my strategy for next lens purchase(s)

i'm back.

ok, so, thanks to the input on this particular thread, my most recent lens purchase (as noted in my updated sig line) have been the 135mm f/2L and the 100mm f/2.8 macro. and i love both of these lenses (especially the 135mm for portraits and sports action).

lenses that i still consider "on the radar" would be the 85mm f/1.8 and someday, a 70-200mm f/2.8L or f/4L (not sure which just yet). maybe even a 10-22mm someday.

for now, my latest lens dilemma is back to replacement of my kit lens. i have some gift certificates to burn up at amazon, so why not use them on a new lens, right? (or should i wait for the 60D this fall )

when i make these purchase, i tend to think to the future, and seek longevity in my lens (i hate trying to sell things). with that in mind, i tend to rule out 3rd party lense due to the fact that they are constructed by reverse engineering existing dslr cameras (something changes in the design of future dslr's, it's quite possible your 3rd party lens will be rendered useless to you). with that in mind, i'm trying to stick with canon..... and the contestants for replacing my kit lens seem to be.....

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (crop sensor only, expensive)
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (bad copy issues?)
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS (a new f/2.8 version coming this fall?)
EF 17-40mm f/4L (my fav so far)
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II (expensive)

of the above, were i to choose right now, i think i'd be leaning towards the 17-40mm f/4L. i know it doesn't have IS, but i shoot my 135mm just fine without IS, so this isn't a huge concern to me. i know it's not f/2.8, but even f/2.8 would require some occasional flash work indoors, and i have the 430EX II, so the f/4 doesn't really bother me. i like that fact that it's built rock solid, as i'm envisioning this would likely be the lens i have mounted a good 70% of the time (or more). i know the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is another great lens, but the EF-S (crop sensor only) bothers me a bit (taking into consideration the possibility of one day going to a full sensor dslr), the price for this non-L build quality lens bothers me a bit, and wasn't there some issues with this lens having "bad copies" out there?

regarding the "bad copy" issue, can anyone remind me which lenses on my list above are known to suffer from "bad copy" issues? i thought the 24-70mm was another. i had read of one individual on here exchanging a single lens 4 times until he had finally gotten a good copy the fifth time (i thought that was on the 17-55mm). oy, i don't wanna go through that if i can help it.

thoughts, comments? i had originally considered getting a 35mm prime for my "wide" end lens, but due to recent experiences, i really want to stick with a lens that gives me some variable focal lengths without having to move my feet.

I wouldn't worry about getting bad copies. It only happens to a very small percentage. The reason you hear about it so much is because the ones with the problems are the ones posting and complaining.

As for your choice of lenses, I would recommend the 17-55 if you're not going to be moving to full frame any time in the near future. Otherwise, the 17-40 is an excellent lens and definitely one of my favorites.

bsaber wrote in post #8447293
I wouldn't worry about getting bad copies. It only happens to a very small percentage. The reason you hear about it so much is because the ones with the problems are the ones posting and complaining.

As for your choice of lenses, I would recommend the 17-55 if you're not going to be moving to full frame any time in the near future. Otherwise, the 17-40 is an excellent lens and definitely one of my favorites.

And if you buy from a reputable place, the exchange policy is usually very good for stuff like this

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

not a lot of votes for the other three lenses on the list.

if i look at the pros/cons of the two lenses.....

17-55mm
pros
- 17-55mm range
- IS
- f/2.8
cons
- very expensive for non-L lens
- EF-S (crop sensor only)
- lackluster build quality (compared to 17-40mm L)
- some "optical" issues (flare?)
- bad copy possibilities

17-40mm
pros
- can be used with crop sensor and full sensor
- great price for an L lens ($700 from amazon)
- superior build quality (great for a "mounted 80% of the time" lens)
cons
- narrower range/less reach (17-40mm)
- f/4 (versus faster f/2.8)
- not IS (not a big deal imo for this range)

LostShootingStar, I'd be buying it thru amazon..... not sure which store in particular that they'd be funneling me to for this lens. i believe i would know at the time of checkout though. i like dealing with BH, but my gift certificates are for amazon.

10-22mm. 'nuf said. You'll have tons of fun and get great images. Enough with the 17-55 already. It's seriously not much better than the kit lens. A 10-22 will be super fun and be a wild change

I would suggest you not get 100/2 and 100/2.8 Macro at this time. Get one or the other if you wish, not both.

An alternative is to get extension tubes instead. I've used them for years in various camera systems. In my Canon kit I've used with 20/2.8, 45mm Tilt Shift, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 70-200/2.8 IS, 180/3.5 Macro, and even 300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS, sometimes along with a teleconverter. Just recently got a 135/2 and tried out the 25mm on it this week. Initial results looked good.

Kenko extension tube set costs around $160 (three tubes: 10mm, 20mm & 36mm). Canon sells individual 12mm and 25mm for about $100 to $130 apiece. I would not have a camera kit without a set of extension tubes. They are super handy to have in your camera bag for those times when lenses just don't focus close enough.

I think you need to be careful not to get too duplicated in your focal lengths. If the 70-300mm doesn't do what you want from it, replace it. The 70-200/2.8 IS is one of my most used lenses... But be warned that it's big and heavy. I've lent it to people who tried it briefly, then went and bought a 70-200/4 instead!

100/2 is a possibility, but really depends upon your other lenses.

A minimalist approach to prime lenses is to approximately double focal lengths. For example that might mean 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm and 400mm. Personally I'd be more likely to use 20mm, 35mm, 85mm, 135mm and 300mm.

A minimalist (i.e. someone who wants to keep to a budget and/or doesn't want to be weighed down with a ton of equipment) might substitute a macro lens for one of the focal lengths, but not get both. Macros come in 50mm, 60mm, 70mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm focal lengths. I would not recommend going longer if you want the lens to serve dual purposes. Longer macro focal lengths, particular if used on a crop sensor camera, are more likely to need a tripod and/or macro flash to get a workable combination of aperture and shutter speed to give you adequate depth of field.

Keep in mind if using a crop sensor camera, you'll need to divide the above by 1.6X to find equivalent focal lengths.

And, yes, some quality zooms can certainly substitute for other lenses. In fact, for crop sensor cameras just about the only wide angle lenses available (aside from fisheye) are zooms.

But , zooms don't necessarily need to cover every single focal length. For example, the gap between a 17-55 and a 70-200 is no big deal.

Likewise, somewhat overlapping focal lengths with zooms aren't a big deal, so long as the budget is not too limited. But if you want to maximize what you get with your budget, try to minimize overlap.

Some zooms really are quite close focusing, too, and might replace a true macro lens in your kit. The 24-70, 24-105 and 28-135 Canons are all quite close focusing.

Buy quality lenses and you will be using them for many years in the future. Cheaper lenses often are false economy and can actually cost more in the long run, when you find yourself dissatisfied with and replacing them. If the budget is tight, it's usually better to get fewer lenses instead of cheaper ones.

Don't avoid quality crop sensor lenses because you might some day get a full frame camera. You can always sell off any lenses that won't fit a new camera, if you wish.

But, if you have a choice and everything else is equal then, yes, why not go ahead and get the full frame capable lens?

Well, there are one or two reasons... Crop sensor lenses can be smaller, lighter and more affordable... And who knows. I was experimenting a little with a Tokina 12-24/4 on a 5D Mk II last evening... That lens is usable to 19mm or so on full frame, albeit with some typical wide angle distortions. I've still got to look closely at the images to see if there are any issues, but initially it was very encouraging.

There are probably dozens of different possible kit combinations. Try prioritizing your needs and looking some more at the pros and cons, as they apply to you. That should help you make your decision, even if it is to just keep shooting with what you've got!

I do suggest, if you make changes, try to do it one lens at a time and give yourself time to learn to use each one well, before considering adding another. Your needs will change and you'll be learning more about what works best for you, and what doesn't, along the way. You might end up looking at an entirely different lens than you think you need now.

As to waiting on the 60D... Well, rumors are just rumors and I'd never buy a camera fresh out of the gate since I use them to make a living. Besides, the lenses you use will have a much greater effect on the images you make, than the camera body ever will.

Cheers!

amphoto1 posts

See ..... told you so, dipps !

amfoto, thanks much for your input.

yeah, i was jones'ing for a 70-200mm 2.8 for a long while before i wound up getting my 135mm f/2. i still haven't ruled it out somewhere down the line, but i've also read that the f/4 is the sharper lens between the two.....

and i haven't yet delved into the world of "extension tubes".

not in the case of the 17-55mm. although i continue to read and haven't yet ruled it out. yes, i talk of wanting to have the ability to upgrade to a FF camera somewhere down the line, but will that really happen? i don't know. that's a lot of coin for what's mostly a "hobby" for me. was doing some interesting reading here......

http://photo.net …gital-camera-forum/00Tyhr

my needs and experiences continue to point in the direction that f/2.8 and a wider range would be more the more ideal lens for me. i guess what i'm mostly shooting for is the IQ quality of my 135mm f/2 in a zoom lens. not sure if the IQ of the 17-55mm would get me there or not, but i love the pics from my 135mm, but it just doesn't serve me very well at events such as birthday parties where i can't always be standing back 20 feet from the action.

very true. i'm pretty much the same way.

I find myself travelling with the 17-55 and 70-300 a lot. All I need is a UWA and I am leaning towards the canon 10-22.

Also, I think I will upgrade my 70-300 somewhere in the distant future but I find myself using the 300mm a lot..and thus I don't know if i will be satisfied with the 70-200L. Perhaps the 100-400 but not sure if i want to find out how much that costs...