I have currently:


1) 70-200 L f/4 IS


2) 50mm f/1.4


3) 17-85 IS (which I am currently trying to sell as I am not using it at all)


I want to get a wide angle for my 40D and here is a problem...I would like to go to FF sometime soon-ish, perhaps in a year, most-- two, but if I sink my money into an L lense, I will probably have to wait a bit longer for FF. On other hand, I already have the L disease and I noticed it can be cured by a selected purchase, followed by a bit of a guilt, quickly forgotten when images from camera pop up on my computer. I blame it all on you guys as you recommended the fantastic 70-200 for me [] . F/4 is enough for me, happy with this arrangement, if I ever upgrade to 2.8, it may be 24-70.


So...if you were me, would you go for 10-22 or 16-35L and upgrade to FF later? Just curious...


Most of my pictures are frankly pretty timid, I am learning, pathetically slowly, but enjoying every moment of it. So I take pictures of my dogs (love taking these!), some human portraits, park or beach outings, street pictures...I would like to try some landscapes though...Not interested in bugs or birds much but I like nature shots.


Am I even considering the right lenses at this point? Or given what I wrote, would you go with a different lens altogether?


Any advice, as always, greatly appreciated...and if I will follow it, I can always blame my diminishing savings on you[]