Which lense do you I replace it with

[korys_ins]

I currently have the 20D with EFS 17-85 and 50 1.4 I would like to

Sell EFS 17 85 with an L lens for better quality/Sharpness late this

year I will be getting the 70-200 is for Family sports Photography I

really care about the cost but it a one time thing I don?t wont to

buy one know and have to sale it later for a better lens, I like it

to be wide-angle since my other lens with be 70-200 and 50 1.4 to

complement all type of photography without having to buy another

lens later.

[mendel_leisk]

Meant in jest, no offense:

 

You the typo king!

[korys_ins]

Sorry about the mistype I should have typed it myself !@#$%^&*

[KenPapai]

Take a breath and re-type your request? ;-)

In any case, take a deeper breath, and run, don't walk and get the 16-35 2.8L then. Sounds like you are the perfect candidate for that lens.

[wingedrabbit]

Let me try to translate.

 

You currently have the 20D with an EFS17-85 and 50 1.4. You would like to replace the EFS with an L lense (maybe the 70-200 IS) for family sports photography. You're a littled worried about the cost ($1,600), but realize it's a one time cost. You're worried about better lense coming out. You also like the wide angle of the 17-85.

 

From what I here, the 70-200f2.8IS is a great lens. Don't try to chase the "Upgrade Beast." I've tried it with computers and lost. Buy what you can afford and enjoy it.

 

Also, if you're worried about loosing the wide-angle coverage, you can get the 16-35L or the cheaper 17-40.

[dk.]

I would sell the 17-85mm and get the 17-40mmf4L but if you do not need it that wide I think I would get the 24-70mmf2.8L instead or the new 24-105mmF4L IS after I have seen some reviews about it first after they come out in the next few weeks hopefully, and if you had the money as the cost is more then the 17-40mm.

 

I originally had the 17-85mm and sent it back for the 17-40mm late last year and am glad I did. Although I don't use it much yet as I have my long primes on the body most of the time. (300mm, 400mm, etc)

 

DK.

[jimstrutz]

Since this is for a 20D, and you will be getting a 70-200 f/2.8L IS later this year, I would also recommend the Canon 17-40 f/4L. If you want a faster aperuture lens, the 16-35 f/2.8L is another very good option, but far more expensive, and all you are really gaining is that one stop of brightness. Since the 20D works quite well at high ISO's the f/4 version should be fine most of the time.

 

A third choice is the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Surprisingly good for a lens of it's price & size. However, if you ever upgrade the camera to a full frame like the 5D, you will wish you had the full frame Canon lenses, like the L series.

[bens]

buy the sigma 70-200/2.8 for almost half the canon. you don't really need the canon. use the money saved to buy the 85/1.8 if you are doing indoor sports. 2.8 does not always cut it indoors, and the 85/1.8 is used for that purpose by many.

 

for wide angle, you have several choices. canon 17-40 is one often cited. many people say good things about the tamron 17-35/2.8-3.5, sigma 24-70/2.8 macro, canon 24/2.8, tokina 17/3.5, and sigma 18-50/2.8.

 

check out www.photographyreview.com for consumer reviews of lenses.

[bsd230]

I would buy the 17-40 4L would be a nice match. 17-40 4L, 50 1.4, 70-200. The 16-35 2.8L would be nice as well but its over twice the price as the 17-40 not really worth it IMO. The 17-40 is a quality lens at a good price for L glass. about $650.00

[jim_larson1]

I currently lean towards this kit: 10-22/EF-S, 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L-IS.

 

If the cost/weight of the 70-200/2.8L-IS is an issue, substitue a 70-200/4L. Just as good optically.

 

If you really don't need wide, wide, wide angle, get the 17-40/4L (or 16-35/2.8L if you have deep pockets) instead of the 24-70/2.8L.

 

If cost is an issue. . .the 17-40/4L, 50/1.4 and 70-200/4L is a good match (get the 24-70/2.8L later).

 

I do not recommend the 24-105/4L-IS because of the startling high cost/performance ratio.