Hey man,
I guess that or you plan to go FF any time? Or you still think the 17-55 has a huge dust-issue or lack of build quality??[:P]
Normally I would recommend that lens on crop-body for general use pretty much over any other lens.
Originally Posted by bburns223
Your choices really don't make a lot of sense then. I believe you look too much at lensspecifications instead of lens utilization's.
What I mean is:
option 1, why the 24-105 and say you'd require a low-light lens. I would change the 24-105 for a 24-70 or a 17-55 in that case. But I'm not sure what your future plans are regarding to upgrading to FF. A 17-55 is a really great lens and I think it worked better on a crop-body than the 24-70 did for me. A 24-105 doesn't really make sense if you want to shoot landscapes. 24mm on crop is something I wouldn't advice for.
option 2, I don't think you'll be happy with the 16-35 as a general lens. The focal length difference is just too short. And again it's way more expensive than the wonderful 17-55 and it pretty much does the same and more (35-55mm range, IS) on a crop-body.
option 3, nothing wrong with that I guess, it's a wonderful lens I noticed by other users reviews. But...
Sports ok, portraits ok, but 70-200 indoors is more tricky.
What I'm trying to say is that for the money you can spend you can get a lot more for use on a crop-body. Which I assume you will hang on to since you shoot a lot of birds [A]
My honest opinion: if I had the money that you have right now and use a crop-body I would buy a 10-22 for landscapes, 17-55 for general use and a 70-200 f$L IS for the complementation of your telelens.
But that's just me! []
Jan
Reply With Quote