Help deciding on next lens

[Richard Lane]

The 24mm f/1.4 looks great (I don't own it), but it will limit you for now. I would vote for the new 24-70mm f/2.8L II (which will also be lighter than version I) or if you want to save money then get the version I which I own for the past few years. I must have a nice copy of that lens, because I love it and I've hard others like HDNitehawk to be less than thrilled, but I think it has improved over the years. The Version II has 82mm threads and the version I has 77mm threads, just like your 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, so if you share filters than version I has an advantage or you could get an adapter ring.

If you're trying to save weight then the 24-105mm f/4L IS will be lighter for your wife. (I like the way you think).

For landscape, I will throw the 16-35mm f/2.8L II into the mix and that lens shouldn't be too bad on the 40D either.

Rich

[HDNitehawk]

For landscape, I will throw the 16-35mm f/2.8L II into the mix and that lens shouldn't be too bad on the 40D either.

Rich

I like Rich's addition over the other zooms listed. I have a 16-35mm II and it is an excelent zoom lens. It might even be an easier sell the idea to the wife.

If you are real serious about landscapes though, go with the prime.

(still I am waiting on the 24-70mm II)

[Mpieris]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I'm not too concerned about weight because as I mentioned, I think my wife is on to me ��. Also, it's a pretty easy sell if she really wants to improve in IQ from the kit lens. She's actually never complained about the weight when i let her try the 70-200. I just tried to convince her (unsuccessfully) that it was a drag. Based on the discussion, I'm more inclined to wait for the 24-70 II reviews. I like to have the flexibility of having pretty high IQ from 24-200 with these two lenses. I think a wide angle prime and a bigger telephoto zoom will be added in the future. But for now, i'd probably get more mileage out of the 24-70mm than something else.