The dilemma...

Nope this is not another which lens is better or what lens should I buy thread (not that those are bad, just saying). This is more a question of what you guys think I should do in my situation. Here's the deal... I am by no means an avid photographer, but am interested in photography as a whole. I currently own a Canon Digital Rebel(300D), Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5, and the kit lens. I like my pictures to be sharp like everyone else, but they aren't really that sharp at the moment and I know it's partly the photographer, but mostly my equipment. I like taking pictures of landscapes, flowers, macro, the sky, etc etc. Pretty much anything that looks appealing. I am going to be getting some extra money here soon and I was wondering if I should ditch the 28-105 and the kit lens and invest in a 17-40 f/4L and a 70-200 f/4L. Now I know these are major purchases, but my thought is that I might as well go ahead and get them now and stop wasting money on other lenses(not that these lenses are that bad, but not up to L quality). If you were in my situtation(a casual photographer..if you will) what would you do?

shady wrote in post #2110615
I like taking pictures of landscapes, flowers, macro, the sky, etc etc. Pretty much anything that looks appealing.

Both the 1740 and 7-2f4 are very good lenses (especially the latter). But using a 1.6x body, I don't think the 1740 is the best bet. It's got fantastic build and very good IQ, but there are some excellent f2.8 lenses out there designed for APS-C. If you want a lens that gives you great range and some "macro" ability, check out the Sigma 17-70. Otherwise, there is also the Tamron 1750 and Sigma 1850 too.

Very few would fault you for opting for the L-combo. But just so you know there are other good options too that can give you f2.8.

if you really want sharp, there is no substitution for primes. The 35 1.4 and the 100 macro bath are very sharp and sound like they would suit your style

I would take the 17-55 over the 17-40 personally. And no, there is nothing wrong with you, a casual photographer going for L lenses. You have been shooting for a while and know the limitations of both your gear and skill. It's the absolute beginners with no experience who insist they must have L lenses that people roll their eyes about.

No one's suggestion third-parties? I suggest the Sigma 24-70 EX DG. INcredibly crisp lens that's a third the price of the canon 24-70.

There is so much attention on POTN to lenses that one principle is too often forgotten...If you want really shrarp pictures, use a tripod!

Wilt wrote in post #2111665
There is so much attention on POTN to lenses that one principle is too often forgotten...If you want really shrarp pictures, use a tripod!

But moreso..use a good tripod

I tried some night shots last night from the roof of my dorm, but very few of them came out because the wind was making my $30 best buy tripod shift a little bit.

If your doing mainly landscapes and manage to find a good copy (there are good copies, I had one), you might want to look at the Sigma 10-20mm. This puppy is WIDE and does a great job for lanscapes. But, you need to make sure you get a newer version, they had a problem with the edges being soft on the older models. This lens runs about $500 new, but can be found for as low as $450 new and $400 used.

shady wrote in post #2110615
I am by no means an avid photographer, but am interested in photography as a whole. I currently own a Canon Digital Rebel(300D), Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5, and the kit lens. ... I was wondering if I should ditch the 28-105 and the kit lens and invest in a 17-40 f/4L and a 70-200 f/4L.

Not to be sacreligeous, but there are some awesome lenses that do not have the Canon name on them! Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 are both faster lenses that have excellent sharpness test results, each at a fraction of the cost of the Canon 17-40 f/4L. The Canon 7-200L is a wonderful lens at a bargain (for L lenses) price. Yes, you give up some things (like the L in the name) but you save a lot of $$$ in the process.

But I was not being facetious in saying that you should be using a tripod to maximize the sharpness even with your existing lenses!

shady,
I say hold off from getting new lenses. If you can't get sharp images from your 50mm f/1.8 (asuming the lens is in good working condition), then no other lenses will be that sharp either. I suggest you try taking a few shots with your 50mm on a tripod and see if you can get sharp images, if you can't then maybe look at replacing it first?

I have the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and its an excellent sharp lens on my cameras (to my eyes).

Good Luck

WOW, thanks for all the great replies! I appreciate it. Great suggestions. I think I am going to keep my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and the 50mm f/1.8 as they both provide good pictures and am going to take the plunge and get the 70-200 f/4L. As for another lens, well that Sigma 10-20 seems like a nice UWA and I do like taking a lot of pictures of storms and stuff so that will be a nice addition, but do you guys like the Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 12-24 better? I have been reading some reviews and they are both mixed, so I'm pretty confused on which is the better buy for my 300D. Thanks for the help!

That 28-105 should give you good sharp images unless there is something going wrong with it. Check out the 70-200 2.8 just to make sure you wont want it after you buy the f4. I am so glad I got the 2.8 instead of the 4.