Want/Need New Lens

I have the 50mm 1.4, 24-105 L, 100-400 L and I'm looking for my next lens.

I know I don't have anything under 24 and that doesn't bother me much so the 17-40 or 10-22 is probably out. I've looked hard at the 70-200 f/4 IS but wonder about how much I would use it or my 100-400. It does seem to be an outstanding lens and maybe would be the best choice but.....

My budget is $1200.00 or so.

What should my next lens be? I know that if it was an "L", that would help as I really like the "L" quality.

If your choice would be one of the lens I mentioned, 17-40 or 70-200 f/4 IS, that would be be okay.

Let me hear it!!!

it really depends on what you shoot. how bout a good macro lens?

Personally, I would say the 17-40 or better yet for the 20D, the 10-22. A nice WA lens will open up a whole new world of photography. Other than that, I would agree with roeddel, a nice macro lens would also open another totally different world for you. The 70-200 you mention is a great lens by all accounts but you've got that FL covered with what you've got. Why not get something new that will allow you to do something you can't do now? That's my take on it

roeddel wrote in post #2279275
it really depends on what you shoot. how bout a good macro lens?

I've thought a lot about a macro and the 100mm Canon sure fits that choice but I tend to like the long lens the most.

Thanks roeddel,

jra wrote in post #2279304
Personally, I would say the 17-40 or better yet for the 20D, the 10-22. A nice WA lens will open up a whole new world of photography. Other than that, I would agree with roeddel, a nice macro lens would also open another totally different world for you. The 70-200 you mention is a great lens by all accounts but you've got that FL covered with what you've got. Why not get something new that will allow you to do something you can't do now? That's my take on it

I've thought about both of them but I'm afraid I wouldn't use the 10-22 very much at all. It would be nice on those occasions where the wide angle would be useful.

Now, the 17-40 has been on my short list. I'm afraid I won't use it much though with having the 24-105. It is an outstanding lens for sure.

Hmmmmmm!

With your budget, you could get both the 100 macro and have enough left over for the 17-40. Seems like a win/win situation Not to mention, you'll get the 17-40 off your short list, that way you can add another

JohnnyG wrote in post #2279266
I have the 50mm 1.4, 24-105 L, 100-400 L and I'm looking for my next lens.

I know I don't have anything under 24 and that doesn't bother me much so the 17-40 or 10-22 is probably out. I've looked hard at the 70-200 f/4 IS but wonder about how much I would use it or my 100-400. It does seem to be an outstanding lens and maybe would be the best choice but.....

My budget is $1200.00 or so.

What should my next lens be? I know that if it was an "L", that would help as I really like the "L" quality.

If your choice would be one of the lens I mentioned, 17-40 or 70-200 f/4 IS, that would be be okay.

Let me hear it!!!

I would recommend trying the 10-22 - don't commit to buying it straight away, just handle it at the shop. It is pretty much L quality optics, build quality is decent but not fantastic. See if you like the focal length.. that lens opens up a lot of creative doors. If you don't, then of course, don't bother. I would rule out the 17-40 as it is too much of a 'standard' focal length on a 1.6X crop camera. The 10-22 is a whole new perspective. If you can rent it for a day, maybe try that. Just a suggestion. First time I put it on my camera I fell in love with it.

70-200 f/4 IS - optically and mechanically, there is no doubt about its quality. It may overlap a little with your existing focal length though. Is the 100-400 weighing you down too much?

It's pretty hard to answer because you really haven't said what you like to shoot. You have 24-400mm covered with nice zooms. If you want a fast wide I would get the 35L, or if you like portrait or indoor sports or flowers I would get the 135L or the 85 f/1.8, both great lens. If you want a faster telephoto, the 200 f/2.8 or the 300 f/4 are excellent lens.

All of these lens are great for what they do, it's just a matter of what you want to shoot the most.

Get the 100mm Macro AND the 17-40L. Although many seem to like UWA, I myself find it has limited use in my photography. The 17-40, however is wide enough for landscapes, museum or botanical garden walkaround, street/building architecture, etc.. And judging by your equipment list, you don't have anything in your bag as sharp as the 100Macro. Its a really stunning lens.

As yopu already have a 24-105, IMO the 17-40 has little to offer other than a lot of overlap. go for the 10-22 for your ultra wide needs, and as has been pointed out, a macro is missing from your line up. Extension tubes might fill the gap.
I'd also sugggest considering a fast f/2.8 standard zoom - there are many to choose from.

I think I first define the shots I want to take next, then look at those that will perform those shots, and then which ones will perform those shots at a price I can afford. I love my 70-200L 2.8. I think it is best to wait for the best instead of being satisfied with something less instantly. With that in mind, maybe buy used, at a price that won't go down, and wait for the best, then sell the used one. This way, time is on your side.

i would go after some speed.....200 2.8 or 300 f4 IS. i don't know how much one stop will do for you (over the 100-400). Also the 135 L is suppossed to be an AWESOME lens

WildWolf wrote in post #2281780
i would go after some speed.....200 2.8 or 300 f4 IS. i don't know how much one stop will do for you (over the 100-400). Also the 135 L is suppossed to be an AWESOME lens

I think the macro and the 10-22 is out right now. Wide angle is not my thing and my girlfriend has the 10-22 which I can use anytime. Macro just isn't my thing so that leaves those two out. The 17-40 may be in my future as I really like it. My girlfriend has one of those too and I've borrowed it and loved it but the longer end is calling me I'm afraid. I just love telephoto and inside flash shots. My two favorites which someone asked me to answer.

I am seriously considering the 70-200 f/4 IS but probably never would get it off my camera to put the 100-400 on and I really love that lens so the dilemma continues!

As far as a 2.8 something, I would love that because I do want a 2.8 something! I want the speed of it!

WildWolf wrote in post #2281780
Also the 135 L is suppossed to be an AWESOME lens

It's all that and a bag of chips! 200 2.8L might be worth checking out for you as well.

To be honest it's not clear why you feel the need for another lens. Wide angle and macro are the only things missing and you say you don't want them. It seems you're pretty well set up as you are. Spend your money on something else! (am I a heretic for saying that on this forum?)