<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 7.5pt;"]


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]I think the big question (and the one I just finished debating) is would you ever move up to a FF body? If not, stick with the 17-55. The wider focal length comes in handy I find.<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]If you can justify the 70-200 f2.8 go for it but don&rsquo;t rule out the f4 version for a lot less $$. I have it and have been very happy with it.<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]I have a crop body and the combination of the 17-55 and the 70-200 f4 work great. You can also pick the both up for less than the 70-200 f2.8&hellip;<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]Next would be the 10-20 and then a large prime&hellip;300 or 400<o></o>









MattG