LENS CHOICES...

[Steve Parr]

So, here's where my head is at present:

Sell the 20-35mm, the 28-135mm, and the 70-300 QCL. I would then replace those with the 17-40mm L, the 70-200mm f/4 L, and also add either a 1.4X or a 2.0X.

I'd like to go for the 70-200mm L 2.8 IS, but it'll rip just about every last dollar I have out of my wallet. Even the non IS version is a bit more than I'd care to go.

The 100mm-400mm L that I rented a few weeks ago would be nice, but would also constitute all of my available cash. I normally wouldn't need that much reach and, with a converter, I could get close.

Going with my current thoughts would also afford me the ability to get some much needed accessories, as well, such as filters, a new bag, etc.

As for my lower light shooting (bands and such), I would still have my 1.8's for that, and I may even make the move to the 50mm f/1.4.

So, sound reasoning?

Steve

[taybone]

Sounds like a nice plan. You'll love the 70-200 f/4L!

Seems to me we are pursuing the same setup... the 17-40 is next on my list.

[tim]

Personally i'd go for the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 instead of the 17-40, and get a Tokina 12-24 or similar for wide. Depends what you shoot really. I'd probably suggest the 1.4X TC not the 2X, IIRC the 300D/20D need a lens with maximum aperture of F5.6 to focus well, an F4 lens with a 2X TC is F8 wide open.

[LightRules]

Tim offers good input. The 24-70EX gives you a great walk around and the Tokie gives you something really nice and wide for those creative compositions. The Siggie 10-20 is also another good bet. The build of the Tokie and Sigma 24-70 is excellent too.

[Juan Zas]

I am with Tim,

Actually I have the Sigma 24-70, the 70-200 f/4 L and the x1.4 TC, they are very good (specially the 70-200, with the x1.4TC performs very well); as you can see down.

My next lens it will be also the Tokina 12-24.

[malla1962]

Nice plan go for it!:D:D

[tim]

Remember wide lenses are for landscape and buildings, unless you're after weird distortion effects.

The 50mm F1.4 is a great lens, the 1.8 is a cheap lens.

[Okiewan]

The 50mm F1.4 is a great lens, the 1.8 is a cheap lens.

Cheap as in best value out there for a nice sharp, albeit limited range lens.

[ayotnoms]

Get the 50 f/1.4 if you can swing it. It's a top performer and an excellent value even if it isn't as cheap as the 1.8.

The difference is in the image details. For a comprehensive comparison, check this thread:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

Cheers

[Steve Parr]

Get the 50 f/1.4 if you can swing it. It's a top performer and an excellent value even if it isn't as cheap as the 1.8.

The difference is in the image details. For a comprehensive comparison, check this thread:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

Cheers

I've seen that comparison before.

Yeah, I know the 1.4 is a much better lens. The 1.8 has been getting the job done, but it hunts worse than my Dad with a bow in his hand in really low light.

I should be able to swing the 1.4...

Steve

[aggarcia]

Going with the 17-40 and the 70-200 would leave a gap between 40-70. I would also recommend the Sigma 24-70 2.8. This is one of the best walk around lenses. The 50 mentioned is great, but a 50 and a 70-200 would create more gaps than you currently have.

[SolPics]

I'd stick with your current plan. Both the 17-40 L and the 70-200 f/4 L are great lens. If you buy the 50 f/1.4 you pretty much have the gap between 40 and 70 covered.

I would skip the 2X TC though. 400mm at f/8.0 and the 2X TC isn't the best combo. I've tried the 2X TC on my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and I lost a lot of picture quality, which is why you pay all the money for the L lens in the first place. The 1.4 TCon is very good and useful.

[peterdoomen]

I have the Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 to fill the gap between the wide angle and the tele... it's just about perfect. I'm very happy with it and never encountered someone who was not.

PeteR.