Which Lens Next? Wide or Long?

[burners]

As you can see I currently have the Canon 50mm 1.8 prime and the Canon 28-105 II to fix onto my 350D

I have about £500 (approx $800) to spend on a new lens. I feel I am lacking both in the wide and long range and want to fill at least one of those gaps.

Shooting landscapes and people is what floats my boat but I am hoping to get into event photography \ portait work too which should take priority.

The idea of the 10-22mm EF or the 17-40 L is nagging at me at the moment but I wonder whether my money is best spent in the longer range

I sometimes wonder if I am normal the amount of time I spend thinking about lenses..

Any recommendations (about which lens I should get)?

Thanks

[Mr. Clean]

I think you have a great lens for potraits in the 1.8. If you don't find yourself needing to go wider than your 28-105, then I'd say spring for the 70-200 F4L. Or, I have a Sigma 70-300 3.5 - 5.6 APO Macro that is really wonderful and sharp for the price. I think a 17-40L would be great if you find yourself wish for that extra range in the low end (as would a few others as I'm finding). But like I said, if you have no need for anything wider than 28, go long!

[Jackal]

I always thought I wouldn't need a long lens for the portrait work I do. After shooting an event with a borrowed 70-200mm 2.8L IS.........I changed my mind. I need to buy this lens. I better start saving. :(

[Billginthekeys]

save up a bit more and get a 70-200 F4L and a 17-40 F4L. L's certainly wont dissapoint.

[KevC]

WIDE! 10-22, you'll love it! Especially if your widest is only 28mm.

However, it depends. Is the 105 long enough? For portraits, it's definitely. Maybe even for shooting zoo creatures. But if you're going into birding, aviation, or sports I don't think it's fast or long enough.

But I never shoot those. Soo... I'd definitely go wide.

If you don't need the reach, the perspective between 100ish and 500ish isn't SIGNIFICANTLY different. Just more compressed. Way more compressed... but I don't think it's really noticable. The perspective between 10mm... 15mm and 20mm... WOW. Unbelievable. hehe.

Also consider the Sigma 10-20 if you want to save some money =)

[ScottE]

Don't listen to anybody else's post. What pictures do you want to take most often, but can't because of the limitations of your current lenses? Answer that and you have answered your own question.

If there aren't any pictures you want to take, but can't because of your current lenses, you don't need a new lens.

[jjonsalt]

If you go long then consider the 200L, great lens quality, great image quality and decent speed (f/2.8).

[sugarzebra]

I agree with ScottE's wise counsel....if you are like me, the answer is both, every time I'm im in the city my 24-105 isnt wide enough, but every weekend at the cottage (kids skiing/snowmobiling all winter and water skiing & wakeboarding all summer), the lens isnt long enough!! So really you need both. Now the question becomes which one do you need first...for the answer to that read ScottE's post again ;)

[Lightstream]

Get the 10-22. 28-135 is fine for events, but bring your flash - you already know this though.

The 10-22 will open up a whole new world you never thought possible especially for landscapes. For me, that lens basically justifies my entire move to an SLR system, the ability to go far wider than any P&S digital can. I'm aware of the wide converters for P&S but comparing the 10-22 to them is completely unfair as the 10-22 hands out such a thrashing it's almost difficult to believe.

Bought my 17-85 first, the 10-22 second (it's also my second-most-frequently-used), but.... 70-300 IS USM third because there are the days I need ALL the reach I can get :mrgreen:

You'll eventually get a long lens, so you need to weigh which one you would like to have first.

[twotimer]

I have the 10 22 and a 70 200 f2.8 and the 10 22 is used more often but that is just me and my interests. The 70 200 is great at a hockey arena or soccer game but if you are into birds it really is not near long enough. So like others said it depends on your interests.

Gerhard

[basroil]

what do you see yourself at with the 28-105? if you are always at 28, go for wide lenses, if you always use max zoom, go for telephoto. scotte has the right idea here, no sense spending money on a good lens you won't use.

[kvdnberg]

I'm getting a 28-105 myself (not in stock so I bought the 50mm f/1.8 in the meantime) and I am going for a tele (70-300IS) but that's because I'm interested in nature things where I just want to get closer, and zoo pics and such. I'm not that much interested in landscapes and other wide angle things, so that's my thinking. If I may need wide at some point I'll probably buy the kit lens secondhand. Because you're interested in landscape it seems wide might be the better choice for you. So like it has been said - look at your own interest and go from there. Also a good one, what photography do you admire, and wish you could do too? (In terms of type, like wildlife, sports, macro, landscape, etc) That tipped the scale for me. I was wondering if I wanted a tele at first, thought I'd be better off getting a macro first because I like macro too. What I later realized is that I liked doing macro because I had no tele option at the time (Only a Canon Powershot G2, which does Ok macro but not much zoom). I went back over what I tried to photograph and saw lots of feeble attempts to get a bird or other animal in view, which ended up a tiny thing in a big setting. The first day I took my 30D out for a spin I saw a Great Crested Grebe with a fish in it's beak, and shot away at it with my 50mm f/1.8. Well wasn't that a dissapointment when I got home, this small bird in a big pond. Sure you could tell it had a fish, but how good would that shot have been with a tele?. So that answered my question, now you need to find your answer.