Upgrading my lens, can't decide what to upgrade to.

[Synomis192]

@ Steve

I would consider getting another prime for that reason. The whole expanding a photographer's creativity is a really good point. I'd probably go with the Canon 35mm f/2. I was thinking about getting the Canon 28mm f/1.8 but I found that the lens is really soft wide open. Is there any other primes you'd recommend?

@ jrw

Technically, I'm spending my parents money as well. But most of the money will come from me. Haha.

Thanks for suggesting I'd get the 17-55mm f/2.8. I honestly don't know why a lot of people choose this lens. I can't trash talk the lens due to the fact that I've never held on in my hands or used one. I'm considering renting the 17-55 f/2.8 just to see what all the fuss is about. I really do like the 17-40 f/4 though because if I ever felt the need to upgrade to FF i'd have a walkaround lens for the camera. I too am critical about focusing. Liveview really does help in the long run haha.

@ patham

I'll consider getting the 70-200mm f/4 IS. I wouldn't mind try to save a little bit more for IS. Carrying weight really isn't a problem haha, It's just something that photographers have to deal with. And what doesn't kill you makes you stronger right? haha just kidding. But if I was really concerned about weight, I wouldn't get a new lens. I probably get the Fujifilm x100 or the Leica M9.

[Daniel Browning]

I really do like the 17-40 f/4 though because if I ever felt the need to upgrade to FF i'd have a walkaround lens for the camera.

Actually, the angle of view changes dramatically when a lens is used on full frame. The 17-40 becomes an ultrawide, giving about the same angle of view as the EF-S 10-22. Most people wouldn't consider that to be a "walkaround" lens, though you can definitely use it as one (I did) if you like very wide angles of view.

The benefits of the 17-40 include great build quality, excellent autofocus, good manual focus ring, high resale value ("L" brand), full-frame compatibility, and good image quality at f/8. The downsides include a narrow f-number (f/4), high cost, and poor image quality at f/4. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is cheaper, faster, longer, *and* significantly sharper at all f-numbers between f/2.8 and f/5.6.

[Synomis192]

@ Daniel

Hmm, the Tamron does have a really good IQ compared to the Canon 17-40 f/4. Maybe for now, I'll decided to get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200mm f/4. Thanks for you input. Is there any zoom lenses or primes that you'd recommend I get rather than the Canon 70-200mm f/4?