Which one first? Can't decide!

[johnmate]

I want to have a new weapon on my 10D. Currently I have only a EF 50mm 1.8 II. A good lense but I want more...

So I decided to buy my first L lens. A great moment in life. 8)

I want to buy a 17-40L f4 or a 70-200L f4. But because my budget is not that big I have to buy one at a time. But which one first??? I can't decide.
You will ask: What do you want to shoot? Well, many things. Some subjects:

- Landscapes
- Portraits
- Stills
- Old buildings and industrial areas


So, what would be your priority? Wide or tele? Black or white?

[msvadi]

I think it's better to get 17-40 for landscapes and one of the following primes for portraits: 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 or 135 f/2.8. Everybody says that 70-200 f/4 is a great lens, but f/4 may be not enough for portraits.

I was looking at 70-200 f/4 too, but then I decided to buy faster lens (135 f/2.8 , $270 ) and save some money ;) May be one day I'll be able to afford 70-200 f/2.8. Until then I'm quite happy with primes ;)

[Whaler]

17 - 40mm

[roanjohn]

17-40..........its more versatile. The 70-200 is a good lens but will probably limit your shooting capabilities.

Ro1

[DaveG]

I want to have a new weapon on my 10D. Currently I have only a EF 50mm 1.8 II. A good lense but I want more...

So I decided to buy my first L lens. A great moment in life. 8)

I want to buy a 17-40L f4 or a 70-200L f4. But because my budget is not that big I have to buy one at a time. But which one first??? I can't decide.
You will ask: What do you want to shoot? Well, many things. Some subjects:

- Landscapes
- Portraits
- Stills
- Old buildings and industrial areas


So, what would be your priority? Wide or tele? Black or white?

A lens is like a golf club. You take the one out of the bag that will do the right job for the shot at hand.

I love wide angles and in my commercial/corporate photography world, my 16-35 makes me more money than my 70-200. But if I was using the camera for fun shots I think that I'd get the 70-200 first, simply because of the reach of that lens.

Once again get the "wide angle = landscape lens" mind set, out of your head. ANY lens, from a macro to a fish eye to a 600 mm lens is a landscape lens for the right landscape.

[ssim]

If the choice is between these two lenses then I would choose the 70-200. I don't think that you should overlook the 24-70 f2.8L. This is the lens that the most time on my 10D. I also have the 16-35 and the 70-200 and the 70-200 is my second most used lens. It is dead sharp and fast.

[Tom W]

I want to have a new weapon on my 10D. Currently I have only a EF 50mm 1.8 II. A good lense but I want more...

So I decided to buy my first L lens. A great moment in life. 8)

I want to buy a 17-40L f4 or a 70-200L f4. But because my budget is not that big I have to buy one at a time. But which one first??? I can't decide.
You will ask: What do you want to shoot? Well, many things. Some subjects:

- Landscapes
- Portraits
- Stills
- Old buildings and industrial areas


So, what would be your priority? Wide or tele? Black or white?

Well, the way I'd approach it is to decide how my 50 is serving me now. Which do you need more often - a wider lens or a longer telephoto lens? Answer that and you'll answer which way you want to go first.

If you desire a little wider sometimes and a little longer sometimes, the 24-70 is a good choice.

If you're really unsure, you may want to get a couple of used zooms, one at the wide end and one at the telephoto end. Use them for a while, then decide which one you want to replace first.

[Belmondo]

It sounds like you will probably get more use from the wider capabilities of the 17-40. The 70-200 is not a landscape lens, but in a pinch, a 17-40 could be a marginal portrait lens (I'll get flamed for saying that) The 24-70L is a great lens---my favorite. But you can buy both the lenses your thinking of for just a little more than what the 24-70 costs alone.

The 17-40L was my second L lens, and it remains in my bag even though I've covered its focal range with other lenses. It's a great 'walking around' lens whereas the 70-200 f/4 is quite a bit larger and could be a handful at the end of a long day.

[Tom W]

It sounds like you will probably get more use from the wider capabilities of the 17-40. The 70-200 is not a landscape lens, but in a pinch, a 17-40 could be a marginal portrait lens (I'll get flamed for saying that) The 24-70L is a great lens---my favorite. But you can buy both the lenses your thinking of for just a little more than what the 24-70 costs alone.

No flame from me, but the 50 that he already has will do fine as a portrait lens on the 1.6 sensor (and I'm hoping not to start that thread up again).

The 17-40L was my second L lens, and it remains in my bag even though I've covered its focal range with other lenses. It's a great 'walking around' lens whereas the 70-200 f/4 is quite a bit larger and could be a handful at the end of a long day.

The 17-40 was my first "L" (I have 2 now - I'm crazy). Once I really started using it, I've found it to be a very, very nice lens. It produces the occasional incredible image that you'd swear is better than the original situation as seen by the unaided eye.

[Whaler]

Tom

You're not crazy until you have 3 . . . . . .

[johnmate]

Thank you all for your tips and comments.

I think I will go for the 17-40L f4. But I also looked at the EF 24-70/2.8 L USM and that looks interesting too. This is not getting easier you know. :cry:
But his price is about 1295.00 euro and that is a little bit over budget at the moment. I think a 17-40L is coming up soon.

Wish me luck...

[Whaler]

You are going to be soooo happy with the 17-40. Love your avatar.

[Andy_T]

But I also looked at the EF 24-70/2.8 L USM and that looks interesting too. This is not getting easier you know. :cry:
But his price is about 1295.00 euro and that is a little bit over budget at the moment.

John ... maybe take a look at the Tamron 28-75/f 2.8 XR DI ... should be around 400 Euros and is supposed to deliver picture quality on the level of the 24-70 L.

Best regards,
Andy

[khiromu]

Both are good lenses. Both have good reviews, light weight, good optics, and have the same constant f/4. I have both, like both, but got 17-200 first. Why? Because I liked that focal length better. What's that mean? That means, it's all up to you. Just go whichever focal length you like better. You will not regret either of your choice.

THanks

[johnmate]

I have both, like both, but got 17-200 first.


Where can I get that 17-200??? :D

You mean the 17-40?

Thanks for your reaction.

[Flyball Rebel]

Hi johnmate, I would go for the 17-40 first judging by your list. BUT, even if you do, you can bet your bottom dollar that your next 'L' will follow pretty soon. I'm picking up my 17-40 tomorrow morning (it feels like Christmas!!) it's my fist one too! I couldn't decide on the 17-40 f/4 or the 24-70 f/2.8, so the 24-70 will come later. I was also recommended to look at the Tamron SP AF28-75 f/2.8 XR Di, but couldn't find one to try. I'm sure I've done the right thing though. I'll be posting tomorrow!!! (feel like a kid in a candy store!!) :D :D :D

[johnmate]

Hi johnmate, I would go for the 17-40 first judging by your list. BUT, even if you do, you can bet your bottom dollar that your next 'L' will follow pretty soon. I'm picking up my 17-40 tomorrow morning (it feels like Christmas!!) it's my fist one too! I couldn't decide on the 17-40 f/4 or the 24-70 f/2.8, so the 24-70 will come later. I was also recommended the Tamron SP AF28-75 f/2.8 XR Di, but couldn't find one to try. I'm sure I've done the right thing though. I'll be posting tomorrow!!! :D :D

Yes, please post tomorrow and tell us your experiences!