[Arthur Macmillan]

At the moment I have old MF primes that I use om my 6D:

55mm f1.2 (Nikkor and Canon), 85mm f1.8, 135mm f3.5 and f2.8 (all Nikkor), 500mm f8. Oh, and a 55mm f3.5 micro Nikkor

For fun, a silly projection lens 140mm f1.8 thrown in there. 

 

New MF prime (chosen strictly for size/weight): Voigtlander 20mm f3.5.

 

Old AF primes: Canon EF 35mm f2, Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Di macro.

 

AF zooms: EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM, EF 70-400mm f4 L USM.

For fun, a EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM, "converted" with a saw to mount on FF EOS, usable in the 14-18mm range. 

 

My current APS-C kit consists of EOS M, EF-M 22mm f2, EF-M 18-55mm IS STM and that EF-S 10-18mm IS STM. Got it because it was so damn inexpensive and small. And the ultra micro nikkor 55mm f2 (too small image circle to totally cover FF frames).

 

EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM you mean?

 

I had the Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 Di Macro on my camera 90% for 3 years until I broke it accidentally.  I used to be sure it was the sharpest lens I've ever used, but now I realize without using it on the same camera I cannot know for sure.  Let's just say, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.  I loved the lens, but now I'm kind of used to silent and anti-shake.  As well as weather sealed, though it was well protected against dust and scratches being so recessed.

 

It's a nice collection you have.  My (our?) weakness is in super telephoto AF.  I've held out this long because I can't get what I want cheap.  So...I either have to just do it, or do without a necessary part of the puzzle.  As usually, I've been agonizing on which one.  There are several good candidates.  I think EF 100-400.  I'm not sure which one.  There are huge price, performance, and handling differences.  Plus the mark ii is better sealed.  And of course there are the really big guns by Tamron and Sigma.  But I like the size of the Canon!  I could actually carry it around for a while!