Need Advice on next lens to buy

[kellyr]

I have the D60 with Canon 100Macro, 100-400 IS and 1.4x teleconvter. I am a wildlife and botanical painter. I love the 100-400 out in the field for birds & wildlife, even get great shots of flowers to use painting. I am getting over wanting the 10D, figured I'd get a new lens instead!
I'm taking a trip to Ireland were I'll be shooting more landscapes, townscapes, portraits, etc.
A photographer friend is trying to talk me into the 20mm/2.8 wide angle, but I wonder if I would be happier with a standard zoom like 28-70.
Thought about trying to swing the 70-200 IS but wonder if I sorta have that covered with the 100-400, certainly wouldn't be happy about carrying something heavier!!

Help! Any advice would be appreciated.

Kelly

[RichardtheSane]

Remember that on the D60 the 28-70 will be nearer a 44-112 which is not so fun for landscapes, but a 20mm (32mm on D60) would be a bit short for portraits.

It may be worth considering the 17-40 F4 L - many will agree it is a superb lens, I am one of them :mrgreen:

[Belmondo]

Remember that on the D60 the 28-70 will be nearer a 44-112 which is not so fun for landscapes, but a 20mm (32mm on D60) would be a bit short for portraits.

It may be worth considering the 17-40 F4 L - many will agree it is a superb lens, I am one of them :mrgreen:

Excellent suggestion. The 17-40 is a much more suitable choice for landscape work, and it's lighter weight than just about any comparable lens. A perfect choice for walking around.

[Tom W]

I have to agree. When I went to the 10D, I lost my wide capabilities to the crop factor, so my 28-105 lens presented the same field of view as a 44-167 mm lens would on a 35 mm SLR. So, it was pretty obvious that I needed something wider.

I chose the 17-40 because it covered a range from wide to just beyond normal - a good range and wider than other lenses at that end of the wide/tele spectrum. Plus, it has that clarity that 'L" glass is known for, and it wasn't all that expensive.

I could have gotten the 20-35 f/3.5-4/5, but while it is a decent lens, it is lacking in range and isn't that much cheaper than the 17-40.

[ilya]

Also a vote for the 17-40L

However, you will have a gap between 40mm and 100mm, if the 100mm and the 100-400mm are all the lenses you have.

Though this may be more of a longer term issue that needs solving; if you are just asking about the best wide angle solution for your trip, you can probably get by nicely with the 17-40L.

[defordphoto]

I also agree on the 17-40L. It's not as pricey and some L-glass ($699 at B&H) but it's an awesome lens and tests quite well against its twice as expensive brother, the 16-35. If that's out of your price range, Sigma also makes a 17-40 that's somewhat cheaper. I'm not sure how it compares with the rest of the market.

[kellyr]

Thanks!!
After researching, that lens seems to be a great solution. Since I was psyching myself up for paying the price for the 70-200 IS, maybe Ican get the 17-40 and cover the range between 40mm and 100mm with another lens for around the same cost as the 70-200...Hmmm. any thoughts?

Kelly

[WestFalcon]

Kellyr,

I have a 20-35 usm which performs almost as well as my 17-40 L lens. If I were you, I would buy the 20-35 and the 28-135 IS lens. I think you would be more than happy with both lenses. I think you could purchase both for about $700. I really like the 17-40 L but I would rather have the other two on vacation. I compared the 17-40L with the 20-35 on the same picture at the same angle of view at f11 and I could not see a difference even though I wanted the L glass to blow away the regular glass. At f4 or 5.6, I'm sure the L glass would win but don't overlook these inexpensive non L lenses...good luck Brian

[Greg M]

I had the 100-400L IS and when I got the 70-200L IS I never used the 100-400L IS again. Of coarse I needed a faster lens.

While I would love to sell you one of my 28-70L's I have to agree with the others that the 17-40L would probably be better for you because of the 1.6x factor. If you had a 1.3x or a FF camera then you could get by with a 28-70L but not with a 1.6. I had a 20mm prime and I found it almost never got used.

A 17-40L can be picked up new on ebay for either $659 or $669.