I Want To Buy 2 Lenses, 1 can be an "L"

I just bought a 40D and I am looking for 2 complimentary lenses and my budget is allowing for one of them to be an L lens. I am thinking of 2 zooms, but a prime & a zoom is a good option. I prefer fasterlenses. I am wondering if the L lens would serve me better on the shorter focal end or the longer?


Budget is about $1,500 +/- $200.


Most of the photos would be outside (wildlife, sports, landscapes), but for the family there would be plenty of indoor activites (basketball, volleyball). So upon further reseach I am thinking aboutone scenario:24-70mm f2.8L and a 70-300mm.


Thanks

Depends on what you intend to take pictures of, and what your actual dollar buget is...you need to give us more details to get accurate advice :)

I suggest the 800mm f/5.6 L IS and 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.

With those two lenses, you should be able to shoot just about anything: a closeup of galaxies 2 billions light years away, a wide angle panorama of flowers just 8 inches away, and everything inbetween. (Well, maybe not everything.)

If those lenses aren't suited for your budget or the purpose you're going to use them for, please let us know and we'll try to narrow it down.

[:)]

That choice may just blow the OP's budget of $1500 +/- $200 by just a bit [:P]

Hi Shoe,





You just started and bought the 40D, so any plans to go 'FullFrame' will probably not be for the next two to three years ?


If so, then you have plenty of time to explore the EF-S lenses, too :), if you decide to go 'FF' later and have to sell them, they will still fetch a decent price, and what-you-loose would not have allowed you to rent them for the same period :)


Reason I am saying this is that any 24-xxx lens, L or not, will not be very 'wide' on the 40D due to the 1.6x crop factor.


Therefor you might be better off looking at the EF-S 17-55F2.8 IS USM lens as your 'General Purpose' lens. Add either the EF70-300F4.5-F5.6 IS for the reach and convenience of IS, or the shorter EF70-200F4L (non-IS) for better imagequality wide-open and the faster aperture at 200mm.


And do not worry about the 'gap' between 55mm and 70mm: it is one to two step closer or further back :)





...*my* €0.02 worth...





Kindest regards!





L. 'Max' Tak


Max@Home


Moderator/Canon forum/PhotoCamel.com


CPS member

Thanks!


This is exactly the kind of options I was hoping to see here as responses.


Your assumptions about FF and considering EF-S lenses are spot on. More for me to ponder. Thanks again!

There are several routes you can take here. First, if nature is a priority I can suggest a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 and a Canon 100-400 OR 400/5.6. The range of the
Sigma is outstanding and its ability to do 1:2 'macro' is very handy,
the only downside is its variable aperture. Second is the EF-S 17-55 and a 70-300IS--best overall image quality but you lose 100mm's on the long end which is crutial for wildlife. Last is the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and a Canon 100-400 OR 400/5.6 which is the best of both worlds pertaining to the subject matter you are interested in. Hope that helps.


-Matt

I have to agree with MVers...people don't realize that the Tammy 17-50 is a great lens. Had it on my 30D and it was a stellar lens. It may not have IS like the 17-55, but it'll save you $500 or more, too. Then I would have to say I would get the 70-200 f4 IS. It is an incredible lens, with a 4 stop IS, and sharpness corner to corner(especially on a crop). Can't go wrong with that combo...and it is under your budget, and you might have a little left over.

how about the 70-200mm f/4 L and the 17-40mm f/4 L? Both L lenses, not super fast but fast enough for most purposes, and well within your price range.


Else replace the 17-40 with the 24-70 f/2.8 L...that will be about $1749 + shipping (not too much over budget) andd faster glass.

I started with the tammy 17-50 and it was incredibly soft at allaperturesunder f/8, soI returned it within 3 days and got an L lens instead.It was probably just a bad copy, but I didn't want to deal with returning lenses until I got a good copy. Canon lenses focus so much faster anyways.

How about a double-L option. This is what I had during my Digital Rebel days - 17-40mm F4L and 70-200mm F4L. Since you have a cropped sensor, the 17-40 is equivalent to 27mm-64mm which is excellent as a standard lens. You miss 40mm to 70mm which is equivalent to 64mm to 112mm which isn't too bad. You get F4 straight across the board and depending on final pricing, you may be able to pick up IS on the 70-200.

For all those recommending the 17-40/4 and the 70-200/4...why? The OP stated he wants something fast, which f/4 is not and something for wildlife, which the 70-200/4 is too short for, at least for anything outside a zoo. Just because it has an red ring around the barrel doesnt make it the best tool for the job.

For what he has right now, the 70-200 f/4 is a decent long range option (especially since he owns a 1.6 crop factor camera). Also, the 40D has very good high-iso performance that can make the f/4 very usable at the ISOs needed to obtain the proper exposure. Also, he did give us his budget...and for his budget, in my opinion it's the best option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

For what he has right now, the 70-200 f/4 is a decent long range option (especially since he owns a 1.6 crop factor camera). Also, the 40D has very good high-iso performance that can make the f/4 very usable at the ISOs needed to obtain the proper exposure. Also, he did give us his budget...and for his budget, in my opinion it's the best option.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

The 70-200 will not cut it for most wildlife, hell my 100-400 doesnt...even on a crop. From expeience with the 40D, I can tell you high ISO performance is not the bodies forte, and using it as an excuse to shoot at f/4 is a poor one. Remember, the higher the ISO, the more IQ is lost (wouldnt you rather be able to shoot at ISO800 rather than ISO1600?). Another thing to consider is bokeh quality, which the 17-40 isnt known for. Now, if the OP was going to make a jump to FF within a year I'd say the 17-40 is a decent bet, but there are much better (sharper, faster) performing lenses built for use on crop bodies. The same applies to the 70-200 for wildlife use...there are better choices.

If it were me, I'd rather get a lens that was a little short for wildlife (but still usable) that was a much better overall lens the can be used in many different situations. However, you're right...there are lenses with longer reach. However, your long-range zoom suggestions aren't any faster than mine. And personally, I prefer a constant aperture to a variable one.


I own the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and love them both. However, for my uses, the 17-55mm lens stays on my camera about 85% of the time. I made my suggestions based on his budget and the fact that he might be upgrading to a full-frame body in the future. With the 24-70mm f/2.8 L and 70-200mm f/4 L, he'd be well set for alot of his uses (upon re-reading his original post, I think the 24-70 f/2.8 would be better for indoor sports). That said, how can you say that my 70-200 "is not fast" when you suggested two long-range zooms that are even slower? I mean you're right, f/4 isn't all that fast...but it's faster than f4.5 and f/5.6!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoe

Budget is about $1,500 +/- $200.

Most of the photos would be outside (wildlife, sports, landscapes), but for the family there would be plenty of indoor activites (basketball, volleyball). So upon further reseach I am thinking about one scenario: 24-70mm f2.8L and a 70-300mm.

---

Now that you have edited your post to add budget and usage scenarious, I would change my recommendation. [:)]

The first two usage scenarios benefit from long telephoto and IS. The last two require very fast apertures, and don't benefit from IS. Only landscapes require (most often) a wide angle lens. Here is what I would recommend:

$70? Used 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens: for landscapes
$355 85mm f/1.8: for indoor sports
$200 Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro: for wildlife and outdoor sports

I know that only comes to $625, even though your budget is $1500. There's a reason for that: I think you should save up until you have $1800 in order to get what I would really recommend:

$70? Used 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens: for landscapes
$355 85mm f/1.8: for indoor sports
$1100 70-200 f/4 L IS: for outdoor sports and wildlife
$290 1.4X teleconverter: for outdoor sports and wildlife

Since telephoto is going to be one of the most frequent and significant usage scenarios for you, I think it would be a mistake to buy the 70-300, which, while nice, can't touch the quality of the 70-200 f/4 L IS at any equivalent focal length, even with the 1.4X teleconverter (which will still autofocus).

I think the 24-70 f/2.8 is a poor choice for the 40D or any crop camera. That lens has a lot of expensive glass designed to create a very wide angle image circle. Why pay the premium if you're not even going to use it as wide angle? Of course, no one makes a 24-70 just for crop cameras, but if they did, it could match the performance of the 24-70 for a much lower price. If you really want those focal lengths at f/2.8, it's much more cost effective to get a Tamron for $450. But you don't need those focal lengths for sports, so the kit lens will do just fine for your only "wide angle" usage scenario: landscapes.

The 85mm f/1.8 can focus ultra fast, and the focal length is just right for a lot of indoor sports on the 40D. You could also get the 100mm f/2.0 for $50 more, if you think you'll use that focal length more often. Don't underestimate the importance of aperture. The 1 and 1/3 advantage over f/2.8 is the difference between ISO 3200 (usable 6x4 print) and ISO 8400 (not printable at all).

I also think that the 17-40 f/4 L is another poor choice for a crop body. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro cost a third less, have a stop faster, more focal length, and better image quality at all equal apertures. The reason is that the 17-40 is an *ultra* wide lens. Using is as a "normal" is, again, wasting the glass on something it was not built for. The purpose-built tool does it faster, better, and cheaper.


Alternatives / other ideas:
$1200 300mm f/4 L IS: outdoor sports and wildlife. If you can live without a zoom.
$325 50mm f/1.4: for indoor sports (so-so AF)
$90 50mm f/1.8: for indoor sports (poor AF)
$400 100mm f/2.0: for indoor sports (fast aperture is vital!)
$550 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM: for wildlife, outdoor sports. Cheaper, but worse quality.
$935 135mm f/2 L USM: for indoor sports, if you need more reach than the 100mm.
$700 200mm f/2.8 L II USM: fast and cheap aperture indoors, plus 2X TC outdoors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

If it were me, I'd rather get a lens that was a little short for wildlife (but still usable) that was a much better overall lens the can be used in many different situations. However, you're right...there are lenses with longer reach. However, your long-range zoom suggestions aren't any faster than mine. And personally, I prefer a constant aperture to a variable one.


I own the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and love them both. However, for my uses, the 17-55mm lens stays on my camera about 85% of the time. I made my suggestions based on his budget and the fact that he might be upgrading to a full-frame body in the future. With the 24-70mm f/2.8 L and 70-200mm f/4 L, he'd be well set for alot of his uses (upon re-reading his original post, I think the 24-70 f/2.8 would be better for indoor sports). That said, how can you say that my 70-200 "is not fast" when you suggested two long-range zooms that are even slower? I mean you're right, f/4 isn't all that fast...but it's faster than f4.5 and f/5.6!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I never said the 70-200 wasnt a faster lens--I was speaking about the 17-40 vs 17-55/Tammy17-50. A fast lens for wildlife within the OP's budget does not exist, therfore I didn't mention one. The 70-200 may be faster than the 100-400, 400/5.6 and the 70-300IS but its not going to do wildlife anywhere near as well, and so its pick your poison. Either choose a lens thats way to short or a slower, longer lens thats better suited for the job. Like I said there are several routes the OP can take to get there, but the 70-200/4 is not a good choice for wildlife photography no matter how good a lens it is. 200mm's is simply too short.


Since the OP has edited his OP, I'm going to go ahead and change my recommendation. I'd say go for the EF-S 17-55, 85/1.8 and a 70-300 which comes to $1671.85 flat via Abes Of Maine (use loyalty10 as a promo for $10 off).

Ok, I'll go along with most of your recommendations now. The 17-55 is an absolutely fantastic lens...if he's keeping a crop body for a good length of time, it's one of the best choices you can make for a wide-angle portrait lens (in my opinion). The 85 f/1.8 is another very sharp lens (I owned one, but decided I liked the convenience of a zoom better) and also very reasonable. However, I like Daniel's idea of the 70-200 (I'd go without IS and get a monopod or tripod) and the 1.4x teleconverter. Of course, that still puts him way overbudget if he got all three lenses and the teleconverter.


MVers, what's your opinion on the 70-200 f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter?

I have a 40D and the following: 10-22, 24-105 and 70-200 F4. Of these, I use the 24-105 most of the time. (I know it is possible overkill for a crop camera, but I will upgrade to FF sometime in the future, so I count it as a good investment.)


I would suggest a 24-105 combo plus the 70-200 F4 (non IS) as a pretty good lens arsenal for the 40D. This is also within your price range I imagine. Save up for the 10-22, or borrow one if you are photographing architecture etc.


Hope this helps.

Wow! Many great suggestions! Since I mentioned $1500 +/- 200, going to 1800 is not a stretch.


So why not the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L in lieu of the 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4X ?

I have not found much need for anything longer than 200mm on a crop body, but I photograph mainly people and landscapes, not birds or animals running through the bush...100-400 is a big lens to lug around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoe

So why not the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L in lieu of the 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4X ?

---

The way I see it, it's a choice between wildlife and sports.

70-200 with a 1.4X on a 1.6X crop body gives you a field of view equivalent to 150-450mm on FF 35mm. Personally, I think that's just about perfect for outdoor sports.


Here is a link comparing the two at ~280mm:


ISO 12233 comparison of 100-400 and 70-200 with TC



They're so close that they might as well be identical. There is the tiniest smidgeon of additional CA in the corners, but I wouldn't let that be the deciding factor.


The key difference is that the 100-400 has 100mm more reach. For wildlife photography, you need absolutely all the reach you can get. So if wildlife is more important to you, then get the 100-400.

I spent a few hours shooting both lenses before I decided on the 70-200 f/4 L IS. For me, the features and performance at 70-200 were more important than the extra reach.

You will need to weigh all the pros and cons for yourself:

70-200 f/4 L IS with 1.4X TC:

• Only reaches to 280mm; good enough for sports
• Mind-blowing image quality in the 70-200 range without TC.
• Very good image quality between 200-280 (as good as the 100-400).
• Slightly wider aperture between 100mm and 200mm (constant f/4)
• Newest 4-stop I.S. system
• Weather sealed
• Twist zoom style, non-extending front element

100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS:

• Reaches out to 400mm for wildlife
• Not quite as good in 100-200 range, but still very good.
• Slightly slower aperture at up to 200mm (4.5@100mm, 5.0@200mm)
• Oldest I.S. system
• Not weather sealed
• Push-pull zoom, extending front element, zoom creep

Of course, don't forget to read Bryan's reviews of each lens, too; I'm sure there are other differences that I did not point out.

Hello there,


Please note that saying "wildlife, sports, landscapes ... plenty of indoor activites (basketball, volleyball)" is like saying you want everything under the sun! ... but we all do that, lets try to rectify the situation.


I would strongly recommend against tele-converters, image quality just isn't the same, it's a toy to play with, no lens you can afford on a $2k budget will deliver the quality out of it. (maybe 70-200 2.8 ... but you won't get much else).


You said 24-70mm 2.8 ... consider why you need that lens, it's mostly for close in portraits, like wedings or b-day parties or low light.


Here my thoughts: yousaid landscapes, you'd need wide 17 or even a 10mm for that, 24 just doesn't do it. Wildlife means you need the 400mm or at least 300ish, 200 won't cut it, but note that wildlife may not stay your priority. Outdoor sports aren't that demanding compare to indoor sports, where you need fast primes in long range.


I'd suggest a few lenses, mix and match to get your price range:


(1) 10-20 Sigma - $500 - you will never again see 17 as "wide", landscapes will shine.


(1) 17-55mm 2.8 IS - $1000 - a superb general purpose and very good landscape lens, portratis will be good as well.


(1) 18-55mm IS - $250 - the NEW kit lens when stopped down delivers quite nice results for landscapes on the cheap (older one is not worth it)





(2) 50mm 1.8 - $100 - not quite long enough for indoor sports but on the budget ...


(2) 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2 - $400 - will serve well enough as indoor action/sports (it's fast enough, but not long enough)


(2) 70-200mm 2.8 L - $1200 - portraits will shine and indoor action will be quite good (it's long enough but not fast enough)


(2) 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma - $800 - image quailty isn't quite the L but you get what you want on the budget.


(2) 18-200mm IS - $800 - with a combination of a prime 85mm you can handle pretty much everything else you listed.





(3) 70-300mm IS - $600 - will handle the long end pretty well.


(3) 100-400mm L IS - $1400 - one of the best telephoto zoom you can ever get, wildlife (maybe) and outdoor sports will shine.


Since you're not sure about your needs consider getting things off craigslist, you're taking 40% off here, so you can sell it later (for about the same so you don't loose money) if you find yourself not using it much ... watch out for frauds and broken equipment, but you can find quite good stuff there, always shop in person and try equimpent first.


As a starter kit I'd recommend 10-20, 18-200 IS or 70-300 IS, 50 1.8 (or 1.4 if you could) ... shoot for a bit and go from there, but I'd imagine in a few years you'd end up with: 10-20 or 17-55, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8 or 100-400.


Good luck :) (excuse the long post, but choosing is never easy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

MVers, what's your opinion on the 70-200 f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter?

---

I do not own the 70-200/4 or a TC so I can't tell you first hand, BUT I will tell you that the only lens at f/4 I would use one on is the f/4IS version and any number of Canon's tele's (thinking about one for my 100-400 for use on a 1-series to retain AF). I have, however, tested the Canon 1.4x out on my 70-200/2.8IS and was not enamored by the results--specifically AF speed which seemed completely diminished--IQ was nothing to write home about either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoe

Wow! Many great suggestions! Since I mentioned $1500 +/- 200, going to 1800 is not a stretch.


So why not the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L in lieu of the 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4X ?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Personally, for me it's the 100-400 everytime. Yes it is a relatively old lens but it gets the job done and will perform much better than the 70-200/4+1.4x combo. In any case niether of them are ideal for indoor sports, but for outdoor field sports (day games) the 100-400 is great (I can tell you from first hand experience) and without the TC the 70-200/4 is great as well.


I still think the 17-55, 85/1.8 and 70-300IS combo will be suit you very well for right now. Use that kit and find out where your lacking and go from there.

Quote:

---

You will need to weigh all the pros and cons for yourself:

70-200 f/4 L IS with 1.4X TC:

• Only reaches to 280mm; good enough for sports
• Mind-blowing image quality in the 70-200 range without TC.
• Very good image quality between 200-280 (as good as the 100-400).
• Slightly wider aperture between 100mm and 200mm (constant f/4)
• Newest 4-stop I.S. system
• Weather sealed
• Twist zoom style, non-extending front element

100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS:

• Reaches out to 400mm for wildlife
• Not quite as good in 100-200 range, but still very good.
• Slightly slower aperture at up to 200mm (4.5@100mm, 5.0@200mm)
• Oldest I.S. system
• Not weather sealed
• Push-pull zoom, extending front element, zoom creep

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Yes, the 70-200f/4IS performs very well with a 1.4x TC mounted but you don't mention anything about AF speed when the TC is mounted and while weathersealing is great it's negligable when it comes to the OP's 40D--which is not a weather sealed body. As for the IS system, would it really matter when shooting sports at 1/200th? In every other case I agree 4-stop IS &gt; 2-stop IS.

The 17-40 f4 L has very nice bokeh quality due to its seven blade aperture. Although since it is such a wide lens and has a maximum aperture of f4 you have to be fairly close to your subject for the background to be sufficiently out of focus. I don't mind this at all since I mainly use it for landscapes, and if I do get in close it has L quality bokeh.


I think it is really nitpicking about sharpness as I am pretty sure 99% of people cannot tell the difference between lenses when looking at an actual photograph. In the end you should really choose what glass suits your needs best or how the equipment works for you. Go into a store, try out demos (be sure not to give into salesman pressure if they do that), just see what lens feels right for you.

Excellent points, M. Versweyveld. It really comes down to what's more important: 200 or 400.

So do the EF-S' Focal Lengthsreflect true to the numbers or doesthe 1.6 crop factor still need to be multiplied in?Since reviews for this lens seem to be outstanding across the board, I am re-evaluating my lens combos and (gulp!) my budget. [8-)]


I was under the impression (via father-in-law) that any length 200mm or less in conjunction with a TC was a waste of quality and dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoe

So do the EF-S' Focal Lengthsreflect true to the numbers or doesthe 1.6 crop factor still need to be multiplied in?

---

It reflects the true numbers.


Think of it this way:


A 50mm lens on a 40D camera will have a field of view similar to an 80mm lens on FF35 camera. The crop factor is just a shortcut to understand equivalent field of view.

Quote:

---

I was under the impression (via father-in-law) that any length 200mm or less in conjunction with a TC was a waste of quality and dollars.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

That's a good rule of thumb, but reality is not quite that simple. You can see for yourself using Bryan's ISO 12233 comparisons that several 200mm lenses yeild excellent quality with a TC. At least the 200mm f/2.8 L prime and the 70-200 f/4 L IS. The quality degrades only slightly for these, just like the $3,000+ super telephotos. Some of the super telephotos, like the 300mm f/4 L IS, actually do a little worse (at least Bryan's copy did).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoe

So do the EF-S' Focal Lengthsreflect true to the numbers or doesthe 1.6 crop factor still need to be multiplied in?Since reviews for this lens seem to be outstanding across the board, I am re-evaluating my lens combos and (gulp!) my budget. [img]/emoticons/emotion-43.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

17-55 on your 40D would be equivilant to 27-88 on FF. While the lens is actually a 17-55 the crop effect of your 40D essentially makes it a 27-88 effective lens. This is why most will tell you the 24-70 isnt wide enough on your 40D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoe

I was under the impression (via father-in-law) that any length 200mm or less in conjunction with a TC was a waste of quality and dollars.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

While that does have some truth its not completely true. The 135/2 and a lot of macro lenses (Canon 100, Sigma 150 etc) work very well with a 1.4x TC. A good rule of tumb to stick to when thinking of TC's is that they will always perform worse on zoom lenses than they will on prime lenses.

When I was shopping around for the 40D there were 2 kits available and much to my brother's credit he told me to buy the body only. So today I got to finally use my new toy with a borrowed lens. It is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. After shooting a few yard, petand walkabout pictures I was comfortable with the use of the lens. However with my past expeience with film SLRs I knew this isn't a lense I would buy. I viewed the photos on my laptop and was happy for the most part, then I viewed on my nice big monitor and while I am still learning about digital differences the big monitor will be my "go to" point as far as judging aperatii.... let's just say that I am learning the "code" in the reviews I have read on this site!!! It's nice to see that my misgivings for this lens seem to line up with reviews here and elsewhere. I'm liking all your lens suggestions more &amp; more!![:O] Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoe

So today I got to finally use my new toy with a borrowed lens. It is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. After shooting a few yard, petand walkabout pictures I was comfortable with the use of the lens. However with my past expeience with film SLRs I knew this isn't a lense I would buy. I viewed the photos on my laptop and was happy for the most part, then I viewed on my nice big monitor and while I am still learning about digital differences the big monitor will be my "go to" point as far as judging aperatii.... let's just say that I am learning the "code" in the reviews I have read on this site!!! It's nice to see that my misgivings for this lens seem to line up with reviews here and elsewhere.

---

...actually: for the money it nowadays costs (~$375) it is a perfect lens [:)] When I bought it new for my 10D 5 years ago, it was still going for $575-$625...


But apart from the nice price/quality point it nowadays has, it indeed is an older design lens, it is the second consumer lens with IS - so IS is 1st generation, two stops, audible, and needs to be switched off when using tripod - but optically it performs above average and quite good for a 5x zoom [:)] Stopped down a little (do not shoot it wide-open as then it is pretty soft), 2/3 to 1 full stop, it delivers very acceptable images IMO...


[View:http://www.pbase.com/max_at_home/image/28609679.jpg]


[:)] ...but more modern designs better fitting or more in line with the Image Quality of your 1.6x crop camera (EF-S 17-85IS, EF-S17-55IS, EF24-105F4L IS) have indeed superseded it [:)]


...&euro;0.02...


Kindest regards!


Max@Home

you like fast lenses.. 24-70 f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4. those are two lenses that you simply will not be disappointed with.


avoid the 70-300 at all costs. it's a piece of crap, and a waste of money, because you'll just want to replace it down the road.


if you want a greater focal length than 70mm, then get the 24-105. you'll trade some speed for the longer focal length, but you'll also get IS.

Anything the 70-300mm can do, the 100-400mm can do better - especially when it comes to wildlife. Therefore, I would recommend the 100-400. The 100-400 can be had for about $1100 used.





As for your wider end, if you're going to shoot landscapes with a crop sensor camera and not buy an ultra-wide zoom, you should probably consider a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. You can pick up the Tamron for about $320 used.





Between the two, you have about $1400 spent. If you are willing to add another $275 or so, you can find an 85mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 to your list and have great coverage.





I mention the 100-400 because reach is important for wildlife and because you were willing to spend that much on a standard zoom - which is not the ideal first choice to spend a large sum on. There are many options in that range, including EF-S and other crop sensor-specific lenses that cost less and do the job just as well, plus some fairly inexpensive fast primes.

I would go for EF17-40 L and EF135mm L take the advantage of crop sensor 1.6


So youre reach will be


1. 17-40 = 27.2-64


2, 135 = 216

If you're doing wildlife, I'd really second the feeling of going LONG. This was as close as I could get to the sea otter before he started swimming away, and it was at 400mm, and then cropped a little. It would have been a little tighter on a crop body, and I could have croped to match, but I decided that I liked both the gull and his reflection on the water :)


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.92/2009_2D00_02_2D00_10_5F00_MossLandingFriends_5F00_ 0009_2800_800x501_2900_.JPG[/img]

There is so much good advice in this thread, and it is just simply great to read!


Honestly when it comes to lenses it really boils down to when you are going to buy a certain L lens. This quest of capturing your sight, that glimmer of light, that serendipity that only God knew about, or that controlled portrait is indeed enhanced by having the best tool in your service.


For most people this lens choice is a matter of available funds/budget, or a willingness to use credit. Whatever your reason, from hobbyist to pro, the choice to buy the best lens for your need is the best and wisest choice indeed. I would rather have a Rebel XT and a 16-35 II, than a 50D with an 18-55 kit lens. It's all about the glass.


"Buy the best, cry only once."


In regards to your lens/budget question I think Sean Setters hit the nail on the head


70-200mm f/4 L and the 17-40mm f/4 L


You can't beat them for the money...and the 70-200 f/4L is an awesome portrait lens as well :)