move to a full-frame body it’s the standard lens to have. i’m sort of torn about the 50mm macro lens, but sometimes it’s nice to have a hand holdable macro lens.

the 85mm lens is supposed to be THE portrait lens to use as well as THE lens to use in low light situations. i find it a little long for low light, but it’s also one of the only lenses i choose with a large macimum aperture and sometimes, just sometimes, you really need that much of a shallow depth of field.

the 100mm lens is in my opinion the best workable macro lens. i just can’t get myself to use a 180mm macro lens…i don’t see it happening.

the 400mm lens is a fast, big zoom for those times when i need the zoom and the speed. there’s a big gap in my coverage between 100-400mm and i think that’s primarily because i feel that if i’m ever needing to shoot in that range, i would not be switching out primes to get the right length…instead i’d just shoot with the 100-400mm lens.

the 600mm lens is for that extra special reach that one needs when you really are that far away. i’m not sure when i would use this. i can’t even imagine using it, but hey, this is a wishlist, right?

the extenders are pretty standard. i’d get them to really stretch out my range.

but the big question is in what order would i want to get these lenses. let’s see….in order of likelihood that i would get those lenses:

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 85mm f/1.2L USM
EF 400mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
EF 14mm f/2.8L USM

Extender EF 1.4x II
Extender EF 2x II

now…how likely am i to get the first lens on the list? not very. =P

—–