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

[franky_sze]

I have owned 17-40 f/4L, 50 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4L for sometime before my set of lens got stolen. That seems work pretty well. However, that was when I didn't have any other choice. My new line-up is 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4L. I'm feeling I don't need 50 f/1.8 as the range has been covered. Although I don't have f/1.8 any more, I don't need to change the lens that much. And with IS, the f/1.8 for the dark situation is not much needed.<p>

 

-- <a href=http://www.elegant-living.com>Franky @ Elegant-Living.com</a>

[jim_larson1]

I vote with Alistair. The 4L's are very versatile, and except for the 24-105/4L-IS, quite good values. BUT you still need fast primes in your bag for special uses (such as low light with moving subjects, and portraits). The 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are really good lenses.

[jon_austin]

Relatively slow (f/4L) zooms and fast primes are apples and oranges. A fast prime has more important applications than simply filling a focal length gap.

 

Besides, filling the gap between 40 and 70 with a prime doesn't make much sense if you need FL's from each of these three lenses, and you find yourself constantly swapping among them.

 

Try using just the 17-40 and 70-200 for a while to see if you actually sense a practical need to "fill the gap." And save up for a 24-70/105. You'll still want to buy some primes (I have an 85 and a 50, and I'm in the market for a 28), but they have their own uses.