Best Lens for the Money in a zoom range

^ I like that suggestion but he loves his 17-40 so it's probably a deal breaker.

The 70-200 with a 50 in the middle will be a great setup. With the 50 also for really low light or shallow DOF. As for IS or non-IS, depends what your doing. But usually, IS is of great benefit with max f/4.0

The 15-85 is a nice lens, but I literally just got my 17-40. I love it and really, really don't want to get rid of it and swap lens so soon. I think MAYBE if someone wanted to swap one for one, but probably not. I really think the best idea right now is to follow my previous mention and get a 50, and then a 70-200. the 70-200 f4 can be found for 450. I've never seen a f4is or 2.8 for less than 900. It's not that I don't have the money, I just can't justify that cost for a lens that I don't even know how often I'll use, or even if I'll like it.

I think that lens combo is a good choice. Remember you can always try the 70-200 IS, leave the IS off for a while and then on for a while and if you don't find you needing to use it just sell it and buy the non-IS. You can easily get your money back or a small profit with Canon lenses

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #13910764
You can easily get your money back or a small profit with Canon lenses

LOL !
if it was only so easy

MuteGoose wrote in post #13910346
The 15-85 is a nice lens, but I literally just got my 17-40. I love it and really, really don't want to get rid of it and swap lens so soon. I think MAYBE if someone wanted to swap one for one, but probably not. I really think the best idea right now is to follow my previous mention and get a 50, and then a 70-200. the 70-200 f4 can be found for 450. I've never seen a f4is or 2.8 for less than 900. It's not that I don't have the money, I just can't justify that cost for a lens that I don't even know how often I'll use, or even if I'll like it.

If you get a 70-200 f/4L IS you'll almost certainly like it (what's not to like - it's relatively small and light, and one of the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made ), but whether you'll use it much depends a lot on what you like to shoot. It will fill in a large part of the gap up to 100mm plus give you the flexibility to go longer if you want/need to.

stsva wrote in post #13911322
If you get a 70-200 f/4L IS you'll almost certainly like it (what's not to like - it's relatively small and light, and one of the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made ), but whether you'll use it much depends a lot on what you like to shoot. It will fill in a large part of the gap up to 100mm plus give you the flexibility to go longer if you want/need to.

So being around the same price, 70-200 f4 is, or the 70-200 f2.8?

MuteGoose wrote in post #13911416
So being around the same price, 70-200 f4 is, or the 70-200 f2.8?

Personally, I'd go for (and did go for) the f/4 IS. It's sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS, and you don't lose that much between f/2.8 and f/4, plus the IS really comes in handy.

watt100 wrote in post #13911055
LOL !
if it was only so easy

Why is it not? Depends where you live I guess. And I'm talking second hand of course.

MuteGoose wrote in post #13911416
So being around the same price, 70-200 f4 is, or the 70-200 f2.8?

Really need to know what you will mostly be shooting to pick between the two.

If I was shooting mainly surfing (just for example) I would take the 70-200 f/4 IS, if I was shooting indoor basketball the 2.8 would be a no brainer. IS will NOT help stop subject motion but its great to help you hand hold in low light.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #13912321
Why is it not? Depends where you live I guess. And I'm talking second hand of course.

Really need to know what you will mostly be shooting to pick between the two.

If I was shooting mainly surfing (just for example) I would take the 70-200 f/4 IS, if I was shooting indoor basketball the 2.8 would be a no brainer. IS will NOT help stop subject motion but its great to help you hand hold in low light.

People on streets, outdoors, landscapes. General shooting, which is why I don't know if I want to spend the extra money on the IS or 2.8. Bah, so much goes into new gear.

The neat thing about this series of lenses is that you can buy one and resell it for close to what you paid, taking a minimal loss in the trade if you find you need the next one up.

Honestly, though; if you're not sure about how much you'd use that focal range, I'd say grab yourself a 55-250 and run around with that for a while. It'd cost you half of what even the f/4, non-IS would and you could find out how useful that range is for you for a minimal investment.

^ that could work.

And that's what I meant when I said you can sell L lenses for around what you paid.

From the subjects you mentioned, the IS would probably be more helpful than f/2.8, if you end up choosing one of those.

Sell the 17-40 get a sigma 8-16, a sigma 17-70 os and a tamron 70-300 vc