Choices, Choices, Choices

[ayotnoms]

My signature info shows what I have. It's an OK list of equipment but I'm ready to try a lens that's different/better. Like many have said here, I'm concerned about how much damage my checking account will suffer if I heed the "L" call.

Here's what kind of shooting I do:
family photos-indoor/outdoor
city landscapes, parks, architecture

I'd like to do more/better portraits
75% of the shots I take are from a distance of 50 feet in
I prefer to shoot indoor photos with available light although I do have a 580 Speedlite

Here's what's on the wish list: (+'s and -'s in parentheses)
85mm f/1.8 USM (the low cost alternative; good for portraits)
17-40mm f/4L(great reviews; f/4 is not indoor lighting-friendly)
24-70mm f/1.8L(fast lens, pricey, heavy)

So.

Anyone care to offer a opinion on what would be the wiser purchase?

Thanks!

[poke]

It looks like you have all the ranges covered, so I would be only getting a lense that really tickles my fancy. If it was me, I think I would go for the 24-70mm f1.8L as you would basically be replacing your walkaround lense with something far superior.

[davidwegs]

24-70/1.8L

WOW, where are you finding that?

[davidwegs]

Never mind :0

[tim]

How do you do portraits from 50 feet?

[Andy_T]

Ayotnoms,

as money is an issue (like with 99 % of people), let me suggest to also look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI.
Great lens, fast, sharp, reasonably well built and light.
Might be a bit short for portraits over 50 feet, though.

That's where the 70-200/4.0 comes in that you buy with the money you save over the 24-70/2.8 L :D

Best regards,
Andy

[griff2]

For the indoor portraits I'd definitely go for the 85m f/1.8. For landscapes and architecture I'd go for the 17-40 f/4L - looks like you might have to save up for both lenses;)

[ayotnoms]

How do you do portraits from 50 feet?
umm most of my models have faces the size of Mt. Rushmore. LOL
I didn't make myself clear. I meant that 75% of what I photograph is in the range of 1 ft to 50 ft. "From 50 feet in" didn't make that clear evidently.

Oh, and the 24-70mm f/1.8 was typed wrong but 1.8? a guy can fantasize, right?

let me suggest to also look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI.
Great lens, fast, sharp, reasonably well built and light.
Might be a bit short for portraits over 50 feet, though.

That's where the 70-200/4.0 comes in that you buy with the money you save over the 24-70/2.8 L
...certainly something to consider. Thanks for the input.


It looks like you have all the ranges covered, so I would be only getting a lense that really tickles my fancy. If it was me, I think I would go for the 24-70mm f1.8L as you would basically be replacing your walkaround lense with something far superior.
My concern here is the size and weight of the thing. Reading the reviews over at Fred Miranda, I get the sense that with the lens + hood I'd be walking around with something resembling a tank turrent...with the approximate weight of one too. Ah, but the quality of the photos produced by the lens...:confused:

[Kadath]

If you are looking for a 'walking around' zoom, I agree with Andy, the 24-75 Tamron fit both our needs in that range. I'm still getting comfortable with mine but love it so far.

Kad

[eosster]

I am waiting for my Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, ah joy of waiting for a tracking number, LMAO.