I Want To Buy 2 Lenses, 1 can be an "L"

[Shoe]

I just bought a 40D and I am looking for 2 complimentary lenses and my budget is allowing for one of them to be an L lens. I am thinking of 2 zooms, but a prime & a zoom is a good option. I prefer fasterlenses. I am wondering if the L lens would serve me better on the shorter focal end or the longer?


Budget is about $1,500 +/- $200.


Most of the photos would be outside (wildlife, sports, landscapes), but for the family there would be plenty of indoor activites (basketball, volleyball). So upon further reseach I am thinking aboutone scenario:24-70mm f2.8L and a 70-300mm.


Thanks

[adam]

Depends on what you intend to take pictures of, and what your actual dollar buget is...you need to give us more details to get accurate advice

[Daniel Browning]

I suggest the 800mm f/5.6 L IS and 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.

With those two lenses, you should be able to shoot just about anything: a closeup of galaxies 2 billions light years away, a wide angle panorama of flowers just 8 inches away, and everything inbetween. (Well, maybe not everything.)

If those lenses aren't suited for your budget or the purpose you're going to use them for, please let us know and we'll try to narrow it down.

[]

[anglefire]

That choice may just blow the OP's budget of $1500 +/- $200 by just a bit [:P]

[Max@Home]

Hi Shoe,





You just started and bought the 40D, so any plans to go 'FullFrame' will probably not be for the next two to three years ?


If so, then you have plenty of time to explore the EF-S lenses, too , if you decide to go 'FF' later and have to sell them, they will still fetch a decent price, and what-you-loose would not have allowed you to rent them for the same period


Reason I am saying this is that any 24-xxx lens, L or not, will not be very 'wide' on the 40D due to the 1.6x crop factor.


Therefor you might be better off looking at the EF-S 17-55F2.8 IS USM lens as your 'General Purpose' lens. Add either the EF70-300F4.5-F5.6 IS for the reach and convenience of IS, or the shorter EF70-200F4L (non-IS) for better imagequality wide-open and the faster aperture at 200mm.


And do not worry about the 'gap' between 55mm and 70mm: it is one to two step closer or further back





...*my* €0.02 worth...





Kindest regards!





L. 'Max' Tak


Max@Home


Moderator/Canon forum/PhotoCamel.com


CPS member

[Shoe]

Thanks!


This is exactly the kind of options I was hoping to see here as responses.


Your assumptions about FF and considering EF-S lenses are spot on. More for me to ponder. Thanks again!

[MVers]

There are several routes you can take here. First, if nature is a priority I can suggest a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 and a Canon 100-400 OR 400/5.6. The range of the
Sigma is outstanding and its ability to do 1:2 'macro' is very handy,
the only downside is its variable aperture. Second is the EF-S 17-55 and a 70-300IS--best overall image quality but you lose 100mm's on the long end which is crutial for wildlife. Last is the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and a Canon 100-400 OR 400/5.6 which is the best of both worlds pertaining to the subject matter you are interested in. Hope that helps.


-Matt

[greggf]

I have to agree with MVers...people don't realize that the Tammy 17-50 is a great lens. Had it on my 30D and it was a stellar lens. It may not have IS like the 17-55, but it'll save you $500 or more, too. Then I would have to say I would get the 70-200 f4 IS. It is an incredible lens, with a 4 stop IS, and sharpness corner to corner(especially on a crop). Can't go wrong with that combo...and it is under your budget, and you might have a little left over.

[Sean Setters]

how about the 70-200mm f/4 L and the 17-40mm f/4 L? Both L lenses, not super fast but fast enough for most purposes, and well within your price range.


Else replace the 17-40 with the 24-70 f/2.8 L...that will be about $1749 + shipping (not too much over budget) andd faster glass.

[Tim]

I started with the tammy 17-50 and it was incredibly soft at allaperturesunder f/8, soI returned it within 3 days and got an L lens instead.It was probably just a bad copy, but I didn't want to deal with returning lenses until I got a good copy. Canon lenses focus so much faster anyways.