Tabazan,


Thanx for the reply.


My personal opinion, 'it's all about the glass'.


Not to insult, I think it's the right thing for you todo your own investigation to determine if a lens is right for you. You are the one who knows your needs and shooting style. After all, it could be a VERY LARGE investment and you are the one paying for it (if for example; you buy on some ones recommendation and you are unhappy, then you may find yourself in the position were you need to sell our investment, usually at a loss, regardless if the lens is 'L' or not).


We are more than happy to tell you of our own experiences with the glass we have, but it would be negligent to tell you something we do not have first hand experience with.


So... bodies may come and go and unless you sell it, your glass will stay with you through it all, regardless if it's 'L' or not. That being said, 'L glass' brings to the table many admirable features. Quality in build and optics including fast f stops and good resale value (if it is still in good shape) are the real things that make these lenses so desirable. You might read on some sites that some 'L' glass is not worth the money one might pay and that is likely true. In our opinion, generally speaking an investment in white/black 'L' lenses will do you no wrong if the budget will allow.


An EF-S lens (like our 17-55mm IS USM) will not fit to a 1D body, I do not know if this type of lens will fit onto a 50D as we do not own that body. We use this lens exclusively on an XTi body. If you do plan to purchase a 1D in the future you might want to consider the cost of lenses that are designated EF-S and then the replacement cost to fit a 1D,.. if that body configuration is in your future.


Because all EF lenses will fit onto EF-S mounts I would say any 'L' glass that you decide fits your needs makes sense.


We shoot with a Sigma 10-20mm 1:4-5.6 DC HSM and are very pleased with the results. So for us the cost/performance of this lens out weighed an 'L' lens. There fore an 'L' designation did not mean for us that the 'L' version was the only way to go.


I'm sorry I don't know the term "Peleng". We live a sheltered life in Saskatchewan Canada and on our travels in this country and else were we have not heard this term.


Tabazan,


I'm not sure I completely understand your last paragraph so this is difficult for me to answer. [We have only recently,(in the scheme of things, 2 years ago), made the leap to digital from film]. I can say that it really seems to depend on the image quality you are expecting, in regards to the size of print you are producing, from the pixel count of the sensor you have, clear as mud? I have read that the more pixels one has equals morerecorded information(simply speaking). This is a technical issue that we do not concern ourselves with as the images we produce with our kit are everything we need for our purposes. We concern ourselves with the proper focal length in regards to the subject. There is lots of information out there on this very topic and I would encourage you to search high and low as we have done to find your answers. It is also said that there is a 'sweet spot' on lenses, and that it is in the center of the lens{I tend to agree}. A 1.6 crop factor will reproduce an image that is overall smaller in size(field of view) compared to a FF sensor but the 'sweet spot' remains the same for the given lens.