Next lens in line?

Any suggestions for next lens to buy?

Right now, I'm quite happy with the long range, but with a crop body I'm a bit lacking on the wide side. I can't say I have any real experience with lenses wider than 28mm equivalent. The old Dimage 7 managed 28, and I haven't taken too many pictures with the 20-35 before I switched from film to digital, making it a 32-56 equivalent. However, when shooring indors (for example castles) I now and then get bumps in the back of my head when I can't take more steps backwards.

My current main lens has been the 28-135 IS (with the 20-35 in a pocket), but it has seen it's better days. It has suffered many years of heavy use and the mechanics feels quite worn out. On two occasions is has stopped focusing for a while, before suddenly starting to work again. I'm not sure if it is worth the money to send it in for service.

Somewhere in the future, I would like to get an ff body, so I want to keep down on EF-S lenses.

From my experience with the 70-200/2.8 IS and 100-400, I have to conclude that I really like L. Don't have a red ring yet - only whites.

Some lenses I have pondered a bit are (10-22 now bought, but still missing the middle guy):

EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 <= bought
EF 24-105/4L IS
EF 24-70/2.8L
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS
EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS

My current equipment can be seen in my sig.

Thanks for suggestions!

If you like wides, the 10-22, less wide would be the 17-55, but I'd say go with the ultrawide.

When making a similar decision I discarded the 17-85 for image quality issues, as discussed on photozone and other review sites. I feel that for the BIG money the EFS 17-55 is too limited in focal length, though it is a great lens. For me the EFS 10-22 is overpriced and too limited in it's focal length to be a suitable "walk-around" or main lens. I'd go for the Sigma 10-20 instead. The 24-70 and 24-105 are left- see the "Best lens" sticky at the start of this forum.

For me, the lower price tag, longer reacher and IS way more than made up for the lower image quality and f/4 of the 24-105, when compared to the 24-70. I LOVE this lens! If the 24-70 had IS I'd have thought about it, but it's so much more expensive. You have a 50mm for low light stuff, and can add a 30mm sigma or tamron 17-50 later to use for further low-light usage, if you need. But personally, for it's flexibility, I'll never part with the 24-105.

Thanks for the answers!

When on vacation, I like to snap pictures inside churches and castles, and they are often very dark. They can also be quite large with parts of the interior cordoned off, making it hard for a flash to reach out. Hence, I do like fast lenses.

If the 24-70 had been available with IS, or the 17-85 had been 2.8, my choices would have been a lot simpler.

pwm2 wrote in post #3449692
Some lenses I have pondered a bit are:

EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 - Want it bad
EF 24-105/4L IS
EF 24-70/2.8L
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS - Got it and love it
EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS

My current equipment can be seen in my sig.

Thanks for suggestions!

. .

I have one other factor to think about. If buying before end of month, the listed lenses has the following cashback (converted from SEK to USD):

10-22 : $100
17-55 : $65
17-85 : $190
24-70 : $85
24-105 : $55

Obviously, that puts a bit of preassure on me to decide on a new lens and optionally a second lens to buy when my economy has cooled off a bit (I picked up the 70-200/2.8 IS last week). The 24-xx lenses would more or less require the 10-22, while I might be happy with just a 17-xx.

The big cashback on the 17-85 (the cheapest lense in the above list) could be taken as an indication that Canon is either not selling too many, or that it is about to be replaced.

I think I will go for a 24-70L + 10-22. Anyone thinking that is a bad choice, please give your views.

pwm2 wrote in post #3459394
I think I will go for a 24-70L + 10-22. Anyone thinking that is a bad choice, please give your views.

Considering you don't mind carrying a heavy lens, I would say, go for it.

Personally, I would consider the 24-104 IS, to be very honest, rather than the 24-70, and thinking about your shooting preferences, I would probably get that if I were in your shoes. I think IS may well be worth more to you than the extra f-stop. Furthermore, once you've used the 70-200 IS for a bit, you will probably find that you don't really want to miss IS anymore .

Of course, the 10-22 is so short, that you can get sharp shots with it at 1/5 s to 1/10 s, or thereabouts, provided you use good technique, and provided your subjects don't move (too much) . But the latter is true for IS too, or for tripod use, for that matter.

Kind regards, Wim

I absolutely loved the IS of the old (and almost dead) 28-135 (not to mention on the 10-400 and the 70-200), but I figured the 1-2 stops of extra light would compensate.

From what I can see, a lot of people is upgrading from the 28-135 to the 24-105. With a ff body, it would be a perfect single-lens. On a 350D, needs a wider companion.

Just bought the 10-22. Now, it's the middle guy to decide on.

The 28-135 really doesn't feel ok - almost all snaps are OOF unless I use a small aperture. It seems I have to rely on the 18-200 Sigma if I care about focus.

With the 10-22 already bought, I would think the interest in the 17-55 and 17-85 has dropped quite a bit, so the remaining contenders seems to be 24-70/2.8 and 24-105/4 IS.