I am second to scalvert. I happen to have this very exact combo. 17-40mm is a no brainer to me. It is... well, what else do you need in this range?
for 100mm/70-200. I'd say go for the 70-200. It is versatile. It is a do-it-all lens. I use mine to do sports, moon shots, birds shots and portraits and many many more. boy, I love this little white lens. It is light but not very light. It is light enough to ignore it with my 350D. I often mount it on my camera, go mountain hiking for hours....
Do you need 100mm? I don't know, but I am buying it now. I have been locking on this sharp macro prime for a while. However, I will never trade my 70-200 for 100mm for sure. (if money is not an issue and the weight/size is not a problem to you, go with the 70-200 2.8L. Here is why, when you shoot in dim condition, the extra stops helps, a lot. Also when you need to have a longer reach, just get a 1.4x or 2.0x extender. again, extra stops help. with f4, you are limited. you can not increase the reach by using extenders, if you still want to get sharp images.)
so go for 17-40/70-200 for now, you will not regret. no way. and 100mm is an necessory addition to your collections. you will need it later. |
