another lens advice question

[notso bad]

I am about spring for a EOS 20D or digital rebel XT in the next few

months. I am a hobby photographer. I used a rebel 2000, which is now

collecting dust as I have gone digital and use a powershot s45 with

the arrival of small children.

 

I am interested in a little of everything-- landscapes, vacation

architecture, portraits, closeups, night shots and I miss the SLR.

 

I currently have a 28-105 USM (3.5-3.5), 50mm 1.8, and 100-300USM

I need more at the lower end for these digital SLRs.

 

I am considering the 17-40L, 10-22 EF-S, or 17-85 IS (and ditch the

28-105 or keep it for occasional film use)

 

Any suggestions?

[jon_austin]

Get your digital body first and use it with your existing lenses; then evaluate the resulting fields of view relative to your needs / wants. You may decide that you have all the reach you need; if not, you'll be much better prepared to choose among the wide angle lenses available.

[andrew_ito]

If you shoot a lot of really wide angles then go with the 10-22, but know that you won't be

able to use it with your film camera or any other full frame sensor. I have a 17-40L and

it's great on my 20D but I'm really wanting the 10-22 right about now. The 17-40L

worked great with my friend's 1DmkII though. If you don't want to cart around a ton of

stuff then the 17-85 IS seems like a good travel/vacation lens. For the same money as the

17-40L or the 10-22 you can get the 17-85 and a nice prime for portraits and speed like

the 50mm 1.4 or an 85mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>My widest lens was a 28-x zoom (the 28-105 first, then the 28-135) from when I got my first EOS body in 1997 until three months ago. There are times when I want to go wider than 28, but they're relatively few and far between.</p>

 

<p>So in preparation for going digital this year, I added the 17-40 in December. From several years of experience with my 28-x zooms on film bodies, I know this lens will be wide enough for me almost all of the time. I may eventually add something wider but the 17-40 will do the job for now. I also plan on keeping the film body, at least for a while, and this lens gives me the option of a wider lens on the film body for the relatively few times I need it.</p>

 

<p>Is the 28-105 wide enough for you on a film body? If so, then you don't need the 10-22 (at least, not yet), but you do need a 17-x. The 17-40 is widely regarded as a fine lens. The 17-85 is newer and has more of a range of reviews, but the majority opinion seems to be that it's probably of comparable optics to your 28-105 (maybe a bit better or worse, but not a great deal better or worse), and of course it has IS which is wonderful, and its zoom range is very useful (28-135 equivalent, where as the 17-40 is 28-64 equivalent) but it's awfully expensive for what it is.</p>

[ryanjoseph]

If you do not wish to go wider than 28mm equivalent, then I would heartily recommend the Tokia 17mm F3.5 AT-X Pro. Mine has been nothing but a joy to use.

 

However, as the others have suggested. Use your gear first, get familiar with the crop factor and how it affects you, and then decide on what lens you would truly need at the wide end. Your current gear is fine. If you want to experiment at the wide end on a budget, get the 350D or 20D with the EF-S 18-55mm lens. It is pretty sharp and wide, so it should serve your wider needs perfectly until you decide what to do. I decided I needed a prime at that same focal length... but of course you have diffrent needs than me!

[pbizarro]

Use the 28mm end of your lens with the film camera.

[johnb]

Suprith to get what the 28-105mm did on you Rebel you would need a 17-40Lmm (17 x 1.6 =27.2). I also own the 28-105 and when the 17-40L came the 28-105 got retired (kept for occasional use).

<br>

I recommend the 17-40L f/4 it truly is an "L" lens (and usable on many Canon bodies).<div></div>