matthijs

Uhmm... just firing from the hip: the new IS version of the kit lens is reported to be great. (And cheap.)

Furthermore you should indeed think about the type of pictures you take, the ones you find beautiful and how you could make them better. Either through better technique or through better glass.

Better technique (and composition!) is 66% of better pictures.

The remaining 1/3 lies in buying the best glass you're willing to pay for and lug around. (Most of the really cool lenses people rave about are pretty heavy which might not be your cup of tea.)

With regard to the concert lens, the 100/2 is of a midrange price, highly rated and very lightweight.

If I would be shopping for lenses I'd compare actual pictures taken by interesting lenses on this site or pbase.

Regards,

Matthijs.

Some notes:

If you try to make money with photography it might be wiser to have several 2GB memorycards so if one dies just a part of your pictures is gone.

I second the two bodies option. An idea could be to get a FF body so your 24-70 becomes a moderate wideangle.

I second the idea of getting a longer lens. The question is whether you want to go for flexibility with a 100-400 or quality with a 300 or 400 prime. For added range a x1.4 could be useful. (Another cheaper option would be a Tamron 200-500 or a new Sigma 150-500 OS.)

What would the macro use be? Is x0.25 enough, x1.0 or do you need x5.0? The first can be attained with "normal" lenses, the second with EF-s 60, EF 100 or 180, the third leaves only the specialized macro lens.

Regards,

Matthijs.

Daniel,

This may seem a simple answer however I feel that I must give it: just do it.

If it does not meet your demands you can always go to the store and buy a new lens.

The IQ of the 180 is very high so it will depend on your style of street photography whether you'll need faster focus or zoom.

By the way, some people say that you should do street photography with a standard lens (around FF 50mm) however I prefer a longer zoom: 70-200 on a crop body.

Regards,

Matthijs.

Gentlemen,

It has not become a flamewar but the discussion got pretty vocal, thanks for that.

I'll try to react/answer to each post in order.

Bryan:

Your take is in the line of my thinking, the wow factor is very much about color and contrast.

Sharpness and focal length are of course an issue but the thing that grabs me is the play of light and color.

The remarks about not using an EF-s on a FF or the 16-35 I am aware of but the first is not probable in the near future and the 16-35 is, among other things, above my photography budget.

Trebor:

Copy variance sure is an issue, luckily I have a very service oriented store nearby. (Plus bad copies happen maybe 1 in 40 to 1 in 1000.)

Sharpness is not the wow factor.

Brian:

Totally agree.

Dan:

The 17-40 and the 17-55 both fit the gap in my kit for my purposes.

(400D, Sigma 18-200, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 70-200 F4L IS)

Paul:

Primes are cool but not too practical, I like my 50/1.8. After buying a wide zoom I'll probably lust for a F1.4 standard lens...

Peter:

True some are taken on FF's but I try not to look at them because the angle of view is way different. So each time I look at a beautiful picture I check wether it's made on a crop body.

Dan:

Primary use will be landscape, architecture and walk around.

Sarah:

Good to know it's doing it's thing.

Dan:

The sharpened picture look very nice. I just started sharpening in canon's DPP, noise reduction when moderately used is great too.

The pic's with the 17-40 look good to me. I won't be using FF in the near future but even there the lens holds up good I think.

Kenneth:

I know all of that but still think I'll buy the 17-40. The weight, ruggedness, internal zoom and focus, probable resell value and perceived liveliness of the pictures are important to me. (Whether the last is imagination or true I'm not sure but pictures to me are taken with the soul...)

Harold:

I'm not sure what you're saying. The first led me to expect you were going to make negative comments on the 17-40 and then you compliment it.

I like the pictures as well, though some are (on purpose?) a bit soft focus to me.

In short, though you all haven't exactly confirmed my observation you did strengthen my belief that the 17-40 is the right choice for me.

As I am currently still repairing the dent in my bank account that my new 70-200 F4L IS left it will probably be quite a while before I'll actually buy it.

Regards,

Matthijs.

http://album.zoom.nl/user/Thijs1301

Just a few thoughts:

On a crop body you might want to use a smaller lenshood on your 24-70. (If that's your biggest gripe...)

Otherwise: looking at a lot of pictures taken with other (smaller lenses) my first choice would be the 17-40L and my second choice, if I really needed the f2.8, would be the Tamron 17-50.

I haven't researched the EF 24-85 but who knows...

Regards,

Matthijs.

Gentlemen,

Although I've read quite some postings on this forum in which these lenses were

compared nobody mentioned this difference.

In most postings the 17-55 "wins" against the 17-40.

(Although the 17-40 has internal zoom and more rugged buildquality it loses on

focal range and IS.)

However when comparing pictures on sites like pixel-peeper, pbase and the like it

seems to me that the 17-40 has better color rendition and more of a "wow" factor.

There are several explanations possible:

1. I am biased for whatever reason.

2. The 17-40 owners are better at post processing.

3. There's a real difference.

4. Another reason I didn't think of.

What is your experience or opinion.

(I prefer experience but will settle for opinion.)

Thanks in advance,

Matthijs.

P.S. I own neither lens but might buy one of these the coming year.

P.P.S. Please only post reactions regarding color rendition, wow-factor or gut-

feeling. A comparison of specifications, numbers and technical tests is not what I

am looking for.

Travis,

You might want to look at the Sigma 30mm/1.4 which is around $400 and is a very good low light lens.

Most other options are mentioned by previous posters.

Maybe you'll need two fast primes, a wide and a standard. The wide option should be somewhere between 14 and 20 mm I think, the standard between 30 and 35mm like the Sigma I already mentioned.

Regards,

Matthijs.

Dear Nelson,

Indeed your flickr page is filled with cool pictures so the photographer's eye does not seem to be the issue. I also think the Xti (400d) is not the issue, that camera is quite capable of making beautifull pictures.

That leaves the lenses and the skill with the camera. Starting with the first: you should be able to make nice pictures with the 50/1.8 as that lens has a pretty good image quality. The kitlens, if it is the non-IS version, is not too good. If the kitlens is the IS version than it is good enough for nice pictures. (You could of course always do better by buying a 17-40L -great colors-, a EF-s 17-55 -f2.8, IS- or similar quality lens.)

That leaves your skill with the camera. If you know how to play with aperture and depth of field, know how to change the auto focus to a single spot to single out your subject and you are able to do RAW conversions than that should also be o.k.

I do not own the Sigma 30/1.4 but it is on my "wanted list".

The ultra wide aperture combined with the natural angle on a crop body and the high image quality make it very attractive.

If these are the reasons for you to consider it than it's a good buy. However if your need is not fueled by a wish for a sharp ultrafast lens you should try to explore / explain in more detail what you need.

Hopefully my answer helps in your quest, regards,

Matthijs.