jake_hilleary

<p>Macro</p><div></div>

<p>Bliss</p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>The boys were disturbed, but it was worth it (if only for my amusement).</p><div></div>

<p>Outhouse</p><div></div>

<p>Ski tracks</p><div></div>

<p>Winthrop, WA</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Dennis, much appreciated.</p>

<p>3</p><div></div>

<p>2</p><div></div>

<p>Oops</p><div></div>

<p>Annual New Years trip to my family's cabin in Winthrop, WA.</p>

<p>Lake Washington from Marina Park</p><div></div>

<p>Levitation?</p><div></div>

<p>Newest member of the family.</p><div></div>

<p>stormy sunset</p><div></div>

<p>Skippin' rocks and drinkin' beer (Lummi Island)</p><div></div>

<p>Special Olympics Soccer</p><div></div>

<p>My friend decided to make a sarcastic online dating profile and asked me to take the photos. This was one of the keepers. </p><div></div>

<p><strong>Barbed wire</strong></p><div></div>

<p>First time poster here. This photo was (clearly) inadvertent - I was in the grass attempting to take family photos when my dog Guinness decided that he would like a portrait done.<br>

<a href="http://jakehilleary.smugmug.com/Other/Canon-Thursday-Photo/23027367_7Qqsg5#!i=1852339301&k=ZRmTwSB"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://jakehilleary.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZRmTwSB/0/O/i-ZRmTwSB.jpg" alt="" /></a><br>

50D 17-55 f/2.8</p>

<p>This seems to be going overwhelmingly in the direction of the 17-55, which must be for a reason. Thanks for the opinions everyone, I think the 17-55 must be the best option.</p>

<p>I'll start by apologizing for the relatively cliche question, but I've searched these forums endlessly and still haven't

found my answer. I recently purchased a 17-40L as a "general purpose" lens for my 50D, and I've been very pleased

with the image quality. However, I'm now realizing that the limitations are too obvious to be ignored. When I was

originally searching for an all-around lens, I briefly considered the 17-55, but didn't know enough about it, and was

turned off by the price. Also, I thought that I might some day go full frame, but I am really loving the 1.6 crop at this

point, so this is no longer a deciding factor. As far as the 17-40 goes, the f/4 aperture is not cutting it, I do a lot of l

ow light work and I need something with 2.8. Also, the reach is obviously pretty short, and I'd like to extend it. I've h

eard great things about the 17-55, and the build quality issues and/or dust stories don't really bug me much, I'm not a

professional photographer and I don't necessarily need it, although it is nice to have. The 24-70 sounds very a

ppealing, besides the question of whether or not 24 is wide enough on a crop frame. Well, I have a Sigma 10-20 that I

use often, and I don't usually mind switching lenses. So if I really need that wide end, I can always switch over, plus t

he extra 55-70 on the long end would be nice, I also do a lot of outdoor photography. I've also set my 17-40 at 24mm i

ndoors to see if I would miss the wide end, and I could definitely get used to 24 if I had too, the 24 vs 17 difference d

oesn't startle me. Also, does the 17-55 get great saturation/contrast like the 24-70? Besides this here are the d

ifferences that I can see: price, weight, L reputation and build quality. Most importantly, if I decide to save s

ome money and get the 17-55, will I EVER wish that I had waited for the 24-70? Sorry for being long-winded, I j

ust wanted to get the entire situation out there!</p>

<

p> </p>

<

p>(Also, this is my current lens set up: Sigma 10-20, Canon 17-40L f/4, Canon 50 f/1.8, Canon 70-200 f/4)<

/p>

<

p> </p>

<

p>I'd love some opinions!</p>

<

p> </p>

<

p> </p>�

<p>Wow I'm actually surprised by the responses so far, I'm glad I asked. Nathan, what body are you shooting with? I have the 50mm f/1.8 and it's been great, but I find it's not wide enough for indoor shooting (on my 50D). On a full frame it would be perfect. I saw a suggestion for a 24 2.8, 28 1.8, or 35 2.0. This was my original plan, what does everyone else think?</p>

<p>So I've seen plenty of comparisons for the Canon 17-55, Tamron 17-50, and Sigma 18-50, so I have a fairly good idea of where they stand. Here's my problem...</p>

<p>I was looking for an upgrade to my 18-55 kit lens for my xsi, and ended up buying the 17-40 L (which I realize is a full frame lens), primarily due to budget reasons, but also because I was considering going to full frame in the future. However, I recently bought a 50D and I'm just thrilled with it. So, seeing as I might be sticking with crop frames for awhile, the 17-40 is looking far less useful. I definitely don't have money for an upgrade now, but I'm looking for opinions for the future.</p>

<p>The 17-40 has been excellent for outdoor shooting, and I've even managed to take some great indoor shots, but the extra stop would be very useful. I <em>do</em> prefer the build quality of the L series, but I'd be willing to part with it for a better lens.</p>

<p>Here are my options:</p>

<p>1) Save for a few months, sell my 17-40 (parting with the build quality and weather sealing, plus the option to go full frame) and buy a 17-55.</p>

<p>2) Save for a few months, buy the Tamron 17-50 (or Sigma 18-50?) and keep the 17-40 for outdoor use.</p>

<p>3) Save for a LONG time, buy the 17-55, and keep the 17-40 for outdoor use and full frame compadibility.</p>

<p>Any other creative options would also be acceptable.</p>

<p>Your opinions please...go!</p>