Hi guys!





I found this forum just yesterday, i was looking around for some lens for landscape photos and had my mind set for the 17-40L/4 but then i read some posts about it being rather inferior to others...





My toughts are, i go now with the 50D body, but i still want to keep my options open for the full frame if i ever get the money (student), and i know that if i get the money fpr the body i wont have any left for new lenses. But that might be years away still. Just tought i better be future-safe, so to speak, unless the difference between lenses are like night and day.


For me, beeing in northen scandinavia, the last wilderness of europe (like a Alaska light pretty much), do alright with the 17-40 at f.8-16? It will be mounted on tripod when not snapshoting friends and family


Or would it be more wise of me to go for another lens, if there is more "bang for the buck" so to say? A brand new one would be great but i can only afford second hand, the 17-40/4 is about 55-60% on the local market.


Shaprness and colors is my main consern, i realy want to do my "targets" justice as much as possible.





Any toughts and suggestions much apprisiated!


The lineup at the moment is: 70-200/4 L USM, 50/1.8 mk II, a 50d body and a 10D body, planning on either a dedicated macro or some extenders fror semimacro in the future.