24-70L or 17-55 pair with something?

Hi everyone, I have been looking into buying new lens for a while. I shoot with a T1i and as much as I want the quality that you get with an L lens, I understand that it might not be the best lens for a crop camera. I am considering the 17-55, but I would like more reach and I'm not sure which lens I should use to supplement what is lost. I currently shoot with an 18-135 and I don't think I can go back to only having 55mm when zoomed out. What should I do? I plan on shooting with full-frame in 2 years or so (college) and also use a 35mm camera (Elan 7eII), so I guess I feel like I am missing out when I buy an EF-S lens, if that makes sense. Thanks!

17-55 f/2.8 IS + 85 f/1.8.

Sell the EF-S when you go FF.

17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 70-200mm f/4L IS

My absolute favorite combination of lenses is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 70-200mm f/4L IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras. I can shoot 90% of my general and just about all of my travel photography with this combination.

The 17mm end is wide enough for me; I don't miss the 55-70mm gap and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is fantastic.

See my China galleries, shot exclusively with the above two lenses on a 30D and a 40D at:

http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/

i used to have 15-85 and when i got 17-55 i was ok with the range.. the combo im using now 17-55 and 70-200 and it seem perfect for me never consider filling the mid gap.. but maybe get a UWA lens

17-55 plus one of the 70-200's , you can always sell the 17-55 when you go full frame without much of a loss , think of it as renting.

17-55 + 70-200, without a doubt. I shoot a similar combo w/some primes and it covers just about everything.

Thanks everyone, is there a huge difference between the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200 f/4 L? Obviously, the $500 price gap means something, but is it worth paying for, especially since the non-IS version is so much lighter?

polkad0t wrote in post #11510341
Thanks everyone, is there a huge difference between the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200 f/4 L? Obviously, the $500 price gap means something, but is it worth paying for, especially since the non-IS version is so much lighter?

Depends on what you shoot with the 70-200. If sports or moving wildlife then the IS really doesn't do much for you. For static shots, indoor people & kids, events etc the IS can be a very useful feature.

Go for the 17-55 you will be glad you did. I've tried a bunch of stuff before settling on that lens and it's amazing. I also use it on a T1i. As for 70-200, get the IS version if you can afford it. F/4 at that focal length means that you will not be able to shoot in any kind of bad light without IS. I had the F/4 non-IS version and it was just too slow. Personally I didn't need the the 200 end so I just went for 100 IS (serves as macro + short tele) but if you feel that you need it, get the IS version. There's plenty of other options, including a bunch of 70-300 lenses that you could consider, as well as a 100-400, so just decide how much reach you need.

RPCrowe wrote in post #11509530
See my China galleries, shot exclusively with the above two lenses on a 30D and a 40D at:

http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/

Your China galleries??

What I really enjoyed is your Yosimite & desert pics. Great work.