Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

I finally order the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens and it will be here Wensday and hopefully it will replace my Tamron 18 270mm which I have never found any thing it does better than a kit lens. The only good point in my opinion is it does most thing acceptable but limited on quality.
I have a macro, nifty fifty, and 300 L and I would like to add a wide angle lens. I do mostly landscape and wild life, some family portraits but not my favorite.
I would like some thoughts on what my next lens should be from some folks with experience on the different lens. I will wait till the kitty has the money for a quality piece of glass.
I want a lens I can use on a full frame if I every get to that place.
Thanks for input.

Glennoon Loc: Hull. England

The EF 70-200 F/4 L is a superb lens and deserves it's reputation .
Here is a shot taken with a Canon 5D =70-200 .
taken at 200mm 1/60sec. @ F5.6 ISO 100 using monopod.
glen.

dirty dave

I would suggest a wide angle I like my 10-20 sigma . I have used it in closed in spaces for a group shot as well as landscape it can serve in alot of situations,

rhc7

Good lens, but lacks rubber gasket between camera and lens found on IS version....SO take a band that women use to make a ponytail with..about 1/8 side and elastic..slide it onto the lens before you attach it to camera and once attached to camera, roll it down to hide the silver metal showing between the lens and camera..keeps out dust at connection...why else would Canon have a rubber seal on the IS version. so simple, but think about it. I use a lot of color bands, even borrowed one at a hs football game from a cheerleader, simple to keep out dust..

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Old Timer, the 70-200 is a very nice outdoor lens and takes a 1.4x very nicely.
As for a wide angle in FF, look at the 17-40L. It's not the best, but very good. If you have the $, the 16-35L is much better.
I know you are looking at full frame, but in your shoes I would, and I did, get the 15-85 non L, EFs. Much more range and as good as the 17-40 or the 24-105, but much better for a crop. When you DO go FF, then get rid of it and get something more FF appropriate. In the meantime, don't struggle with the wrong lens cause someday you will go FF. Cause you may not.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Since you have covered the 70-200mm with Canon L glass, I would look at another L lens. My thought would be the 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens. It lists at about $1149.00. Or, if you are looking at prime lenses you may want to look at EF-14mm f2.8L II USM. This lens does not have IS, so if you want IS in your lenses you may want to look at the EF-24mm f2.8L IS USM.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

You have the following focal ranges covered so far:
300mm
70-200mm
50mm
Also, you said you have a macro lens...not sure of the focal length.

A short lens for wildlife...?

Hmm....if you are going to use a short lens on wildlife you better shoot tame wildlife! Lol....

With a 35mm and shorter you have to get CLOSE to whatever you are shooting or they will be a small dot in the frame.

In my experience, short lenses are very good for shooting wide vistas; showing the expanse of the sky and water and things...or getting close to things,and also some street journalism sort of stuff.

If I wanted a wide lens...the ones that I'd pick are:

1.) Canon 35mm f/1.4L
2.) Canon 24mm f/1.4L
3.) Samyang 14mm f/2.8

All superb lenses, tack sharp and with the exception of the Samyang...built like tanks.

What wildlife did you think you'd be shooting?

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

I use to identical camera bodies each with a lens most of the time. My macro is 35 80mm canon non IS that I use out side or with studio lights. It is slow to focus in low light. That is the same with the Tamaron 18 270. I also have my kit lens for one camera which is seldom used .
Thanks for all the input. I will print and save for further use.