What Lens Would Best Compliment a 17-40?

I'm about to reorganize the lenses I own, sell a couple and buy a couple. The ones I currently own either I don't use enough or are not built well enough for what I'd like to shoot. I'm about to sell my 70-200 2.8 and EF 28-105 f/3.5 then pick up a 17-40mm.

I'm curious as to what would best compliment it under $500. I plan to concentrate on landscapes, in the beginning oceanscapes and rock formations. Would something wider like the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 go well or on the other end of the spectrum, a 50mm? Other prime? If I go 50mm I was considering the Canon macro as I'd like to continue in that area also.

I normally stay within Canons lenses, but if it's truly more bang I could be persuaded to go there.

I'd appreciate any feedback. Please consider my 7D crop factor.

Thanks

Hmmm. Tough with only a 500 budget. I guess an UWA 10-22.... If I were you I would save for 17tse though if your serious or perhaps a set of Lee filters. I love tse and can't believe I didn't get one sooner. It's simply amazing for landscape

50 is a bit too long on crop IMHO for those uses.... Consider a canon 35f2, 281.8, or perhaps a sigma 30 for a good walkaround. If you are ok with manual focus the samyang 35 is really good.

If it's okay to go a little off topic, I'd rethink your original plan of getting the 17-40. It's a wonderful lens, but on a crop body, I think there are much better options. With the 17-40, you're getting a relatively slow (aperture wise) and short (focal length wise) lens, compared to some of the other options. The 17-40 really shines on a FF body. For your 7D, I'd be more inclined to go with something like the Canon 17-55mm. If that's too pricey, then maybe the Canon 15-85mm, or the Sigma 17-50 OS, or the Tamron 17-50 non VC.

Then I'd use what ever lens you get for a while, and then decide if you need something wider/faster/both/neit​her to compliment your lens. You may find that 17mm/15mm is plenty wide for what you're doing.

I'm with Nightdiver13, I'd look at one of the 17-50 options that he listed and pair it with a 10-22. If you still just really want the 17-40, I'd still pair the 10-22 with it, for those times when you want/need really wide.

^^^^ agree just grab the 17-55 2.8 as a one stop shop for now. Great IQ, decent range, IS, and f2.8

Great walkaround lens for crop bodies are 20's - Canon 20/2,8 or Voigtlander 20/3,5 (manual focus olny, but it gives very unique rendering).

17-40L is stellar lens, i love to use it on crop bodies, for me it's one of my favourite lenses on that type of cameras.

Ynot wrote in post #15175820
I'm about to reorganize the lenses I own, sell a couple and buy a couple. The ones I currently own either I don't use enough or are not built well enough for what I'd like to shoot. I'm about to sell my 70-200 2.8 and EF 28-105 f/3.5 then pick up a 17-40mm.

I'm curious as to what would best compliment it under $500. I plan to concentrate on landscapes, in the beginning oceanscapes and rock formations. Would something wider like the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 go well or on the other end of the spectrum, a 50mm? Other prime? If I go 50mm I was considering the Canon macro as I'd like to continue in that area also.

I normally stay within Canons lenses, but if it's truly more bang I could be persuaded to go there.

I'd appreciate any feedback. Please consider my 7D crop factor.

Thanks

Considering your 7D crop factor: since you want to shoot landscapes, or rather oceanscapes and rock formations, why would you want to shoot landscapes with an APS-C body, why not upgrade that to a 5D II? That and the 17-40L make for a perfect pair for landscapes, to start with anyway (you may want to get a few TS-Es or other primes later ).

The nice thing about the 17-40L is that on FF it has the same DoF as an F/2.2 lens on APS-C, so it gives one a lot of playroom, and neither will you have the tunnel vision anymore of an APS-C body. And for landscapes one doesn't need an extended AF sytem or fast frame rate either .

Do keep the macro lens - it will still serve very well for macro, and for portraiture, and also for landscapes.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Thanks all and thanks WIMG. My mind is made up, big sale soon.

just my opinion, for general purpose and landscapes, i'd much rather have a efs 10-22 and efs 17-55. 17-40 is a great lens, but on crop, it's not nearly wide enough to be considered wide angle--you're getting the same thing with the 17-55 plus a faster 2.8 constant aperture.

but if youre planning on going FF soon, get the 17-40