What Line Up is Better (for future...)?

[Mum2J&M]

Still dreaming about lenses here. I am now able to probably afford one lens, but hope to add to it over the next year or so. Here's what I'm considering:

for my 30D:

Canon 10-22
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS
Canon 135 2L

OR

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS
Canon 135 2L
Canon 200 2.8L

OR

Canon 10-22
Canon 24-70L 2.8
Canon 135 2L

OR

Canon 10-22
Canon 24-70L 2.8
Canon 200 2.8L USM

What sounds best to you? I like having the wide option of the 10-22, but would give that up for the 17-55 plus the extra prime on the longer end. What's your experience? I'm getting ahead of myself here, but I'm just curious. Thanks for any thoughts. ;)

[angryhampster]

The 2nd or third option. My current setup is pretty close to either of those and I love it. I find the difference in 70 and 150mm to not be that big of a deal.

[Paul Tinworth]

I'd say the third or fourth option, personally. Your second option confuses me; I'm aware the 135L and 200L are great primes, but why have two that are so close together? What you could achieve with the 135L you could do with the 24-70L (well, minus the extra bundle of light) by moving a bit closer, surely?

Either way, good luck with your choice! I'm highly jealous... ;)

[Big WIll]

You dont fancy a 70-200mm???

Option 4 IMO

[Mum2J&M]

The 70-200 - as great as I believe it to be - is just too darn conspicuous for me!!! I am not a pro and really don't want people coming up to me with the huge white monster. LOL. I also don't think the 200 is as heavy. I don't think I'll be in many situations where I'll need the longer reach, so it seems the prime would suit my needs better.

[Mum2J&M]

I'd also consider this:

17-55 2.8 IS
85 1.8
200 2.8L

(btw - I can not afford all these lenses right now... just sort of daydreaming, lol)

[Mum2J&M]

Let me also add that I'm trying to decide which one lens to get now, so that it will fit in nicely with some sort of functional group of lenses later. Thanks again for your thoughts.

[rathke]

Your last post is similar to my set up. Of course I have the Tammy. I find these three cover most situations pretty well.

[Mum2J&M]

good to know...

[bagtagsell]

#3!!

[Tumak]

Start with what you shoot. I have covered walk around lens, macro lens, fast lens, and telephoto lens. I apologize the the 70-200 crowd, however some of us can live with out it, much as we would like to have it. I don't need super wide either.

[PhotoJourno]

Over the next year??... Give it 11 months, and then check out the post PMA downprice, as they will be releasing some new lenses throughout this year (The II series), and others will come down in price.

Do you have what you need now?... That would be my main concern. :)

[Mum2J&M]

True. I'm hoping to start with either the 17-55 or 24-70 - probably the former.

[blueM]

I have nothing to add to this thread, unless you would like more to be confused about.

[PhotoJourno]

I personally like the 24-70L better. It works great, and though it is rightly nicknamed 'the brick', it produces outstanding image quality.

I always felt curiosity in regards to the 17-55 hype, but upon seeing its pricetag, and its build, I just decided not to go for it (adding that I do not shoot weddings for a living anyhow, I shoot official city, county, state meetings, etc).

If you buy it from BH (And I confess to having done this once myself, with Sigma 70-200 and Canon L f/4 version), you can try it out for a couple of days, and if it does not work, call them for a Return number, and send it back in exchange for the 24-70L.

Another option in that department, would be to visit your local store, and find those lenses in stock (In Central California, it isn't that rare to see the L lens, but the 17-55 for some reason is not stocked). So if you can, look at them both, and make your desicion with both lenses in hand, return home, and order online.

The very best of luck, and remember to buy the lens that makes you happy. It will make you take better photos. :)

[timbop]

Since you will be adding your general purpose lens first, I would think that the 24-70 could be a tad limiting on the wide side. I started with the tammy 28-75, and only on a couple of occasions was 28 too long - but in those occasions I missed a great opportunity.

To be honest with you, I think you ought to consider non-canon glass as a cost saving measure. The 2 Tammies I have owned were excellent, as was the sigma 100-300 I had. I still have the tammy 17-50 as my walkaround lens, and IMHO it compares very favorably to the L's and 85/1.8 I own. So, for the same money as the 17-55 or 24-70 you could get a tammy 17-50 AND and 85/1.8 AND a 135/2.8. Or, the tammy and a 135/2L.