Lens Suggestion

I am needing an "in between" lens. I currently have the 17-55 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and 50 f/1.4. I often find that the focal length of the 17-55 (while an awesome lens) isn't enough, and obviously, the 70-200 is way too much. I have an event coming up that I will be shooting - indoor, low light - and I need another lens to fill the gap. I'm afraid the 24-105 is a bit out of my price range at the moment, as much as I would love to get that one. What about the 28-135? How is that lens? And what about the 18-200? Is that lens any good at all, or not even worth batting my eyes at? Any advice or recommendations that you could give would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking for any sort of insight or opinions. Thanks in advance!

If you're used to shooting with the 17-55 and the 70-200, you'll probably be dissapointed in the 28-135 and the 18-200. Do you really miss the 15mm gap between 55 and 70mm? Do you have two bodies? If you do get the 24-105, how are you going to work those three lenses?

And if you are shooting events, you should have a backup body anyway.

Do you use the wide end of your 17-55 alot? If not look at selling your 17-55 and getting the 24-70. Then youll have 24-200 covered at 2.8.

I suggest a second body...

I suggest a second body. I use the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS along with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on a 30D and a 40D body and I do not miss the 15mm gap at all.

However, that is just for my style of shooting. Although I like the focal range of the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens very much, I would prefer a faster aperture and slightly better IQ and a newer version IS.

I agree your current lenses will put the two you suggest to shame. You say you have an indoor low-light event coming up, which suggests you're going to need a fast lens. Only the 24-70L, or maybe the Sigma equivalent, does the job of covering your small gap at the same speed as your current pair. The 24-105 would probably suit the range you're needing better, but at f/4.

I think the 2 body idea is great if you do paid work. I saw a refurb 30D for $500 recently and 20Ds are generally well under $400 used.

The 70-200 actually won't be used for the event. I am limited from where I can shoot at, and at 70 it would be okay, but too much beyond that I wouldn't get much.

It sounds like you guys are confirming what I already suspected myself.

And no. I won't be selling my 17-55. I use that frequently on the wide end.

The 24-105 is on my list, it's just not feasible at the moment, unfortunately.

1st compared to my 17-55 , my 28-135 sucks .
I would crop the 17-55 before using the 28-135 . The 28-135 has it's place but it's the IS not 55-70 . On a tripod , my 35-350 is used [no IS] but at 3.5 almost has to be outside and definitely RAW .
15 mm isn't much but that's about 24 mm on a crop body which is a lot .
I would rent , borrow a 24-70 to see if you like it . It's about the only lens at 2.8 from 55 to 70 . I say rent then buy , the price of lenses is not dropping but cameras are .

Two bodies is the key idea. What body are you on right now, another 40D will run you around the same as an 18-200 like you mentioned getting. What do you shoot most often, can you manage two bodies for it?

tweenkal wrote in post #7705294
I have an event coming up that I will be shooting - indoor, low light - and I need another lens to fill the gap.

I guess I'm confused. You say you'll be shooting an event in low light but yet you're considering buying slow glass like the 24-105/28-135? What am I missing here? Seems you should be considering a prime in the focal length you need like a 24L mkii <drool>