Best Lens for the Money in a zoom range

Wow, So many replies. Instead of replying one by one, this is a big reply.

Money isn't an issue per say, I can afford the 24-105L, it will just take me a little while to recollect the funds needed. I picked up the 17-40 at a steal of 450$, which was about half of my lens allotment.

I was looking at the 28-135, simply because it's cheap and it produces decent quality images, but It's no L lens, which I'm afraid I'll notice and be bummed about.

I don't want to sell my 17-40, I love it, I have no issues with it. In the past two months I've wanted a longer lens in two situations, and I shoot daily. The 17mm comes in handy when I'm in town, narrow streets. Sometimes the 17mm isn't even wide enough.

I do understand that there will probably be overlap, this isn't an issue for me.


I think what I should do it hold out and find a 70-200f4L for a decent price, (450-550$ frequently), and then a 50mm 1.8/1.4. That would cover the ranges I want without overlap, and for half the price. Not a bad idea? Edit: This is what I'll do. No point in selling a lens that I absolutely love for a lens that I won't use nearly as much. Thanks for the help guys.

Someone suggested selling the 17-40L in favor of the 24-105, so lets do the math. I'd get 500-600 out of my 17-40, so I'd owe 400 on the 24-105. I'd then have to purchase a sigma or canon 10-22 to cover the range I use most frequently, which would cost 450-750. Doesn't seem logical to me.

Where are you located? I have a 28-135 that I'd be willing to lend to you.
I'm in Maryland. About 45 minutes from Philadelphia, PA.

L.J.G. wrote in post #13897508
The 28-135 is cheap and cheery. It has a similar trombone zoom as the 24-105, but unlike the quality build and feel of the 24-105 the 28-135 has sideways slop and feels relatively cheaply made. It also suffers zoom creep - big time, where I have yet to notice any creep on the 24-105.

The IQ difference is quite noticeable, but mainly when viewing images at 100%. You look at the 24-105 and think yep, that's not bad, you then do the same with the 28-135 and think yuk, that is soft! .

they are different lens at different prices but the 28-135 is noticeably soft at the long end compared to other lens like the cheap 55-250IS

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2

You would be right to hold onto your 17-40 IMO. On your crop body, all of the lenses 24-x, 28-x etc. are not wide enough for an everyday lens. Wouldn't be a good idea to sell the 17-40 unless you replaced it with something 18mm or less IMO.

Also it never seems to work out when people sell a lens they love, and they usually end up buying it back again soon after. But if you were to sell it I would suggest looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 15-85 IS. I think what you plan to do is probably the best idea. A nifty fifty and 70-200 will complement the 17-40 nicely

Chris R/T wrote in post #13901068
Where are you located? I have a 28-135 that I'd be willing to lend to you.
I'm in Maryland. About 45 minutes from Philadelphia, PA.

Very generous offer, but I'm in southern maine, a little too far!

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #13901151
You would be right to hold onto your 17-40 IMO. On your crop body, all of the lenses 24-x, 28-x etc. are not wide enough for an everyday lens. Wouldn't be a good idea to sell the 17-40 unless you replaced it with something 18mm or less IMO.

Also it never seems to work out when people sell a lens they love, and they usually end up buying it back again soon after. But if you were to sell it I would suggest looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 15-85 IS. I think what you plan to do is probably the best idea. A nifty fifty and 70-200 will complement the 17-40 nicely

I've had a few lens of my own, and I've borrowed and rented lots. The 17-40 is by far one of my favorites. I don't think I'll ever sell it. Now I have to decide which 70-200. I think the f4 without IS is more than enough for me. I've never owned a lens with IS, so I don't think I need it now, so the extra cost would be just for a few extra lbs, and some sharpness. I think I'll grab an original

MuteGoose wrote in post #13901427
Very generous offer, but I'm in southern maine, a little too far!

No problem, just tryin' to help!

MuteGoose wrote in post #13901437
I've had a few lens of my own, and I've borrowed and rented lots. The 17-40 is by far one of my favorites. I don't think I'll ever sell it. Now I have to decide which 70-200. I think the f4 without IS is more than enough for me. I've never owned a lens with IS, so I don't think I need it now, so the extra cost would be just for a few extra lbs, and some sharpness. I think I'll grab an original

It really depends what your shooting, but the IS can really come in handy with a max f/4.0. Just because you've never had it doesn't mean you won't love it if your shooting all outdoors with plenty of light, buy all means the non-IS should be a fine or better option. If you are shooting low light, the IS can really help

For a crop, look for an efs lens. Most bang for buck = tamron 17-50 non vc

For 'bang for the buck' the 28-135 is a pretty darn decent lens and I've seen them offered new out of kits for $250 or less. Definitely not a fast lens but if you're out and about in daylight it makes nice images.

MuteGoose wrote in post #13897252
Hey Guys,

Looking to expand my lens selection. I currently own a 17-40L and a 40d. Looking for something to fill the gap up to 100mm. Like a 24-105, or something similar. I had a 28-105, but the quality just wasn't there, it wasn't very sharp and the colors were off. Looking to not break the bank, I prefer buying used. Not looking to buy out of this thread, just recommendations. Looking for great quality, and reasonable price. Brand doesn't matter to me.

Thanks
Jeramy

Depending on what you want, curently you can refer 70-200f/2.8 used.

Effectively by buying a 17-40 for your APS-C DSLR, you bought a standard zoom that comes up short on the telephoto end. Not much out there that complements the 17-40 on a crop sensor that doesn't seriously overlap with the 17-40 focal range.

If you had bought one of the usual standard zooms that goes to 50 or 55mm, you could have bought a 70-200 or 70-300 and live with the gap between 50/55 and 70mm.

I personally own a 17-55/2.8, 28-135, and 24-105. I would recommend the 24-105 over the 28-135. I can't see myself buying a 28-135 to complement a 17-40.

Another idea would be to go super cheap and buy a 55-250. You get nice focal range for a bit more than you spent now.

Another idea would be to go for a 70-200 or 70-300 telephoto zoom and put a 50/1.4 in the gap; at least the prime would be fast.

The OP's thoughts of a 50 prime and a 70-200 is probably a safe bet.

For a long time, I only operated with a 35 f/1.4L and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II with the 7D and 5D mark II and pretty much lived with the gap between 35 and 70. Although I sort of 'cheated' and treated the 35L as my '50mm' on the 7D.

As far as 70-200 f/4L, I'd recommend the IS. The 70-200 f/4L non-IS was my first L lens. It was a great lens for the cost, but I think IS is invaluable with a 200. Not just because it's f/4, but a lot of times you want to stop down and don't have the luxury of a tripod.

I will suggest a new option not yet on the table. Why not get the Tamron 28-75/2.8? It doesn't go to 100, but 75 will cover the portrait lengths well on crop. Mine was good at 2.8 and sharp as a tack at f4.0. The only problem I had with it was the slow focus speed, but I have young kids who can't sit still and was why I upgraded to the 24-105. If you intend on shooting more disciplined subjects, it might not be an issue for you. You could then add the 55-250 to cover the long end on a budget until you can afford a 70-200 of one flavor or another.

If you're thinking of going full frame in the next few months buy the Canon 24-105L IS.

If you're sticking with a crop sensor camera buy the Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS and sell the 17-40L.

Your 17-40L has an equivelant FF focal length of 27-64mm.

The 15-85mm will give you a FF equivelant focal length of 24-136mm. So it's wider and longer and has IS. You lose a stop at the longer end but that is the only downside.

It is also sharper on a crop than the 17-40L. ISO comparisons: Here (Move mouse over picture to comapre the two).

By all means you can stick to the 17-40L & 24-105L it's just a pain to change lenses all the time. I use these on my FF although I have to say I barely use the 17-40L now and I have just ordered a 15-85mm as my walkaround lense for one of my 50D's.