Quote Originally Posted by bburns223
The 17-55 also has a dust problem.

Not that I've seen. I've read about that, yes. You can read lots of complaints on forums, of course - keep in mind that most people with a problem of any kind are more likely to be vocal about it than those that don't have any issues. (Try this - if you happen to have a car without engine problems, Google "your car year/model" and "engine problems" - for an older car I put 175K miles on before trading it in, that search pulls up 2.5 million hits, but I never had any sort of engine work, other than oil changes and tune ups).


I've used my 17-55mm in some very dusty environments and not had an issue. Having a UV filter probably helps there, I suspect. I have metal-barreled L-lenses, a plastic-barreled L-lens, and a some non-L lenses. The 17-55mm is better-built than the EF 85mm f/1.8, and comparing the 17-55mm and the 100mm L macro, as I said, they are more similar than different. The one big difference that I notice is that the hood on the 100mm L macro is easier to install/remove than the hood on the 17-55mm. But then again, the hood on the 17-55mm goes on and comes off more easily than the hood on my EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L II USM prime.


Mostly, though, it's about choosing the optimal focal length to meet your needs. Sometimes even 17mm isn't wide enough, and I need to change to my EF-S 10-22mm to capture the full impact of a scene.


I would really recommend renting first in your case - having only the 300mm to compare might make it harder to judge what focal lengths you'll need most. You mentioned that you rented other lenses in the past - check out the EXIF data from those shots, and that may help guide your choices.