17-40/4.0 L and 70-200/4.0 L What to fill the gap?

I am wanting to purchase the 17-40/4.0 L and 70-200/4.0 L lenses, but it

doesn't appear that canon offers an "L" series lens to fill the gap except the

24-70/2.8 and this doesn't fit my budget. Any suggestions?

<p>How about a 50? Do you really need every last focal length covered, or will one lens fill the gap for you?</p>

Try one of the 50mm primes. Tack sharp, small and light. If you really need to fill all the mm between 40mm and 70mm, then consider the 28-135mm - probably Canon's best non-L zoom.

how about a 24-70 f2.8 from a third party (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina)? You'll then have a relatively fast mid-range zoom that suit your budget.

I agree with the 50 as well. I would pick the 50 f/1.4 if possible.

 

The lens that "fills" the gap the best if you have to have every mm covered and stay with your f/4 lineup would be the 24-105 f/4L IS. I would have a very hard time not being faster than f/4 though. I think the 50 will allow you to do things that you just can't do with your other two lenses and helps cover the spread if you feel you need to do this.

Buy the 50 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.8.

 

Don't be one of those people who thinks that they have to have every mm from 10 to 300 to be a successful photographer. You don't, and the "gap" you're referring to is easily filled by one lens. Plus having a fast prime will be of tremendous benefit for existing light photography.

I "fill the gap" with the 50mm f/1.4 and/or the 24-105mm f/4 L depending upon the

situation. The 50mm is great for low light, for portraits (on the 1.6 crop cameras), and is

extremely sharp. The 24-105 provides some overlap with both my 17-40mm and my

70-200mm f/4's.

 

It is true that you don't necessarily need to cover every possible millimeter and the

differences between 40 & 50 and then between 50 & 70 are not that great. However, there

can be advantages to having the ranges overlap a bit, especially since you may find

yourself having to change lenses a bit less frequently.

 

So... if the budget is limited go for one of the 50mm lenses. When you have more money

and/or feel the need for a mid-range zoom think about the 24-105.

50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4. If you have $1200 to spare, 24-105 IS USM.

The 50/1.4 provides "L" performance and while the 50/1.8 is softer until about f2.8 it performs magnificently for a $75 USD lens and is still fast compared to zooms.

Many of us used to carry two camera bodies, one with a 35mm lens and one with a 85mm or

105mm lens. The gap was filled by walking! I have the 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200. Most of

the time I just stick on a 35mm prime and rush out the door.

If the 24-70 is too expensive, it is hard to see why the 24-105L is going to be the answer.

 

If you are worried about having to change lenses a lot, maybe go for the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX, instead of the 17-40L. The extra 10 mm and f2.8 will probably save you from needing another lens.

Another suggestion for a 50mm (either the very cheap 50/1.8 or the more expensive, better handling, but possibly even worse constructed, 50/1.4). I would not fill the gap with the 24-105 even if the budget permitted. This is your people range and fast primes for available light or reduced flash photography rule.

 

I am a huge fan of the f4 max lenses. My everyday kit is a 17-40/4 + 70-200/4 + 300/4. They are very limited for low light work even with IS. For lowlight I use the 35/2, 50/1.8, and a Tamron 90/2.8. I do enough low light work to justify and upgrade to an 85/1.8 and probably a 50/1.4.

Get two to fill in gaps:

 

Canon 50mm (one of their models)

 

Canon 24mm or 28mm primes....you not only have to fill in the focal length gap, but the lenses you have now are probably too slow....assuming you'll need fast glass.

I have a 16-35L and a 70-200/4L that I use for landscapes, and I carry either a 50mm macro or a 45mm TSE lens to fill the gap. No need to have every millimiter covered. For landscapes, a faster lens isn't necessary, but if you have another style of shooting in mind, the 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 would fill the gap nicely. The 50/1.8 is very affordable, light, and sharp.

Another vote for the Fiddy. I guess I am a bit biased since I have the 17-40 and the 70-200/2.8IS and the 50/1.4. Or I have put my money where my mouth is.

 

A 1.4 is 3 stops faster than an f/4 lens. That is definately a big advantage. Plus it is a great portrait lens.

 

Get the 1.4 as long it doesn't break the bank. Metal lens mount, a bit faster, with psuedo USM, better OOF highlights. The problem with the 1.8 is that you'll probably always wonder about the 50/1.4.

 

The only reason I would get a 1.8 is to save up for a possible real L version of the 50.

Firstly that's an excellent choice. I'm also planning (one after the other...) to buy these 17-40 and 70-200 L series (with EOS 30D) but I don't care to have nothing between 40 and 70, I'll get a 85 f/1.8 to allow me as well portraits and some indoor sports (judo). BTW is it really necessary to cover all the range? Not sure. In this case, there's also an empty world after 200mm.

I have both those lenses, it's a very good choice. In the middle I have the 50/1.8, which is well worth the very little money it costs and the 24-105/f4. For me, that's a perfect every day lens.

I fill the gap with a 50/1.4

Lots of good choices listed above. For budget solution I would go for:<br>

- EF50/1.4 or 1.8<br>

- EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM - good all purpose lense, good overlap<br>

- Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di AF - according to many tests and reviews exceptional value for money<p>

Notice that you might want to have one lense with very good light power for dim lit purposes. Then it would be the EF50/1.4. For practicality I would probably opt for the Tamron.

Barry, there is barely a gap there at all!

 

But if you insist, then either of the 50mm lenses will fill the (non) gap.

 

regards,

I agree with the other responses. You do not need ever single mm of coverage. A 50mm lens would be a good choice if really wanting an additional lens. However, do not overlook the 50 2.5 macro. Unless you really think you will use it at f1.4, consider the other two. The macro is excellent and has a recessed lens. A hood is unnecessary. The 1.8 is optically excellent, cheap, but for landscape I ppefer the focusing scale and depth-of-field markings plus close focus of the macro. It is an extremely sharp lens with a flat field of view and too often overlooked.

I have the 50 1.8, but if I had L glass either side like you, I would buy the 1.4 instead.

 

If you really want a 24-70 f/2.8 without paying Canon prices, look at the Sigma 24-70, theres a bunch of reviews/discussion on it here:

 

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81291

another vote for a 50 prime.

You could look around for a used Canon 28-70 F/2.8L - superb picture quality, and usually sold at a good price.

I usually carry a 17-40, 50 1.4, and 70-200IS. I hardly ever touch the 50, as the 40mm end seems to work just fine for me, even indoors. Recently I added a 35L, and that lens works a lot better for me due to its unique look and DOF. So my advice would be to forget about the gap and just shoot, or if it really nags at you get the 50 1.8.