Walk around choices.

I am looking to up grade in the future my two walk around lenses.
I have the 17-85 IS and the 28-135 IS that came with my 40D.
There are three possibilities.

1. 17-40 L f/2.8
Love the 2.8 , no IS

2. 17-55 IS f/2.8
Love 2.8, IS. Short on the long range.

3. 24-105 IS f/4
IS, Long on tele end, not 2.8, not as wide as the others.

If only Canon could blend these features in one lens.
Product Development.

Nick5 wrote in post #6363845
If only Canon could blend these features in one lens.

They have, the EF-S 17-85mm IS USM.

the 17-40 is not 2.8 but its my walk around and its great.

Sell the 17-85 IS USM, 18-55 USM,18-55 IS, and 28-135 IS USM. Get the 24-105L (or 17-55IS, or 24-70L).

Cheers
Zexun

if you are walking around in the day...i definitely suggest 24-105

24-105 is fabulous! Very versatile, great colour reproduction and very sharp.

Linda

Alternatives are Sigma 24-70 EX/Canon 24-70L/Tamron 28-75 all f/2.8 all have great IQ, pick the one with the price/features that suits you best.

I have the Σ, 24 is wide enough for me, and 70 is great when you just want to get that little bit closer. Always found myself stuck between 28 and 55 on my kit lens and wanting more. So 24-70 suited me fine. I'd much rather have 55-70 than 17-24

Yeah, you definetly have too many "kit" lenses. You can also get rid of the 70-300 if you have the 100-400

Headshotzx wrote in post #6363917
Sell the 17-85 IS USM, 18-55 USM,18-55 IS, and 28-135 IS USM. Get the 24-105L (or 17-55IS, or 24-70L).

Cheers
Zexun

Anyone want to buy some kit lenses?

The 24-105 is a great walk-around lens. I would recommend it, along with the 17-40. however, the 17-40L is f/4.0. the f/2.8 is 16-35 in range, and about 2~3 times the price.

Nick5 wrote in post #6363845
1. 17-40 L f/2.8
Love the 2.8 , no IS

Do you use both bodies simultaneously (well, you know what I mean - on the same occasion)?
If so, you should at least have a general lens for each.
Maybe keep the 18-55 IS, and add a 17-55/2.8IS.
Or: 18-55IS + 10-22 + 24-105

On the "I wish there was one lens" issue, keep an eye on the new EF-S 18-200IS and see how it shapes up. It's pricey, and maybe slowish, but early reports are that it makes good images.

I WISH Canon would fix up the wide-end of the 17-85 and make it f/4 throughout. Then I'd be MUCH happier (now I'm only marginally happy with the 17-85)

xarqi wrote in post #6364441
Do you use both bodies simultaneously (well, you know what I mean - on the same occasion)?
If so, you should at least have a general lens for each.

That's backwards logic if ever I've seen it. There are many reasons a person would want to use 2 digital bodies simoultaneously, but I can't think of one that would include them having similar lenses attached.

When shooting film I might have used 1 body for neg and one for pos, or 1 for colour and 1 for B&W. But with digital those are moot points and you might carry one body with a std lens attached and another one that'll have a telezoom, or sometimes a UWA, or a fast prime, depending on your needs.

If you're shooting professionally you'll need a backup std lens, but you'd probably not have it attached to anything, as a 2nd body more useful if used.

i would definitely suggest the 24-105mm, great all-round walkaround lens. Gives you very decent zoom, has IS, and you'd be surprised: at f/4 it's ultra sharp, and if ur gonna be outdoors.. f/4 is more than enough! ;]

Something tells me that Canon is going to make the 24-70mm L with IS soon.. (I'm hoping too!)

Phil V wrote in post #6365017
That's backwards logic if ever I've seen it. There are many reasons a person would want to use 2 digital bodies simoultaneously, but I can't think of one that would include them having similar lenses attached.
[...]
If you're shooting professionally you'll need a backup std lens, but you'd probably not have it attached to anything, as a 2nd body more useful if used.

Now you mention it ... yeah.
Still, both my shaky logic, and your better reasoning end up with the idea that hanging on to the 18-55 IS might not be totally silly.

I must learn not to answer posts at 3 in the morning.
I must learn not to answer posts at 3 in the morning.
I must learn not to answer posts at 3 in the morning.
I must learn not to answer posts at 3 in the morning.
...
Thanks.

I tried out the 17-55 inside a friends apartment recently and was not overwhelmed with it. I have the 17-85 too so found the 2.8 nice, but 55 was not long enough for me, even inside. (although it's a big apartment I had planed this as my walkaround upgrade but now I'm not so sure. The 24-105 looks more tempting.

Since you have the 18-55 lenses you should be able to get an idea if you find 55 too short for your needs. I know I did..