I have 2 body 2 flash 1/85mm 1/24-70 &amp; 1/70-200 lens which size will be best
1608490
22.1 x 10.4 x 17.9 inches ; 17 pounds is perfect for you,...also is eternal. I have two equal... Thanks F.F.
1270622
The 18-140mm lens is a very good lens. I did trade mine for a 16-85mm lens that fit my work better. Also I have used the18-200mm lens which is also a very good lens. I don't think you could go wrong with any of these lens. The choice remains on what you want from your lens.
523652
The 24-105 f/4L IS USM lens works great with the 7d, it's the lens I'm currently using as a 'walk around' lens on my own 7d. We also use that lens on my wife's 40D. Sometimes we argue over who gets to use that lens. Good choice!
523658
for my 7D I went with the 10-22mm USM IS and the 24-105mmL and I think that covers the majority of my ranges (I also got the 70-300mm USM telephoto zoom so I think I'm pretty well covered from 10-300mm ;-)
523340
If the 24-70 and the 17-40 are Canon EF lenses, then those would need a 77mm lens cap, NOT the 72mm lens cap. Look at the front of your lenses...you should see the lens diameter indicated with a "77".
1762915
It depends on which Canon 70-200 lens you have. The less expensive f/4.0L models (with or without IS) take 67mm size filters. The more expensive f/2.8L models (non-IS, IS and IS version II) all take 77mm size filters.
102791
Don't fool around. Go with the 28-300mm. Less lens changes and it just the perfect walk around lens. I know, I've been shooting for 35 years.
1150475
I've basketball with a 24-70 before. It's a pretty good lens especially if you're right under the basket. The 50mm and the 70-200 are great lenses, but you can't get whole body shots if you're under the basket. The 2.8 is solid, and you'll get great shots with it. I shot these photos a few years ago with a 24-70 on a Rebel XT overseas (my primary camera broke while I was on the trip).http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtamazing/753022100/http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtamazing/753022072/http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtamazing/753021984/
910055
if you are into portraits of children just like me, you might want to consider EF 50mm lenses. i also have EF 24-105 L, but i found myself using 50mm the most. 24-105mm is a versatile player that you can take everywhere w/ decent amount of light. however, for portraits, i would highly recommend 50mm. bokek in the background is just stunning. i personally have 50mm 1.2 L, and experiencing superb result.
1716984
Hello Amy, I really haven't used this product since I bought it; I initially thought it was the 24-70mm f 2.8L. As a matter of fact, I will be returning it. I am, therefore, not the best person to give a critique. However, I'm sure you'll find these links useful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspxhttp://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/
681557
My recommendation is Tokina 11-16mm (sharpest UWA lens)+ 18-55mm + 70-200mm f/4 IS for most of traveling and hiking in the mountain, kit lens is actually very good and light. If you are in vacation you also need fast prime for indoor activity like 50mm f/1.8 and dedicated flash like 430EX or bigger. If you only need to bring 1 lens, get 18-200mm IS, very useful and acceptable sharpness in whole range compared to any third party superzoom lenses.
963788
Here's the basics: the smaller the "mm" number, the closer the subject. So a 200mm is the best you'll get for far away. 55mm is good for portraits from 10' away, and an 18mm is good for indoor/small space shots.
1736484
I have both the 18-200 and the 85 mm f/1.8 among others. These two are the lenses I most use (I photograph people and places). The 85 mm is great for head shots, particularly indoors without flash. If $450 is a reach, try eBay where you'll see lots of them.
1871181
There is such a wide range of lenses. The 70-200 II IS is a winner that will work well in low light. If you are in a well-lit situation then this 70-300 is a great lens with more reach and lighter weight plus less cost.
2000789
Mindy,For kids couples etc, I love shooting with my 85mm not my 35 mm. 35 is great when traveling and might need a bit of a wider angle but the 85 is the best to get you a little closer than you would usually shoot and get great results.
2061530
24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken more towards 16mm then maybe the mk2 of the 16-35mm would be best.
1351164
I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera. If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own.