best combination?

After the macro lens doubt, I have now another problem
I was planning on buying 10-22mm, macro (60mm or 100mm) and 70-200 4L. I am buying them all at once. But now I am not so sure I should get 10-22.
Maybe it would be better to buy 17-40L? I have a kit lens 18-55, so should I first replace that lens with 17-40L and then buy 10-22... or should I buy 10-22 and use the kit lens that I have.
I have to mention that I have 400D, so 17mm is not that wide for me. I just don`t know what is the best combination. Maybe something else... Oh, I am going crazy

P.S, as I said in the other thread, I don`t have much time for thinking. I have a friend in USA who is comming in a few days and he will buy them for me there... so I have to decide quickly

The answer is to buy the complete Canon lens line up.

Canon makes a 17-85 EFs zoom which is a upgrade from the 18-55 Kit lens. They also make a 17-55 IS EFs lens which is near L quality. I own the 17-85 and find that it was well worth the modest (compared to L lenses) price. This lens and a 10-22 would cover the ultra wide to normal range on a 400D.

WMS

Here's to more craziness...
I have owned the 17-40 f/4L for the last 3 years, it' s an excellent lens one of my favorites...I think I am going to sell it. The reason is that I just purchased a Tokina 12-24 f/4 and so far I am very impressed with it. I wouln't say it's any better than the 17-40, but so far it's been it's equal as far as IQ is concerned. So right now it looks like the Tokina will become my wide, and I'll sell the 17-40 then pick up a 24-70 or the older 28-70 f/2.8L and still have the same coverage, with the addition of a great middle range(although a bit awkward on a digital)lens. For most of my shooting the 24/28-70 will probably reside on my camera most of the time.
Also to further muddy the waters, the 17-40 was the widest lens I had until the recent addition of the Tokina, I find the Tokina almost too wide sometimes. But I have also been in situation where there just wasn't enough room for 17mm and wished for something wider. I have a tendency to compose with the 17-40 in mind and have had to adjust my thinking with the wider lens. Many say an ultra wide is an absolute necessity, I find I only need it in specialty situations.
If I were you, I would have a look at the Tokina, I am impressed with it's build, contrast, color, and sharpness so far. The Canon is definitely the cream of the crop but the Tokina is no slouch. So some kind of ultra wide(Canon Tokina or Siggy or Tamron), then I would keep your kit for a while(it's not a great lens but works OK if stopped down), and get a 60mm macro and the 70-200 f/4L. You can see then if an ultra wide is a lens for you, and then fill in behind it with something better in a wide to mid range.

fresharoma wrote in post #3271802
After the macro lens doubt, I have now another problem
I was planning on buying 10-22mm, macro (60mm or 100mm) and 70-200 4L. I am buying them all at once. But now I am not so sure I should get 10-22.
Maybe it would be better to buy 17-40L? I have a kit lens 18-55, so should I first replace that lens with 17-40L and then buy 10-22... or should I buy 10-22 and use the kit lens that I have.
I have to mention that I have 400D, so 17mm is not that wide for me. I just don`t know what is the best combination. Maybe something else... Oh, I am going crazy

P.S, as I said in the other thread, I don`t have much time for thinking. I have a friend in USA who is comming in a few days and he will buy them for me there... so I have to decide quickly

10-22: You may not realize it yet but this is going to be one of your favorite lenses. 17mm is definately not wide enough. If cost is a concern the Tokina 12-24 is a great fall back lens. You are probably going to use this lens a lot more than your Macro.

17-40: Great lens, just not for your camera. The lens of choice is the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, the fallback lens is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. You really don't want to give up the speed and DOF of a f/2.8 lens and you've got 1.6x the extra focal length with these.

Macro- 100 is best, 60 is also a fine choice, and extension tubes to work with your 70-200 will give you ultra sharp macro for next to nothing in cost, and won't add much weight to your bag. Your post says you are looking at the f/4 as opposed to the f/4 IS. I would definately recommend the IS for this lens where it will be helpful and take the cost savings using the extension tubes v. an expensive dedicated macro lens. (Not to mention you've got a macro focal length that can go even longer than Canon's 180mm L macro lens)

RichNY wrote in post #3272520
10-22: You may not realize it yet but this is going to be one of your favorite lenses. 17mm is definately not wide enough. If cost is a concern the Tokina 12-24 is a great fall back lens. You are probably going to use this lens a lot more than your Macro.

17-40: Great lens, just not for your camera. The lens of choice is the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, the fallback lens is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. You really don't want to give up the speed and DOF of a f/2.8 lens and you've got 1.6x the extra focal length with these.

Macro- 100 is best, 60 is also a fine choice, and extension tubes to work with your 70-200 will give you ultra sharp macro for next to nothing in cost, and won't add much weight to your bag. Your post says you are looking at the f/4 as opposed to the f/4 IS. I would definately recommend the IS for this lens where it will be helpful and take the cost savings using the extension tubes v. an expensive dedicated macro lens. (Not to mention you've got a macro focal length that can go even longer than Canon's 180mm L macro lens)

Thank you very much for your answer. You have helped me a lot. I will buy 10-22mm and 70-200mm (not so sure about the IS - cost). The one you mentioned (17-55) seems great, but it costs a bit too much for me right now . I would like to buy a Canon lens, so is there another lens of that range that you would recommend (around 600$ ). You said that 17-40 is not for my camera, why?

WMS wrote in post #3271980
The answer is to buy the complete Canon lens line up.

Canon makes a 17-85 EFs zoom which is a upgrade from the 18-55 Kit lens. They also make a 17-55 IS EFs lens which is near L quality. I own the 17-85 and find that it was well worth the modest (compared to L lenses) price. This lens and a 10-22 would cover the ultra wide to normal range on a 400D.

WMS

The price for the 17-85 is great, the only minus is the EF-S mount

casaaviocar wrote in post #3272145
I have owned the 17-40 f/4L for the last 3 years, it' s an excellent lens one of my favorites....

What camera do you have?

fresharoma wrote in post #3271802
After the macro lens doubt, I have now another problem
I was planning on buying 10-22mm, macro (60mm or 100mm) and 70-200 4L. I am buying them all at once. But now I am not so sure I should get 10-22.
Maybe it would be better to buy 17-40L? I have a kit lens 18-55, so should I first replace that lens with 17-40L and then buy 10-22... or should I buy 10-22 and use the kit lens that I have.
I have to mention that I have 400D, so 17mm is not that wide for me. I just don`t know what is the best combination. Maybe something else... Oh, I am going crazy

P.S, as I said in the other thread, I don`t have much time for thinking. I have a friend in USA who is comming in a few days and he will buy them for me there... so I have to decide quickly

Since you have a crop camera, I suggest you'd get the 10-22, the 60 macro and the 70-200 F/4, IS if you can afford it, otherwise the non-IS version. Keep the 18-55 kit lens for now, and decide later if and which replacement you'd want for it.

I am suggesting this first of all because you mention yourself that 17 mm is not enough for you, which means you need UWA like the 10-22, rather than WA.

The 17-40 is an excellent lens, but it doesn't go lower than 17 mm. Since you are (more than) covered in this range, maybe it is better to extend your range first, before deciding to take it or not.

The 70-200 L is a nobrainer, in any form or format. There is just no better telezoom available in its range. You may get disappointed with any other zoom lens after having used a 70-200 L, it is that good. This also covers the 100 mm FL, so that could be a point against the 100 mm macro. The 70-200 focuses fairly close by, and with extension tubes or a diopter lens, you can achieve very good results in the macro realm, at that focal length, so that would not be a bad starting point.

That leaves the 60 mm macro. That is on a crop camera not just an extremely good macro lens, but it also doubles very nicely as a portrait lens and a landscape lens, and allows for more general use than a 100 mm macro on a crop body, because 100 mm gets a little long for portraits, IMO. For the price difference, you may be able to get some extension tubes or a diopter lens for use with the 70-200, and with the macro of course, for even closer focusing and larger magnification. The 60 macro is also a lot lighter than the 100, and much more compact, so very easy to carry around at all times, more so than the 100.

So, summarizing my comments, you would end up with the following:
1. EF-S 10-22
2. EF-S 18-55 (already in your collection)
3. EF-S 60 macro
4. EF 70-200 F/4, IS if budget allows
5. a set of Kenko extension tubes and/or Canon 500D close-up lens 77mm with step-down rings (77-58 and 77-67)

HTH, kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #3274084
So, summarizing my comments, you would end up with the following:
1. EF-S 10-22
2. EF-S 18-55 (already in your collection)
3. EF-S 60 macro
4. EF 70-200 F/4, IS if budget allows
5. a set of Kenko extension tubes and/or Canon 500D close-up lens 77mm with step-down rings (77-58 and 77-67)

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Thank you for your help So, for now it seems that I will buy the 10-22 and the 70-200. Now I am just not sure should I buy a replacement for my kit lens or should I buy a 60mm macro. Eventually I will have to replace the kit, Ijust don`t know if that should be now...
(I also already have 50mm 1.8 )

I did a comparison table a while ago, here it is:

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Is the kit lens really THAT bad.

I'd keep the kit lens and take the 10-22 every time. In fact I did and don't plan on replacing it any time soon...

Pete-eos wrote in post #3274207
Is the kit lens really THAT bad.

I'd keep the kit lens and take the 10-22 every time. In fact I did and don't plan on replacing it any time soon...

I have decided to buy 10-22. Now I dont know should I buy replacement for the kit or a macro. The reason I want to buy them all now is a friend who is comming from USA (that happens once in 2 years) and he will buy them for me there. The sam lens here (croatia) costs twice as much.

Well, I think that you need to consider how important the 18-55 range is for you. At F/8 the kitlens is good, whatever anybody is saying. If you want truly excellent IQ, you may want another lens, like the 17-40. The next question is then whether the 17-40 will give you the reach you need or want.

When doing a lot of landscape photography, I guess on a crop camera for ultimate IQ I would want the 10-22, the 17-40L, the 60 macro (or the EF-S 17-55 IS instead of 17-40L and 60 macro), and a slightly longer lens, where the 70-200 will do just fine . As I have been doing a lot of slr photography in the past, with the chance to start all over again, this is exactly what I got when acquiring my first APS-C body, a 350D. If I had to leave out a single lens from this combo, because of budgetary constraints, I think it would have been the 17-40, because it was covered by the kitlens. And maybe, with the current options available since that time, I would have gotten a Sigma 10-20, and a Tamron 17-50, instead of the EF-S 10-22 and the 17-40L. But that is a big maybe. Very likely I would have just continued saving for the 17-40L and gotten the EF-S 10-22 and 60 macro first. But that is me, of course.

I sincerely suggest to create a table like indicated above, and see what you find most important right now. Just set up a table of the 18-55 vs the 17-40 vs the 60 macro. I am sure it will give you the right answer for the position you are finding yourself in now.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Thank you
I will create a table and see what is the best combination.
I will take a lot of landscape photos, a little bit of macro and studio fashion photos.
I will buy 10-22 and 70-200. That is for sure. The third one will be decided in a couple of hours

Looking forward to hearing what your final decison is!

Kind regards, Wim