complement to the 30mmf/1.4?

So looking to get another lens and have gone back and forth from one extreme to the other. I shoot mostly street and city-scapes, and occasional portraits.

I really want the 17-55 f2.8 IS, but in order to buy it I'd have to sell off the 30mm. so I was wondering if anyone else had a lens they use with the 30mm. I've been shooting only this lens for the last year and never really felt like I've missed a shot because of the focal distance.

I've looked at UWA 10-22, 12-24, etc. and the 17-40L keep coming back to the 17-55 though....

any thoughts?

I took a quick glance at your flickr ( you have some nice shots) and I think you may enjoy a UWA. 17 is nice but it is still not all that wide.

I feel I can travel the world with only my 10-22 and my 30 and be perfectly happy.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #7630574
I feel I can travel the world with only my 10-22 and my 30 and be perfectly happy.

I agree. I'm gonna miss both of these lenses when I go FF. The 10-22 is a great lens that adds a different twist for portraits. Another option might be something a bit longer like the 85 f/1.8.

d.

For "street and city-scapes and occasional portraits" the 17-55 really is perfect. It does all of those very well. While ultra wide lenses are nice, you won't be taking any portraits with them. I think the 17-40 is a good option and you may want to consider the tamron 17-50. I think these would be better suited for what you want than an ultra wide lens would. Although, as mentioned previously, many people can walk around with ultra wide lenses and be perfectly content.

midnight_rider wrote in post #7630267
I took a quick glance at your flickr ( you have some nice shots) and I think you may enjoy a UWA. 17 is nice but it is still not all that wide.

thanks, yeah that's why I was looking at the UWA. Just wasn't sure how much use I'd get out of the 10-15 range and thought I may stay toward the 15-22 area and then started thinking (always a bad thing) that the 17 might be wide enough...but I'd like to keep my 30, so maybe the UWA is the way to go. 80% of my flicker stuff was taken with the 30mm.

dgoakill wrote in post #7630632
thanks, yeah that's why I was looking at the UWA. Just wasn't sure how much use I'd get out of the 10-15 range and thought I may stay toward the 15-22 area and then started thinking (always a bad thing) that the 17 might be wide enough...but I'd like to keep my 30, so maybe the UWA is the way to go. 80% of my flicker stuff was taken with the 30mm.

10mm is very addictive

i'm thinking of getting a 17-40L to complement my 35mm 2.0 which i find just a little too long cropped. the 2.8 and IS of the 17-55 would be great, but i guess i've got my primes for tricky low light situations, and it is just too damn pricey.

Take a look at page 150 and 152 (last page) in the 10-22 Sample Archive. There's a couple good examples of portraits done with this lens. Even if you decide it's doesn't fit your needs you'll have no problem reselling it.

d.

dgoakill wrote in post #7630632
thanks, yeah that's why I was looking at the UWA. Just wasn't sure how much use I'd get out of the 10-15 range and thought I may stay toward the 15-22 area and then started thinking (always a bad thing) that the 17 might be wide enough...but I'd like to keep my 30, so maybe the UWA is the way to go. 80% of my flicker stuff was taken with the 30mm.

Take a look at the tokina 11-16 if you haven't already in your consideration of an UWA. Also, you may want to try renting an UWA for a day or two. Go out with it and see how you like the focal range.

Moooney wrote in post #7630666
i'm thinking of getting a 17-40L to complement my 35mm 2.0 which i find just a little too long cropped. the 2.8 and IS of the 17-55 would be great, but i guess i've got my primes for tricky low light situations, and it is just too damn pricey.

A little off topic, but...I find that I don't use my 17-55 IS anymore for low light now that I have my sigma 30. I've actually considered selling my 17-55 because I use the 24-105L outside more. I think the prime and the 17-40L would make a good combo.

Moooney wrote in post #7630666
i'm thinking of getting a 17-40L to complement my 35mm 2.0 which i find just a little too long cropped. the 2.8 and IS of the 17-55 would be great, but i guess i've got my primes for tricky low light situations, and it is just too damn pricey.

you sound like me the last couple weeks.

You could get a Sigma 10-20 and an 85mm f1.8 or 60mm f2.8 macro for what the upgrade to the 17-55 would cost.

Most of my "people" shots are with my 30 and my 85mm f/1.8 (on two bodies)....I've toyed with selling them off to buy a 24-70L, but the L zoom can't shoot at f/1.4-2

I do have a 10-20 for when I need to go wider than 30, and I use my 17-85 for fast moving events but for dedicated photo outings, my 30/85 is my go-to pair!

my combo would be EF-S 60mm,
For longer range, I have my tele-zoom

thanks for all the suggestions, I feel like I'm comparing apples to apples finally instead of being all over the place. Right now it's between the ef-s 10-22 and the 17-40L. leaning toward the 10-22 though. going to see if I can rent one this weekend.

really sucks that the canon non-L's don't ship with hoods.....

for the 10-22 people, do you need to have additional protection for the lens like a UV filter or would the hood be enough? I'll probably pick up an ND or CPL (or both) down the road.