No, but I was so smitten with the idea of DSLR photography that I wanted to jump in ASAP. That was my first opportunity so I took it. I bought the 17-40 based on Bryan's comments on it being an excellent value in a wide angle L zoom. I also thought I'd be getting a 5D, which I actually did, in a kit with the 24-105, but it didn't have the speed and responsiveness I wanted, so I returned it after a couple of weeks.


I came across a great deal on a NIB 40D kit with the 28-135 that I couldn't pass up, so I got that next. Then came the understanding that my wide angle and my new body weren't necessarily made for each other, and ever since I guess I have been trying to will them to be happy with together. Alas, it was a union that was not meant to be.


This evening on the road on the way to work, I have been pondering alternatives, and I think that if I sell my 17-40 and my 28-135, I will have enough money to get an EF-S 15-85, which seems to be highly regarded. I know it isn't constant f/number across the zoom range, but it certainly seems like an excellent choice from almost every other perspective, and it will work ideally with my 40D, and of course any future APS-C body I might end up with.


To get back to our other discussion, though, I think we are bogging down with the wide open comparison on the two actual lenses that I chose originally, when the point of the discussion is at least somewhat theoretical. That is why I shifted to the 5DII + 200 at 4.5 and 7D + 135 @ 2.8. That allows the lenses to be nearly interchangeable optically and DOF, and then we are only comparing the performance of the combos from a resulting image standpoint, with the consideration for an 8% crop of the FF to match the framing of the other combo. This even makes the resulting resolution similar.


The rationale, though my train of thought may have been derailed by the long drive, is that for a lot less money, I can get FF results with an APS-C and a carefully chosen companion lens. I know there are certain things that will only be possible with FF, because it is mathematically impossible to achieve them with a crop body, but for the vast majority of my shooting, with properly chosen lenses, I won't miss the FF experience at all.


I had also been questioning the efficacy of APS-H, as it relates to the compromise with both APS-C and FF, which I still am interested in hypothetically, but I decided on the way here that I am having a crisis of conscience financially, and can't make myself spend the money right now on a 1D3 or 1D4. I could talk myself into it in a heartbeat, but I shouldn't do that for the moment, and I am trying to be responsible.


My aspirations for now are to be able to shoot residential (indoor) architecture, portraits, macro and birds/air shows. I feel like I will be able to do this at least adequately with two lenses for now, which are the 15-85 and either a 300/4 or 400/5.6, though I am leaning towards the 300 because it will also double as a near-macro like the 400mm Sigma TeleMacro I just sold (Nikon mount). The 15-85 should be wide and long enough to get the architecture and portraits. I am also looking at the 17-55, but honestly it doesn't seem like it is better in practice than the 15-85, and it lacks width and length, and has a less sophisticated IS, a full stop short. It is almost too good to be true that the 15-85 is $400+ cheaper. It lacks the 2.8 constant, but especially on the wide end, I would be stopped down anyway, probably. If I really needed the narrow DOF on the longer end, I could just get an 85/1.8 and stop it down to 2.2 or 2.8. The combo would be about what the 17-55 costs alone. What do you think about that?