gregjp48
14th of July 2006 (Fri), 15:46
oh wow you guys are going to SHOOT me
Ok I finally had it narrowed down to a 24-105 and a 70-200 with a 10-22 possibly
Then I did a double take... and thought 17-40 and 70-200 again, which would be the price of the 24-105 alone, and then could throw in a Tamron if I felt like it.
I was scared that if I threw in a 10-22 after that and had the Tamron as well, the 17-40 would serve no purpose (but then I could sell it)
Ugh too many threads.. must be agonizing for you
I apologize... but:
17-40 f/4L
50 1.8 (already have)
70-200 f/4L
-OR-
10-22 (later on)
24-105 f/4L
70-200 f/4L
the second one seems to fit better with each other all but it is considerably more expensive. However if I replace the 24-105 with a tamron 28-75, the price drops to around $1700 which is a more reasonable alternative to the $1100-1200
ugh I'm in the same boat again
and again the debate whether the 17-40 would be wide enough
I don't want to regret doing something later on, since it's a big investment (for me).
How does the color of the 24-105 compare to the 17-40. The colors on the latter look just amazing. Is the 24-105 as good (I sure hope so).
Another thing is that the latter plan is nicer all at once, but harder to build up. I couldn't live with just the 10-22 or the 70-200...I'd have to go for the Standard Zoom in the beginning, and then work my way up to one of those, and then the other. Which is hard. I may not end up needing the UWA, and $1200, then $600 isn't that bad, but would I end up missing the wide? I guess I'll know when it happens. Would it be a waste then if I bought the 17-40 then for the extra 7mm if I didn't feel like UW? Would that be economical?
Alright as usual, I went too far. What it comes down to is: Which? Why? and does the 24-105 have good color?
What I would really like is for Canon to come out with a 17-85 that's L quality and not digital-only. That would probably be my dream lens
Ok I finally had it narrowed down to a 24-105 and a 70-200 with a 10-22 possibly
Then I did a double take... and thought 17-40 and 70-200 again, which would be the price of the 24-105 alone, and then could throw in a Tamron if I felt like it.
I was scared that if I threw in a 10-22 after that and had the Tamron as well, the 17-40 would serve no purpose (but then I could sell it)
Ugh too many threads.. must be agonizing for you
I apologize... but:
17-40 f/4L
50 1.8 (already have)
70-200 f/4L
-OR-
10-22 (later on)
24-105 f/4L
70-200 f/4L
the second one seems to fit better with each other all but it is considerably more expensive. However if I replace the 24-105 with a tamron 28-75, the price drops to around $1700 which is a more reasonable alternative to the $1100-1200
ugh I'm in the same boat again
and again the debate whether the 17-40 would be wide enough
I don't want to regret doing something later on, since it's a big investment (for me).
How does the color of the 24-105 compare to the 17-40. The colors on the latter look just amazing. Is the 24-105 as good (I sure hope so).
Another thing is that the latter plan is nicer all at once, but harder to build up. I couldn't live with just the 10-22 or the 70-200...I'd have to go for the Standard Zoom in the beginning, and then work my way up to one of those, and then the other. Which is hard. I may not end up needing the UWA, and $1200, then $600 isn't that bad, but would I end up missing the wide? I guess I'll know when it happens. Would it be a waste then if I bought the 17-40 then for the extra 7mm if I didn't feel like UW? Would that be economical?
Alright as usual, I went too far. What it comes down to is: Which? Why? and does the 24-105 have good color?
What I would really like is for Canon to come out with a 17-85 that's L quality and not digital-only. That would probably be my dream lens