WWYD - WA / Standard Zoom Dilema

[Dorman]

Hi all,


First the foreword, :) - Seeking a little bit of input from the members of this forum as I always seem to do before purchasing equipment. I've been scaling back my lineup as of late as I really enjoy the simplicity of a minimal setup. I'm currently carrying around a 17-40, 70-200 F/4, and 35 F/2.0 as my carry everywhere kit, lenses are being used on a 350D along with a 430EX. What I mainly shoot is land/seascapes for fine art prints, and urban decay/abandonment for my own personal interests. Here's some examples of the shooting I currently do:

Landscapes ( http://www.pbase.com/bdorman/landscapes )
The 17-40 does a really good job here as it's usually tripod mounted and in decent light, and stopped down for dof.

Abandonment ( http://www.pbase.com/bdorman/forsaken )
The 17-40 isn't ideal here, tight spaces sometimes make it difficult to use a tripod, tough lighting conditions, not really able to isolate objects and blur out backgrounds

I'm starting to take on more client work for portraits/events/weddings where F/4 isn't cutting it all that well, and it'd be nice to have extra reach, wider aperture, and maybe even IS for my abandonment work, basically a more versatile lens overall.

What I'm considering is:

1. Pick up the 17-55 F/2.8 IS to replace my 17-40. I've been through all of the versus threads and IQ wise these two are so close, but the 17-55 has added versatility. It'd be a very nice lens to pair up with my 70-200 - would be good for upcoming client work, etc. I don't see myself moving to FF anytime in the near future.

2. Keep the 17-40 and pick up the 24-70 F/2.8 to give me more reach, better background blurring, and use it for client work. This would give me a 3 lens combo to lug around.

What's complicating my decision is a) the 24-70 looks HUGE and heavy, and is expensive. I had the tamron 28-75 and found I didn't use the range alot, perhaps because 28mm was a bit too long. b) I really love my 17-40 and I'd hate to part with it, worried that perhaps somehow the 17-55 wouldn't perform as well for landscapes due to flare, sharpness, etc. I could get the 17-55 and keep the 17-40 too, but to me that'd be far too redundant.

So gang, any thoughts? What would you do?

[Wilt]

You figured it out already, it sounds. the 24-70 is huge and heavy and expensive, and you have already found the 28-75 not all that useful, so why would 4-5mm at each end make the 24-70 experience better for you than the 28-75? Tha 17-55 is better than the 17-40 for the reasons that it is faster max aperture lens and has IS.

[Dorman]

Wilt I suppose I have figured out that the 17-55 IS would be the most versatile and most used lens for me. I use the 17-40 for 90% of my shooting, and the 17-55 would give me lower-light ability, more range, and more creative options with dof. The part I struggle with is getting rid of the 17-40, it's just THAT good. I've always said that I'd never part with it. The dust and flare issues are a small concern as well with the 17-55.

I suppose I could have both in my stable for awhile and once I'm sure that the 17-55 fits the bill and gives me everything my 17-40 did, then part with it.... just talking out loud here.

Is there anybody that has gone from the 17-40 to the 17-55 and regretted it?

[Tee Why]

Personally, I think the 17-55f2.8 IS would serve you a lot better than the 17-40L and 24-70L.

First is the cost, you can sell the 17-40L to fund the 17-55 vs spending $1100 for the 24-70.

Second, you'll get the f2.8 speed only from 24--70range and not from 17-24.

Third, no IS.

Fourth, another lens to carry around and change for a 55-70mm range you gain with the two lens set up.

Nice shots on your webpage, BTW.

[Dorman]

Thanks TeeWhy, I've pretty much been pondering this all afternoon and I've ruled out the 24-70. I just have to come up with the stomach and the coin to order the 17-55 IS. I LOVE the idea of being able to carry a smaller setup around. Yeah selling the 17-40 would indeed cover about half the cost of the 17-55, but I'd have to keep the 17-40 until I verified that the new lens meets my IQ needs.

[ekie]

Yea, I would definitely go with the 17-55 for the shooting that you do and will be doing. If and when you decide that the 17-55 can do what the 17-40 did for you, maybe selling it and picking up a 10-22 (since you wont be going FF anytime soon). 10-22 would make for some great landscape shots and provide a different perspective. since you already have some amazing shots on your gallery.

:)

[Dorman]

EKK_XT, I may give an UWA a try again down the road, though I just had a negative experience with one not too long ago. That has nothing to do with the range of course, which I do love the perspective they give. For most of my work I feel 17mm is wide enough, and I've been dabbling with stitching shots together for a wider perspective. I'm pretty convinced this lens is right for me as long as I get a good copy, but it's also alot of coin to throw down.

Also, thank you for the compliment about my gallery, I try. ;)

[Dorman]

Doing a bit more reading about the two minor concerns I had about the 17-55... the flare I think could be controlled with the hood for the most part, but about the dust issue. Is it necessary to have a UV filter to prevent dust with this lens? I'm generally not a uv filter guy at all. Secondly, would that potentially increase the chance of flare?

I'm getting geared up to do this, but I think I will hold on to my 17-40 for the time being as well until I'm 100% sure this is the lens for me and that I have a good copy. Any last comments or pearls of wisdom? ;)

[Wilt]

Doing a bit more reading about the two minor concerns I had about the 17-55... the flare I think could be controlled with the hood for the most part, but about the dust issue. Is it necessary to have a UV filter to prevent dust with this lens? I'm generally not a uv filter guy at all. Secondly, would that potentially increase the chance of flare?

I'm getting geared up to do this, but I think I will hold on to my 17-40 for the time being as well until I'm 100% sure this is the lens for me and that I have a good copy. Any last comments or pearls of wisdom? ;)

Yes, in certain circumstances the 0.3% of light which is not transmitted thru the filter can be seen as flare. But you can do what many do...in those conditions, remove the filter!

I think the 17-55 dust issue is exaggerated. I have some fixed focal length lenses from 25+ years ago, and they have some dust in them too.

[Dorman]

Thanks Wilt, it's now pretty much just a matter of funds.