Lense Suggestions

[Maleko]

Absolutely. 24mm does not seem wide at all on 1.6x.


When you see 24mm on a 1.0 body, and then on a 1.6x body, you realise how "non" wide it is :P

[jusap]

A little something to consider.


A fast lens doesn't necessarily go for outdoor shots not unless you're shooting in low light conditions like dusk or night time. Though it adds effect on your shot because it gives you more DOF options to play with. Most landscape shots use a smaller aperture to get more details in the shot.


But as you've said, 2.8 gives more flexibility


__


24mm isn't wide on a APS-C body. If you want wide, you may want to look on EF-S 10-22. It's not a fast lens and no IS but this is a lens regarded for its sharpness. You don't need IS for a wide angle anyway. But if your expecting to go FF, try the 24-70 2.8L or the 16-35 2.8L


__


Also, I've read somewhere about landscapes and telephoto lenses. I'll try to find that link. This will lead to the 70-200 f4L ISU. hehe


__


Another thing, you might miss the reach of the 17-85 if you go for the 17-55 2.8.


__________________





For now, since you shoot outdoors, i would go for the 24-105 f4L.


Outdoors means you have space to move back incase the subject doesn't fit the frame. It also means ample light, f4 will fit in nicely. a good reach with the 105. But the thing is, you may not be able to stop motion. You would need a 2.8 for an extra stop. (or jack up the ISO. hehe) or use the 50mm 1.8.

[jasbsar]

The best thing would be to stick with the lenses you have and go for one of the 70-200mm L lenses to give you some extra reach. I would go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM if you have the cash.


Then when you buy a ff body go for either 24-70 f/2.8L or the 24-105 f/4.0L, if you buy the 5D Mark II kit it comes with the 24-105 f/4.0L.


As always with a lens, buy the best you can afford, they can last for years and many body upgrades if you look after them.

[Chuck Lee]

MDC,


Welcome to the world of DSLR photography and the never ending mind-numbing choices it presents. I really like Colins advice.


I noticed that your looking at 3 lenses:


EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS there is a less expensive alternative in the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DII (crop lens)


EF 24-70 f2.8L (just like the 17-55 doesn't require IS a majority of the time.) a less expensive alt. is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI (FF lens)


EF 24-105 f4 L. There is a less expensive alternative with IS, the EF 28-135 f4-f5.6 IS (FF lens). Just look at Bryans ISO charts to compare the two. I wish he had an ASP-C series but oh-well.


If money is not an issue always opt for fast glass L lenses or the next best equivalent. "Invest in glass, buy camera bodies"


IMHO:If you aregetting to go to exotic places at this point in your life and can afford one of any of the lenses that you list then I would sell the 40D with EFS lens to the highest bidder and buy a used or refurbured 5D, 24-105 f4L ISlens & EX420 and carry that. This is the best travel camera/lens combo value on the planet for the subjects you are shooting and the IQ of the photos will be second to none. The next best thing would be a 5D MII rather than the 5D which would give you video as well!! Keep the 50 1.8...indespensible for low light. It will seem a bit wide on FF at first, but it was the standard "kit" lens in the 35mm film days.


You only live once!


Chuck

[Jarhead5811]

I highly recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8it's cheap enough that it shouldn't leave you feeling too tied to a APS-C body. I've really enjoyed mine.

[Vince]

How about EF 17-40 f/4 L USM? half the price compare to 16-35 f/2.8 II........ any suggestion?

[Colin]

If I was buying a wide angle zoom again for a FF, I'd probably go with the 17-40 instead of the 16-35, primarily for the $$ reasons. However, I wouldn't trade in the 16-35 to go that route....