Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

JosephSF Loc: Sonoma County CA

I too am anxiously awaiting the 5D MK IV and will have a choice to make between that and the 5Dsr. As far as lenses for my current 5D MK III I have had some hits and misses. I replaced the EF 17 -40 f/4 L with the EF 16 - 35 F/4 IS Land am completely happy with that swap. I now think I have the bases covered.

In addition to the wide angle 16 - 35 I have the ES 24 - 70 f/2.8 II L (by far my favorite lens), ES 70 - 200 f/2.8 II IS L (just excellent) and the ES 85 F/1.2 II (tricky but amazing for the right application). I have tried several other lenses from Canon and Sigma and I very much like the Sigma Art models but do not own one. There are so many choices for great lenses out there. I have stuck with Canon lenses but people rave about Sigma, Zeiss and Tamron as well.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

"Canon only offers a 1 year warranty on lenses, worst in the industry." Interesting, the same words the salesman used when he sold me a Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 DI VC USD zoom lens. I had gone to the camera shop to purchase the Canon 70-200 but they didn't have one in stock, so, since I was leaving on a trip the next day, I bought the Tamron. Granted, it actually is a nice lens. Very reliable, well made and pretty darn good IQ. Is it as good as the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II? No. But it is a darn good lens. I eventually acquired the Canon lens and from experience can say it is a better lens, it focuses faster, is a bit sharper, has better image stabilization and is built better, but the Tamron holds its own and I'm not sorry I got one. By the way, I own numerous Canon lenses and have never had to use the warranty or pay for a repair, I've never had one break.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First of all, for your purposes I would not recommend a full frame camera at all. In fact, most people really don't need FF. They are just get sold on the idea from reading forums. In truth, most FF users only ever see the difference when viewing their images at ridiculously high magnifications on their computer monitor. Once their images are sized for printing or online display, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between shots made with a current crop camera versus FF.

Think about it... If you view your 70D and 7DII 20MP images "at 100%" on your computer monitor, that's like making a 40x60" print, then viewing it from 18 to 20" away! While it's helpful to zoom in to 100% and greater to retouch images in post-processing... when judging image sharpness, focus, etc. you should back off to 25 or 33%... or to the exact size the image will be printed or used online. That's much more relevant than looking at it highly magnified. Plus, FF will limit your lens choices. Your current APS-C can use both EF-S/crop only lenses and EF/full frame capable lenses. A FF camera can only use EF/FF capable lenses. And those are typically bigger, heavier and more expensive.

I use both FF and APS-C, for different purposes. Full frame is heavily hyped and oversold, IMO. Unless you print bigger than 13x19... maybe even 16x20... you will be the only one to ever see the difference (when working with your images magnified hugely on your computer monitor). I've made lots of 11x14 and 12x18 prints from even 6MP and 8MP images out of APS-C format cameras. Even a few 16x20. They look great on my walls and the walls of my clients.

For what you say you want to do, I think you need four lenses, not three. Several I'll recommend cost a lot less than $2000 apiece, so your total investment will be well under the $6000 you appear to have budgeted.

For landscape (and similar), I'd recommend a wide angle lens. Depending upon how much of this type of photography you'll be doing, you can choose from either the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM or the Canon 10-22mm USM. Both produce excellent image quality.... among the best offered by anyone. The 10-18mm is a bit plasticky, but a bargain under $300. It's also the only ultrawide with image stabilization (less necessary on such a wide lens), and the most compact and lightweight in the category. It might be a good choice if this is a lower priority type of photography for you. The 10-22mm is better built with higher performance USM focus drive. It costs a bit more: about $650. If you want a lens that's more durable for a lot of shooting and to hold up for many years of use, I'd recommend the 10-22mm. (There are also some excellent 3rd party ultrawides that would work well with your current cameras... However compatibility with future camera upgrades is not as certain with 3rd party lenses, as with Canon lenses on Canon cameras.)

For close-ups and people (portraits) I'm going to suggest a single, third party lens: The Tamron SP 60mm f2.0 for about $500. This is both a macro lens and a good portraiture lens, thanks to the f2.0 aperture it offers and it's focal length close to the middle of the "ideal portrait" range. It ain't perfect... Focus is fine for portraits and macro, but it's not up to sports/action (use your other lenses for that). But that's the case with most macro lenses anyway. 60mm is a little on the short side, for some types of macro shooting. It can put you pretty close to some subjects. So this is a little bit of a compromise. It's an "IF" lens, meaning it focuses internally, so doesn't increase in length the way some lenses do, when focused closer. In particular, some macro lenses increase in size A LOT! It's a 1:1 or full life size macro capable lens. That means that at it's closes focus you can capture an image area the same size as your cameras' sensors (i.e. 15x22mm approx.)

For general purpose, walk-around and low light I'll give you a choice: Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM ($850) or EF-S 15-85mm IS USM ($800). Both have superb image quality, fast USM focus and helpful image stabilization. The difference is the 17-55mm's larger f2.8 aperture... but to get that you'll have to accept a narrower range of focal lengths. The 15-85mm covers more range and remains relatively compact... It's unusually wide for this type of lens, offering 15mm which might be sufficient for landscape work and even make the ultrawides mentioned above unnecessary. But, to accomplish this it has a "slower" and variable f3.5 to f5.6 aperture. That might be okay, especially if you have another, faster lens such as the 60mm f2.0 mentioned above. Variable apertures generally are no problem, unless using manually controlled flash where they can complicate calculations. With modern camera metering systems and auto exposure.... both with and without flash.... variable apertures are of little concern. So, take your pick: wider range of focal lengths with slower/variable aperture or a larger aperture/low light capable lens with a narrower range of focal lengths.

Actually there are a couple more possible "walk-around" zooms: The EF-S 18-135mm IS USM is a new model. If you want to shoot video too, this lens would be a good choice. It's the first Canon USM lens optimized for video. (Prior to this, I'd recommend an STM lens for video, but they aren't as fast focusing.) Canon is also offering a PZ-E1 Power Zoom module exclusively (for now) for use with this lens. The new 18-135mm USM is at least twice as fast focusing as the STM version.... which would make it more widely useful for any sort of fast action shooting such as sports photography. The 18-135mm USM costs about $650 and the PZ-E1 is another $150.

An inexpensive, but good alternative is the EF 28-135mm IS USM. It can be found cheap, was often sold in kit with cameras in the past, so are pretty easy to find for under $200 lightly used. Yet, it has quite good image quality, fast USM focus, and helpful 2-3 stop IS. 28mm isn't wide on APS-C cameras like yours, but this lens has a useful "standard to moderate telephoto range". If you have a wider lens such as the 10-18 or 10-22 anyway, may not be a concern. The EF 24-105L really isn't any better in IQ, performance or durability... but costs 2X or 3X as much.

Now, if by "animals" you mean wildlife that are difficult or unwise to approach, I recommend the Canon EF 100-400mm "L" IS USM Mark II. It has superb image quality, very fast USM focus and helpful image stabilization (3 to 4 stops worth). It is very well built (as are most L-series), if a bit big and rather heavy (3.5 lb.) This lens is right at your $2000 per lens limit, and will be more than that if you get some accessories I'll recommend below, but well worth it if you need 400mm of reach. The 100-400mm Mark II also is quite close focusing.... it gets to about 1/3 life size all on it's own, making it one of the closest focusing Canon tele lenses longer than 200mm (the older EF 300mm f4L IS USM previously held that honor). The 100-400mm II includes both lens hood and tripod mounting ring (more on this below). The 100-400mm Mark II includes some features only found on lenses costing 3X or 4X as much. My only minor complaint using one is that at some distances and apertures backgrounds can look a little "busy". But it would cost a whole heck of a lot more to get a larger aperture lens that blurs things down more and better, not to mention such a lens will also be bigger and about 2X or 3X heavier! I wouldn't want to give up any of the sharpness of the in-focus subjects that this lens is capable of. It's a trade-off and the background can be dealt with in post-processing.

If instead by "animals" you mean pets and other more approachable critters, you may find a 70-200mmm serves just as well or better. Here you've choice of a larger, heavier Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM Mark II (about $2000) or an approx. 1/3 smaller, lighter EF 70-200/4L IS USM (around $1250). Once again, image quality from either of these is excellent And both are real "work horses": durable, tough, well made lenses. The f2.8 lens weighs about 2.5 lb., while the f4 weighs around 1.66 lb. The f2.8 lens includes lens hood and tripod mounting ring. The f4 lens includes lens hood, but the tripod mounting ring is sold separately (costs about $150, which I included in the above estimated price, since I consider this a mandatory accessory). You'll find a 70-200mm in most pro shooters' camera bags. Personally I have two: an older EF 70-200/2.8L IS and a 70-200/4L IS bought as a backup, but find I probably use even more often. The 100-400mm can be a good substitute for someone needing the extra "reach" of 400mm.

All three of these L-series tele-zooms are well sealed for dust and moisture resistance, too.

Some accessories you should consider if you don't already have them, depending upon the lenses you choose:

- A high quality, multi-coated Circular Polarizing filter (Hoya, B+W, Marumi, Heliopan, Singh-Ray, etc.). Especially get one in a size to fit your landscape lens. Later you might find one useful for portraits. Sizes needed vary by lens: The Tamron 60mm f2.0 macro lens uses 55m filters. The 10-18mm, 18-135mm and 70-200/4 use 67mm. The 15-85mm and 28-135mm use 72mm. The 10-22mm, 70-200/2.8, 100-400mm all use 77mm.

- Some of the lenses mentioned don't come with a lens hood and I'd recommend getting those and always using them. A lens hood keeps oblique light off your lens, potentially improving your images, and possibly metering accuracy and AF performance, and a hood cannot possibly "harm" images (so long as the hood is properly installed). The 10-18mm, 10-22mm, 17-55mm, 15-85mm, 18-135mm and 28-135mm don't include a lens hood. My price estimates try to allow for the add'l cost (might be able to buy 3rd party clones for less). The "L-series" lenses do include a matched lens hood.

- With some of the larger lenses a tripod mounting ring is a very useful accessory. This allows use of either a tripod or a monopod to help support the lens... both for added stability and to relieve your aching arms during extended shoots! The 70-200/2.8 and 100-400mm both include a t'pod ring. The 70-200/4 doesn't. My cost estimate for that lens allows for the OEM Canon ring (about $150).... but there are also 3rd party clones available at about 1/3 the price.

The 100-400 Mark II uses a rather unique t'pod ring. It has an easily removable foot, which I'm not sure I like. I replaced the foot on mine with one that seems more secure and has built-in provision for the quick release system I use. Kirk Photo, Really Right Stuff and Hejnar Photo make accessory t'pod ring feet especially for this lens.

- Tripod and/or monopod I've already mentioned in passing and won't go into a lot more detail here. If you don't have one, the other of both, I'd recommend considering them. A tripod is not just a convenience to relieve you of holding the camera and lens, or a requirement for longer exposure shots... it also makes you shoot in a more thoughtful, considered and planned manner, which often leads to a noticeable improvement in image quality. A monopod is more useful when you want to be mobile (many can also double nicely as a "walking stick"). Also mentioned in passing, personally I use the Arca-Swiss style quick release system... platforms on tripod heads and monopods... lens and camera plates on my lenses and cameras. This adds some cost, but is a useful accessory IMO. The Arca-Swiss system has several advantages, including that it's about the most universal and many manufacturers offer compatible components... including high specialized items such as the foot for the 100-400 II mentioned above. Heck, even Gitzo and Manfrotto -both of whom for decades have had their own, proprietary and unique quick release systems, incompatible with anyone else's - have recently started making some Arca-Swiss compatible items. A good monopod will run about $100, while I'd advise planning to spend at least $400 on a quality tripod (t'pods can easily cost $1000 or more, though).

- UV/protection filters are fairly low on my priority list. Yes, I carry them. But they aren't on my lenses the vast majority of the time. I only install them on the rare occasion they might actually serve a purpose (sand storm, paintball battle, sea spray, wet nosed puppies and sticky fingered urchins... for example). In fact, lens hood and lens cap offer better protection. But, some people are scared to go out and shoot without "protection". Decide for yourself whether or not it's worth it or if you can delay getting UV/protection for your lenses. This video might help with your decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

Even if you buy four of the more expensive lenses I've recommended above, you'll only be at $4000.... maybe a little more with some of the accessories, too.

Finally, I'm not sure what you consider "real" lenses. For example, some of the lenses I've recommended are Canon L-series. Others are not. EF-S lenses will never be L-Series, but that's only because one of Canon's criteria for a lens to have a red stripe painted on it is that it must be compatible with all EOS SLRs past, present and future. And EF-S series are only usable on APS-C models such as your cameras. Because of that, all L-Series are "EF"... there are no "EF-S" L-series. In fact, you wouldn't see any better image quality from L-series, than you will from some of the EF-S I've suggested. You also won't see any improvement in most other features or performance such as auto focus or image stabilization. If you were to get L's instead, you'd just be spending more to carry a larger and heavier lens.... but not really gaining anything very meaningful. In fact, in some cases you might even end up with lower image quality and/or missing out on some nice features.

All the recommended lenses are excellent and capable, though I don't know if you'll find "freedom of spontaneity" from them!

Have fun shopping!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Honestly, I don't see a 1 year warranty as a big deal. I think Canon offered a longer warranty at extra cost for a while... don't know if they still do. Doesn't really matter to me because I wouldn't waste my money buying an extended warranty.

I have several Canon lenses I've been shooting with for 15+ years. I'd guess I've made about 250,000 shots with my 70-200/2.8 IS and it's still working fine (it just looks "well loved").

Most modern electro-mechanically controlled devices... such as these lenses and cameras... either work well and correctly for many, many years, or fail within the first few hours, days or weeks out of the box.

Yes, I've had to have a few repairs done. Three lenses out of a couple dozen. All were ten or more years old, though... so no warranty offered by anyone would have covered the necessary repairs (AF systems in two instances... aperture in another).

Some manufacturers have figured out that these warranty promises are pretty "cheap" selling points. The rarity of failures and warranty claims end up costing them very little... yet it sounds impressive to get "6 years" worth! But if you never use it, costs them nothing.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

EOS 1DX MarkII, nothing in its format is better. Ask 75% of the worlds pros.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

While 75% might tell you that... check what their actually using. I bet less than 7.5% of pros are shooting with either 1DX model.

But, 89% of statistics are made up on the spot (including all of these).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You should check with the team if you'll even be able to get into games with any of this gear.

Most pro sports venues restrict photography.... especially the NFL!

The 100-400 II on your 7DII would be a very good setup... but you might not be able to get into a stadium carrying it, unless you have a press pass.

Steve g Loc: Logtown, CA

Another avenue for a person on a budget is used gear. I've had nothing but good luck buying from KEH, Adorama, BH, and even Ebay. All offer money back options.

jayd Loc: Central Florida, East coast

24-70 canon. 1800.00
70-200 tamron. 875.00
150-600 tamron 1054.oo
14. Rokinon. 299.00

You can do the 24-70 tamron to save some $$.

Just my opinion but that's what I use when I have no regrets

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

yes, this is more than three - but you can pick three from these in the focal lengths you need. I also have not said why - which is cost, f-stop speed and image quality.

photogrow

Yes, there will be times when I will be shooting in some "nasty crap!" ;-)

photogrow

Those are great recs, thanks!

photogrow

I know! I really don't want to drag around more than I need, but want to get the most from what I drag around!