GEAR MAKEOVER.....NEED HELP CHOOSING LAST LENS

Will be selling both XT's & my lenses except for the 85 f/1.8.

I shoot wildlife & landscape. I am now getting more into portraiture (both in studio & outside ) and eventually weddings.

I will be purchasing a Canon 40D & an XTi.

My new lens line up so far will be:
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS
Canon 50 f/1.4

My question for you guys is.....Should I also add the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L ?
OR will the 17-55 give me as good of IQ, Bokeh, Contrast & "pop"??

Thanks, Kath

10-22 would be my choice

I'm actually thinking about that one too. Not sure if I need something that wide yet.
Thanks Kath

that's going to be a hellova buy...I don't think you need to get the 24-70 since the 17-55 is a great Ef-S lens. The 17-55 is much wider, has the same aperture as the 24-70 and includes IS. The colors I've seen on a 17-55 are excellent and I agree with some other guy on the forum (names escapes me right now) who said the 17-55 is like an undercase L series x]. The only really benefit you get from the 24-70 is build quality. As long as you take care of your lens, then the 17-55 is a better option.

I read that about the quality of the 17-55 too, but I also read that the 24-70 is a better lens.....so there is my dillema! As far as build goes, I take excellent care of my gear so that is not a problem.

Thanks, Kath

it's really want you want...the 17-55 is a bit wider, therefore filling out your range. the 24-70 is a bit heavy, but it leaves no gaps, if thats where you plan to shoot more at. Of course both lenses provide awesome pictures, but I believe the difference seems to be fairly marginal.

I don't think you need both, but that's just me. I'd stick with your original line up, use it, and see what else you want/need (if anything at all). Nobody said you need to buy everything at once.

im questing why you would want to get rid of the xt's for an xti?

if you look at the reviews, the only difference b/t the 2 cameras is really the cleaning system and the bigger screne and the mp's. why not keep the xt's, put lens on both of them so your not switching so much and go with a 40d if you feel you need it.

maybe someone could enlighten me .

I think the 24-70 would be a waste to get. The 17-55 covers the range and has no negatives relative to IQ.

If you are really nervous about having a portrait lens to go with the 17-55 then get an 85/1.8 too. That's a lot cheaper.

You can shoot full body stuff with the long end of the 17-55 and tight head and shoulder with the 85.

slowdad wrote in post #4725912
im questing why you would want to get rid of the xt's for an xti?

if you look at the reviews, the only difference b/t the 2 cameras is really the cleaning system and the bigger screne and the mp's. why not keep the xt's, put lens on both of them so your not switching so much and go with a 40d if you feel you need it.

maybe someone could enlighten me .

From what I gather I think the OP is selling two Xt's for a 40D and Xti combo, not a bad choice I suppose.

slowdad.....take a look at the 40d.....you'll then see why I am upgrading to one. As far as the upgrade from the XT to an XTi, well the features say it all there too. Just need a smaller upgrade for my backup.
Thanks, Kath

The 17-55 is/was my first choice. I wanted to make sure it would be as good as I need it to be. Covering both landscapes & portraiture. I would much rather spend the money on additional studio lighting.
Thanks, Kath

Thats my next dilemna too. 17-55 on your 40D would work out nicely. Maybe consider the 24-70 if your planning to pick up a 5D in the near future.

sunnybeach wrote in post #4726180
slowdad.....take a look at the 40d.....you'll then see why I am upgrading to one. As far as the upgrade from the XT to an XTi, well the features say it all there too. Just need a smaller upgrade for my backup.
Thanks, Kath

Actually, for the price of an xti, you could get a used 30D or 20D. My reasoning behind this is that the 40D has a similiar control layout with the 20 and 30D, inherently making transitioning between bodies fairly simple. The build quality is also very nice compared to the rebel series.

JCheungPhoto wrote in post #4726553
Actually, for the price of an xti, you could get a used 30D or 20D. My reasoning behind this is that the 40D has a similiar control layout with the 20 and 30D, inherently making transitioning between bodies fairly simple. The build quality is also very nice compared to the rebel series.

I agree with what was said here! not to say the rebels are bad but I think a 30 or 20D would be a tad better.