The should I get _____ lens question

[klechak photography]

So I have the canon 40D. If I decide to keep it, it will be coming to europe with me. I have the 28-135 right now and I

would eventually replce it with the 70-200L. Which combo should I go with?

Either:

 

17-40L, and a 50mm (1.4) or 60mm

 

OR

 

10-22, and a 50mm (1.4) or 60mm

 

Thanks for your help all!

Colin

[tdigi]

Do you think a full frame camera is in your near future? If not how about just a Canon EF-S 17-55 IS 2.8 or Tamron 17-50

2.8?

 

But if I had to pick from your 2 choices, It sounds like you like wide and if thats the case I would probably go for option 2. I

personally don't see 17-40 at f4 that useful on a crop body but many love it.

[klechak photography]

That is exactly what I was thinking.. if I go full frame It wont be for 2-3 maybe even 4 years. SO then the 50 or the 60

[anders_carlsson]

As you no doubt realize the 17-40 and 10-22 are very different kinds of lenses. Noone can reply decisively since your

choice depends on your own photographic style. Having said that, I can only add that a standard zoom is very handy

but not always all that exciting to use in an urban environment (if that's where you're going). I could easily do with an

ultra-wide zoom and a 24/28/35mm prime combo (on a 1.6x crop body). Or with either one alone.

[klechak photography]

mostly shooting in urban environments. I would like to add a little wide to my set. I have the 28-135 and will replace that in time.

[tdigi]

Colin since you have the 28-135 why not just add the 10-22. that makes for a nice kit. I have the 24-105 and I am doing the

same. I just cant make up my mind between the 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16.

 

Maybe then just ad a 50 1.8 or 1.4 to the mix and you got a great set of lenses that cover anything.

[rj russell]

For all around good coverage the 17-40, 50 or 60 plus the 70-200 would be fantastic! 17-40 is a great lens and would be very well suited for most of your urban requirements, many love the 50f1.4 but it is what it is a portrait lens (a rather dull focal legnth for anything else on a crop body) and owning it myself I would opt for the 60 for its macro capability (portrait and macro in one lens= win/win).

 

On the other hand if you would like to add some drama to your urban photography while keeping the 40D, the 10-22 is a must! There is a huge diference between 10 and 17mm, and shooting ultra-wide is an art in itself. I opted for Sigma's 10-20 and it is a superb piece of glass! However I could not live with the hole between 22 and 50 or 60... therefore I'd recommend the 17-40L or 17-55 f2.8 IS and later down the road when you get itch to spend again buy that ultra-wide!

Happy Shooting (and shopping), Ryan

[kasperhettinga]

I have a set of sigma 10-20, canon 28-135 and 70-300...nice set :)

 

I would choose the 60 over the 50, as the 60 would be macro&portrait and 50 portrait only (for me).

[wayne_campbell]

Get em all. What the heck. We have to jump start this economy somehow; might as well do it right here!

[matthijs]

In regard to the 50 vs 60 discussion: if you want to play with narrow depth of field the 50 is way faster than the 60. (And that 10mm extra does not compress the DoF that much.)