Lense Suggestions

[MDC]

Hi everyone,


I am hoping that someone can provide me with some direction as I keep going around in circles. Here's the situation. I am relatively new to SLR photography and bought a 40D + EFS17-85mm f/4-4.6 kit plus a EF50mm f/1.8. I travel a lot and enjoy the outdoors so majority of my photos are of landscapes, flowers, wildlife and generally anything interesting outdoors.


Now here's the direction I'm hoping to get... should I look at a better quality lense or would I just be wasting my money. Which of these would you suggest, or should I just keep using the EFS17-85 lense I already have? Will there be a noticable improvement in quality? Ideally I would like to travel around with one lense (plus maybe the 50mm).


The three lenses I am looking at are:


EFS 17-55 f/2.8 - I want to upgrade to a full frame in 3-5 years. 17mm makes life a bit wider on the 1.6 body.
EF 24-70 f/2.8L - No IS leads me away from this
EF 24-105 f/4.0L - Seems like a good all round but is 24mm on the 1.6 body suitable for what I want?


Any other suggestions are more than welcome.

[Colin]

my gut feeling is that if you're new to this, what you have will serve you well, and as you learn your equipment, you'll learn what you want different, and you might answer your own question.


That said, while I think the 24-70 and 24-105 are both excellent lenses, I would lean toward the 17-55 and keep the 50mm for the near future. I haven't used that lens, but all indications are that on a 1.6 sensor, it will outperform every other zoom lens.


After that, you may want to explore telephoto and macro options....


After you upgrade to full frame, put the 24-70 and 24-105 on the short list to replace the 17-55...


Oh, and yes, better glass is very significant if you're talking quality versus your current zoom. However, your prime's image quality should be very good as is, and the differences aren't going to be mind-bending.


Do you notice a noticeable improvement in quality between your 50mm and your zoom? If not, I wouldn't bother changing anything, unless the faster aperture of the 17-55 f/2.8 is the draw.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

my gut feeling is that if you're new to this, what you have will serve you well, and as you learn your equipment, you'll learn what you want different, and you might answer your own question.

I second that.

[Sean Setters]

I agree with Colin as well.

[piiooo]

EF-S 17-85 is a very decent lens.Play with it as much as you can and save money for a FF system.

[MDC]

Thank you everyone for your comments.


Part of me wants to upgrade the lense because of the amazing places my work travels get me to. One week I can be in Kakadu National Park in Australia; the next week I can be in the bright lights of Hong Kong.


I might look at the 17-55. The faster aperture will give me a bit more flexibility. My thinking is that I have all these wonderful opportunities - places many hope to get to - and I would rather know that the shot isn't perfect because of the user, not the equipment.

[Sean Setters]

...and I would rather know that the shot isn't perfect because of the user, not the equipment.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Ah, but then you won't have any more excuses, MDC. Be careful, you're treading on dangerous waters...

[clemmb]

EFS 17-55 f/2.8 - I want to upgrade to a full frame in 3-5 years. 17mm makes life a bit wider on the 1.6 body.
EF 24-70 f/2.8L - No IS leads me away from this
EF 24-105 f/4.0L - Seems like a good all round but is 24mm on the 1.6 body suitable for what I want?


Any other suggestions are more than welcome.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Sometimes 24mm is not wide enough on a 1.6x body. In the 17-55 range I do not think the IS is as important as is on the longer lenses. If you want a lens that you can also use on a FF then what about the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II.


Mark

[Maleko]

Absolutely. 24mm does not seem wide at all on 1.6x.


When you see 24mm on a 1.0 body, and then on a 1.6x body, you realise how "non" wide it is :P

[jusap]

A little something to consider.


A fast lens doesn't necessarily go for outdoor shots not unless you're shooting in low light conditions like dusk or night time. Though it adds effect on your shot because it gives you more DOF options to play with. Most landscape shots use a smaller aperture to get more details in the shot.


But as you've said, 2.8 gives more flexibility


__


24mm isn't wide on a APS-C body. If you want wide, you may want to look on EF-S 10-22. It's not a fast lens and no IS but this is a lens regarded for its sharpness. You don't need IS for a wide angle anyway. But if your expecting to go FF, try the 24-70 2.8L or the 16-35 2.8L


__


Also, I've read somewhere about landscapes and telephoto lenses. I'll try to find that link. This will lead to the 70-200 f4L ISU. hehe


__


Another thing, you might miss the reach of the 17-85 if you go for the 17-55 2.8.


__________________





For now, since you shoot outdoors, i would go for the 24-105 f4L.


Outdoors means you have space to move back incase the subject doesn't fit the frame. It also means ample light, f4 will fit in nicely. a good reach with the 105. But the thing is, you may not be able to stop motion. You would need a 2.8 for an extra stop. (or jack up the ISO. hehe) or use the 50mm 1.8.