40-70mm....will I miss out?

I am looking to replace my 28-135mm lens. I actually like this as a walkaround lens - love the range it provided and quality is decent. I have the 70-200 f4L and was considering the sigma 24-70 ex dg. I received the sigma last week and started taking some shots. After all the rave review about this lens, I was fairly dissapointed with my results. I am returning it soon. I didn't put the sigma through test-condition (tripod, etc,), but I feel that a lens should be tested in real-life performance (meaning just hand-held candid shots).

So today, I ordered the 17-40L from B&H. I enjoy taking landscapes pictures, so this lens would be perfect. Again, there's plenty of good reviews on this lens, so hopefully I won't be dissappointed with the results.

My question is....will I missing out by not having coverage in the 41-69 range?

I think you will miss large aperature more than 40-70mm. Pick up a 50mm, a f/1.8 if you are short on funds or an f/1.4 if you have some cash. Either will fit nicely with your other lenses, and give good results in low light or if you want tight DOF.
The 1.8 is about $80, the 1.4 closer to $300.

EDIT - I forgot to mention that I would miss the 17-24 more than the 40-70. I think you made the right choice with the 17-40L.

Only if that range is important to you in what you shoot. If not, then no. 17-40 for regular range and 70-200 for long range.

Every lens has its bad apples. Did you consider sending it to Sigma for an adjustment? It's quite a good lens when it's tuned right. As for missing the 40-70 range, I think that is dependent on each photographer.

Truthfully, I really don't need the 50 in my line-up. It's just there because optically it's an awesome lens for the money, and it fit's in that little niche perfectly. Unless you find yourself frequently shooting between 40-70, I would say no. I use my 50 mainly for portraits.

when i just had my 17-40 and 70-200 (and 50) i didnt "miss" that middle range all too much. the only reason i got the 24-105 is so i could throw one lens on the camera and carry it around in a smaller bag. if you dont mind switching lenses then that gap shouldnt make a big difference. i would second getting a low light prime though, doesnt even neccisarily have to be the 50, its just a good thing to have. if i could only have one lowlight prime id get the 28 1.8 (which i will be getting soon). the 50 is great, i just think the 28 would be a more usable focal length

fStopJojo - yes, I was considering sending it to sigma. maybe I'm just using this as an excuse to get the 17-40 as I've been eyeing this lens for a while? haha. I'll give the 17-40 a try and if I feel that the 24-70 would be a better range, I would definitely consider the sigma 24-70 again down the road. Hopefully I will get a sharp copy next time, or else I will just have to send it to sigma.

I was kinda in the same boat as you, I have the 17-40L (Awesome Lens) and a 70-200L f/4. I wanted something in the middle so I bought a 50 1.8. Very cheap but sharp. I tend to shoot in the 17-40 range most of the time.

SquirrellyWV

I'm covered.

I got the 17-40L, 24-105L and soon the 70-200L will be here (should arrive Sat.).

I like the 24-105L IS for more handholdable shots. I'll likely have to use a monopod for the 70-200, at least on the long end with a 1.6x crop body.

personally, i love that middle range (slightly telephoto on the crop body). probably because i shot almost exclusively with my 50 prime for a long time. walking around with my 70-200L, i find myself wishing it would go just a little wider but not very often. same goes for length when i carry a wide angle zoom on a walkaround.

it's not that i miss the range, it's just that there are always those couple shots that would've been nice with my 50 prime.

you can always pick up the 50/1.8 for really cheap and use it for special occasions (ie: portraits, low light, etc.)

Since 50mm to 60mm is the ideal focal length range for portrait work when using an APS-C body, I think you would be missing quite a lot to not have that range covered.

True, however I still believe he'd just better better off as some have already mentioned to just buy a prime for portrait work, you simply can't beat the results.

Besides If he wants to stick Canon for a portrait/walkaround lens his only other option is really the 24-70 f/2.8 with its larger aperture, however then he'll have the problem at the wide-end if he chooses to do any landscape work since he's working with a crop camera.

So, in my honest opinion I believe he's better off getting a 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4 or just go for the awesome 85 f/1.8 as it also work great for indoor sports as well.

Check out the Sigma 17-70mm. You won't be lackiing in focal length, and the lens is excellent...

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 is truely an EXCLELLENT choice for the money, and you can use it for concerts or whatever if you can get close up enough (I go to lots of underground metal shows, so 17mm is really a nice length to have with f/2.8 )

Well 80 to 135 on film is generally a good range. So his 70-200 outside would be just fine, at least as far as prioritizing spending