Most of the time I shoot a Canon 1Ds Mark II. The lenses I own and use regularly with it are:
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L
Canon 50 f/1.4
Canon 50 f/2.5 macro
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM
Canon 180 f/3.5 L macro
Canon 300 f/4 L IS USM
Canon 600 f/4 L IS USM
and the 1.4x and 2x II teleconverters
I also borrow as needed and regularly use a number of other lenses such as the 15 fisheye, the 24 tilt-shift, the fast 85, the 100 macro, the 400 DO, and so on.
I've also owned, but sold, a number of other lenses, such as the Canon 16-35 f/2.8.
The next lenses I'll be getting are the set of Hartblei SuperRotators.
BUT.... hopefully by saturday if the mail service works like its supposed to, i'll have these this set -
CANON MP-E 65MM F2.8 1-5X MACRO LENS
CANON EF 70-200 F/2.8L USM IMAGE STABILIZER LENS
CANON EF 24-70MM F2.8 L USM
CANON EF 16-35MM F2.8L USM
That should get you started, nicely. If you are a stickler for quality over convenience, you might want to replace the 16-35 with some wide Olympus-Zuiko lenses with Canon adapters. or you could do what I did: get rid of the wide-angle zoom, and achieve wide angle with much better photo quality through stitching.
It looks like you have an interest in close-up photography. I got my start in close-up photography, like these:
If you'd like to discuss close-up photography, feel welcome to contact me by email or phone call (email's in my profile, phone number is on my website). Also, if you've moved to the Monterey Bay (as you said a few months ago that you were looking to do) then perhaps we can get together sometime.
==============================================
Medium format is THE way to go if quality is what you're looking for. A medium format negative will still blow away ANY digital image on ANY digital camera, EVER, no matter how much Photoshop, resolution, etc you use. That new 25MP (or whatever) Hasselblad will come close, but if you really want to score with quality get a medium format rig (even an old Yashicamat) and a good negative scanner or have negs scanned on a drum scanner, and you'll be amazed.
This is false.
A lengthy and most accurate answer would discuss different types of picture quality, such as color accuracy, tonal range, resolution, chromatic aberration, birefringence, pin cushion distortion and barrel distortion, grain and noise, and so on. It would also discuss different types of film (negative, positive, IR, different ISOs, etc.), different formats, and different kinds of shooting (studio or field? well lit or badly lit? constant lighting or changing lighting? short, long, or very long exposures? stationary subjects or fast moving subjects? close subjects or distant subjects? etc.). Some films do better than some digicams in certain circumstances, some digicams do better than some films in other circumstances.
I'll be posting a serious article pertaining to this type of comparison on my website in due time, but I can't properly discuss it here, now.
The abbreviated version is: The reason I'm mostly shooting with the digital camera I use is because, for most of the shooting I do, it produces the best results available. Drum scanned medium format negative is an inferior choice to my digital camera, for my use, in most cases.
Mike
)
