Newbie needs help 17-40mm with stuff vs 16-35mm, help me spend cash

Ok long time reader, first time poster...

So recently my godfather of 20 some-years had passed away he knew that i was into the whole photography thing and i would occasionally send him photo, and apparently in his will he sent me a check for $2000, and his wife wrote a note to spend it on your dreams...and my dream is to eventually break into the sports photography world...so cut to the chase i am torn on how to use it...but i will be forever thankful for their support

right now i shoot with a gripped 40d with 17-55mm f2.8 and i also have a 70-200mm f/2.8 for my college newspaper...but will eventually move up to a 1-series body soon depending on mk 4 stats

here is the dilemma should i get:

17-40mm f/4 L ($700) & Macbook Pro($1200)-my computer is really bad
or
16-35mm f/2.8 II L ($1600) & 50mm f/1.4($400)
or
17-40mm f/4 L ($700) & 50mm f/1.4($400) & 15mm f/2.8 fisheye ($700)

i have read all the comparisons of all the lens but i'm still torn, thats why i came here...i hope i can get some advice

thanks in advance

Welcome. Maybe it would be easier to split up the choices and make it simpler. 16-35 vs 17-40 for example.

i guess everyone's watching football

SInce everyone does not live in the same time zone or country, I kinda doubt it. Yes, I know you were joking.

suggestions anyone?

"and my dream is to eventually break into the sports photography world"...if this is true, you should be looking at the telephotos I would think and not the wide stuff. If yu have the 70-200, maybe the 1.4 and 2.0 converters would serve you best. They are my next purchases to add to the versatility of my 70-200 and 200 2.8L.

yea i know it would be better for a longer range lens but right now i'm shooting fights at my friends gym and i think a wide angle would help, i think for my reach thing i would rather get a teleconverter for now

Save a hundred dollars to bribe a security guard at the stadium so you can get a good vanage point.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #8677547
Save a hundred dollars to bribe a security guard at the stadium so you can get a good vanage point.

haha yea, and then after a few minutes another guard will tell me to leave

I dont see what the 17-40 or 16-35 will get you now, They both feel like a waste to me...

If sports are your goal, I'd say you're better investing in the telephoto end of things, You can likely trade your 17-55 for a 17-40 or towards a 16-35 at a later date

Go look for a used Sigma 300 f/2.8, or a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 or even consider the Sigma 100-300 f/4, all three are excellent lenses

Additionally you could add a Canon 300 f/4L IS if you want to stay "in the family"

I'd also budget to get yourself a good monopod and a ballhead, You'll want one possibly

Any of those lenses will give you more range...

yea i was looking at the 300mm but i'd rather just use a teleconverter for now, the reason for getting a wide angle is because i also do events for family and friends

keileo wrote in post #8677631
yea i was looking at the 300mm but i'd rather just use a teleconverter for now, the reason for getting a wide angle is because i also do events for family and friends

But the 17-55 is honestly, on a 40D, the best of those choices

You could consider adding a Sigma 10-20 or a Tokina 11-16, or if you wanna spend a bit more, the Canon 10-22 if you want something thats wider than the 17-55

As for a t-con, Nothing wrong with that, just be warned it will slow your focus down a bit, and its not going to deliver quite as good quality as you may be used to, Thus my suggestion of a dedicated longer lens

i guess i will look at a dedicated lens, the main sport i enjoy shooting is tennis so f4 should be fast enough

keileo wrote in post #8676735
suggestions anyone?

When are you looking at jumping into a new body?

ETA- If it were me, I would be going with the 17-40L and the 50 1.4, and hold onto the other money so a 1D could show up a little sooner.

Ladies tennis is much more interesting to watch (and photograph) than men's.

Good sport, and the athletes don't look anything like Billy Jean King anymore.