Suggest a good investment please !!

[Raj]

OK, I have $1000 by the grace of god & my wife !
I am thinking of getting one L lens.
Now reading browsing through many posts here I have cut down myself to:
- EF 17-40 F4L
- EF 70-200 F4L

I can extend my expenses to get 24-70L but that would be too expensive for me & also as i have seen from users, tamron 24-70 does quite a good job too, so I have a options here.

I shoot mostly landscape & people at the moment. Although shortly I am off to a safari park where telephoto will be more required.

Things which go in favour of 17-40 L
- I can use it for landscape
Against it:
- I have sigma 18-125 covering the range which 17-40 L will cover & I am not sure how better canon is over sigma here. Is 10-40 L worth investing here ?

Things in favor of 70-200 L
- Its white & very noticable as "L" , will look cool :mrgreen:
- good for candid's
- will be handy for my safari trip
- I drool on sharp and colorful pics I see here by this lens ...
Things against it:
I dont think I can use it for landscape's which I mostly do (please correct me here if I am wrong)

17-40 L costs ~$900 here
70-200 costs ~$800
24-70 L is above 1600 :-(

I know there is sticky on recommended lenses & thats where I have picked up these lenses, so can you guys please suggest me something ? Lenses other than these are also welcome. I just want to make a useful investment.

There is a point system here on purchase I make, so I hope I will be able to get a decent bag along with these through the points.

[tim]

What lenses do you currently have? From what you've said already i'd prob go for the 70-200 F4L. btw the Tamron lens is 28-75, getting the numbers right will help your searches no end ;) The tamron lens rarely leaves my camera, possibly because I don't have a lot of other choices, but I do like the lens :)

[Mac]

Man this one is tough, as I have both the 70-200 f/4 and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. To be honest, the L stays on the camera more then the Tamron. But I love to shoot birds and other wildlife. I use the Tamron for most of my people and indoor shots, occasionally for landscapes. Both are great lenses for me, I would recommend either in an instant, and the 17-40 is on my wish list...well, I guess I am not much help then huh...sorry...good luck on the decision..:)

[pcasciola]

Since you already have the 18-125 to hold you over in that range, it sounds like the 70-200 f/4L would be a good choice, maybe with the Tamron 28-75 if you can swing both. Then you'd have 28-200 covered very well, and use your 18-125 when you need the wide angle.

Wide angle is just a pain on a smaller sensor camera unless you get a Sigma 12-24 or one of the newer super wide "digital only" lenses. If the 18mm you have now is ok for you, then the 17-40 might be ok and would probably be a worthwhile upgrade, but that 1mm is not going to be very noticeable compared to your 18-125, and you'd have a lot of overlap with the 28-75 if you end up getting that. That's why I just ordered the 10-22 EF-S. I think it will fit well with the 28-75 and 70-200.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You can get the 70-200mm f/2.8L for $1K.....

[pcasciola]

You can get the 70-200mm f/2.8L for $1K.....Apparently not in Tokyo:

17-40 L costs ~$900 here
70-200 costs ~$800
24-70 L is above 1600 :(

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ooops..

[Raj]

What lenses do you currently have? From what you've said already i'd prob go for the 70-200 F4L. btw the Tamron lens is 28-75, getting the numbers right will help your searches no end ;) The tamron lens rarely leaves my camera, possibly because I don't have a lot of other choices, but I do like the lens :)

Tim,

Currently I have only sigma 18-125 mm & 50mm f.18. I have heard great things about Tamron lens you own but then it would give me 44.8 mm to being with ...

[Raj]

Since you already have the 18-125 to hold you over in that range, it sounds like the 70-200 f/4L would be a good choice, maybe with the Tamron 28-75 if you can swing both. Then you'd have 28-200 covered very well, and use your 18-125 when you need the wide angle.

Wide angle is just a pain on a smaller sensor camera unless you get a Sigma 12-24 or one of the newer super wide "digital only" lenses. If the 18mm you have now is ok for you, then the 17-40 might be ok and would probably be a worthwhile upgrade, but that 1mm is not going to be very noticeable compared to your 18-125, and you'd have a lot of overlap with the 28-75 if you end up getting that. That's why I just ordered the 10-22 EF-S. I think it will fit well with the 28-75 and 70-200.

Phil,
mm difference between sigma & 17-40 mm is not the point of concern. If I would like to make another purchase in overlapping range, than I would look for better image quality. So the question is, is the difference in image quality between sigma & 17-40 L in overlapping range significant enough to justify 17-40's purchase .. ?
I know this is a tough one ... :-(

[Raj]

You can get the 70-200mm f/2.8L for $1K.....

No way .... :-(
I can stretch my budget, but then I will have to stop thinking about 100mm f2.8 macro in near future ... :~(

Any other combinations/suggestions for my needs ?

[DocFrankenstein]

No way .... :-(
I can stretch my budget, but then I will have to stop thinking about 100mm f2.8 macro in near future ... :~(

Any other combinations/suggestions for my needs ?
If you want macro, the 70-200 f/2.8 is perfect for that.

just add some extension tubes (100 bucks in tokyo) and you get this:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p12721812.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p12459574.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/c456954.html

ALSO: Why not order from BH? If you have a credit card... you'll save at least a 100 bucks or so. Does it work that way?

[Raj]

If you want macro, the 70-200 f/2.8 is perfect for that.

just add some extension tubes (100 bucks in tokyo) and you get this:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p12721812.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p12459574.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/c456954.html

ALSO: Why not order from BH? If you have a credit card... you'll save at least a 100 bucks or so. Does it work that way?

This definately looks like a option ..

If I order it on B&H, most certainly I will have to pay import duty, so not sure if it will be a economical move. I will be more worried whether the warrenty is valid in Japan or not. This is something which I need to check.

[alan sh]

I swapped my 18-125 for a 17-40L and have never regretted it.

Alan

[blue_max]

It seems you don't know whether to buy a telephoto or a wide angle. You already have a lens that will do a wide angle for now, so get the good quality zoom (70-200 f4). I think that the added benefit of going up to 200 outways the quality improvement in the wide angle, particularly in a wildlife park. I used an old 100-300 and it wasn't close enough in a zoo.

Then lie like mad to the wife and buy the wide as well.

:lol:

(better leave it a while though from my experience!)

Graham

[raylks]

I suggest getting a EF70-200 f4L first to cover the 200mm first. Add a few dollars to the budget, you can even get a decent EF70-200 f2.8 L (no IS version). But I think the combination of 17-40L and 70-200L is of very high value and superb.