Oh Hell

Was taking some nice water shots at the beach today,having lots fun,untill I spotted my 18-55 floating by then rolling in the sand

I have the following lenses
10-22
55-200
135-400

I am taking more & more snaps of people/portraits etc... via weddings etc, which I am just doing for fun prior to seriously having a go.

With 18-55 being in need of major clean up am I better replacing it with a 17-40 ?

Any thoughts opinions etc welcome

Cheers
Bill

well, atleast it was your kit lens. I've heard nothing but good about the 17-40, it's on my list of lenses to buy so I say go for it.

I gotta agree! no bad news about the 17-40, though it's a tad slow, might want to look at the 17-55 2.8 IS before buying the L

Id say a 17-55 2.8 IS would be a better bet than the 17-40 for a 350D. Cause you already have the ultra wide covered

I agree with the others, the 17-55 would be a great lens for you

16-35 2.8L

Well, mail Wiki, we got a whole new meaning to 'floating elements'.

Don't rule out Sigma!!

I have almost the same focal lengths as you; and I love my 17-40.

The real question is; do you really need the 2.8 vs the f4 aperture?

If I really want a low light shot; I have my $70 50mm 1.8
for all else; I use my 17-40

Get some distilled water and hose it down... Let it dry for like a week.

Never know, you might get lucky.

I'd look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8 also. Nice build quality. The range is similar to the kit lens and the IQ is on par with the 17-40L. Now if you want IS too, then the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, but at a cost! $$$

I think the 17-40 would be an excellent choice. I have this lens and I do not find it SLOW. I have heard nice things about the 17-55 IS. If you are going to stay with a crop body then that too would be a nice lens from all that I have read. However, if you ever plan to move to a FF camera you will not be able to use it. Just my $.02.

I can't speak for the 17-55 IS (I don't buy EF-S lenses), but the 17-40 F4L is a terrific lens and one I would recommend to anyone. I bought it over the 16-35 f2.8L because I knew I would be using it mostly outside

Mark

Come on, come clean now. You kicked it a bit to get it in the water so you could get a newer better lens. Didn't you?

The 17-40 performs very well, the 17-35 2.8 can be found very cheaply on the used market too. The 18-55 is a POS so no big loss there, would have been nice to see some pictures of it in the water though, never heard of a lens floating.