| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/29/2011 09:21:39 AM · #1 |
I currently have a Canon 7D and a Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM (yes it is heavy, and yes I love it). I've recently sold a couple of lenses, so now I want to replace them but I'm not sure which way to go on lens selection. I am taking a trip to Vegas, including a Grand Canyon tour, and a trip to Hawaii in the next 2 years so that is entering into my decision process as well. Eventually I want to move up to a full frame body so I really don't want to buy EF-S lenses, so I'm debating between the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS and the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. I realize they are very different lenses, and the reason for my indecision between the two, is my 28-300. Do I buy the 24-105 as a lighter walk around alternative to the 28-300, and at the same time not getting any wider angle and duplicating part of my existing zoom range? Or do I go with the 17-40 to gain some wide angle, not duplicating almost any of my range from the 28-300, but at the same time causing myself more lens changes for any type of ranged shots?
I realize that at the beginning of my post, I said that I sold a couple of lenses and I want to replace them (not just one). The other lens I want to get is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM for macro work, thus the reason for not getting the 24-105 and the 17-40 both.
Thanks for any input.
Dan |
|
|
|
12/29/2011 09:28:46 AM · #2 |
How about the 24-105L and a 14mm L or 17tse
Message edited by author 2011-12-29 09:31:57. |
|
|
|
12/29/2011 10:24:00 AM · #3 |
I would think the 17-40 would be the way to go. Since you already have a 28-300 that you plan on keeping, the 17-40 will give you a nice landscape lens to go with it. Which is what you probably want for the locations you are visiting.
The 24-105 would certainly be a nice walkaround lens. I have the poor cousin 28-135 myself, which is a similar range and I typically leave it on my camera. I picked up the 17-40 last year to give me a wide angle lens and I find it makes a good complement. |
|
|
|
12/29/2011 10:29:21 AM · #4 |
The issue is that 17mm is not really wide on a crop body. I understand the not wanting EFs lenses - I have avoided them like the plague but I compromised on the 10-22mm for the wide. It keeps it's value pretty well if you have a look on flee-bay or fredmiranda e.t.c., so IF you want wide (not that useful for the canyon but would be in HI) then I would suggest that one as it's no where close to your 28-300.
I recently got the 24-105 and love it so far and it makes a great range especially if like me your used to 28 on the short end (I don't have the 28-300 nor do I want it... just too big but I have the tammy 28-75 as my walk about before this new one). |
|
|
|
12/29/2011 04:01:47 PM · #5 |
Yeah, the 17-40 is not very wide. If you really want a wide angle, and are planning on keeping the 28-300, I would consider the 10-22. I know it is an ef-s lens but it is a nice lens and the time you spend using it will be totally worthwhile even if you are planning a ff upgrade in a year or two. You see things in a whole new light with that wide of a lens.
And fwiw, the 24-105 is an excellent all purpose lens and what I used the most at the grand canyon but redundant if you keep the 28-300.
Go for the 10-22. You won't regret it. And honestly, how soon will you upgrade to a ff camera? It's worth buying the 10-22... really and truly.
ETA: the 10-22 does have good resale value. it's not a crappy lens by any stretch of the imagination.
Message edited by author 2011-12-29 16:03:14. |
|
|
|
12/29/2011 08:40:23 PM · #6 |
Pick up a lightly used 10 -20mm. You will be able to sell it later, with loosing much on it. Until you go full frame, this will cover the wide end. This also compliments your 28 - 300 very nicely.
The 100mm 2.8 IS L, is a great lens. Cropped body, or full frame, so a good investment. Personally I would get the non IS version. I'v had both of these models. Don't get me wrong, I loved the IS, focus speed and the better colour, but the CA and price was not welcome. I just found I lost to much detail, reducing the Ca.. My next one is the 180mm. The boken looks fantastic. Plus if you buy a tripod mount, for the 100mm IS. You're not too far, to the 180mm pricing. The 180mm includes a tripod mount. Just a thought...
Once you have full frame, sell the 10 - 20. Then get the 17-40 to complement the 28-300. From there, the sky and wallet are the limits. That's my two cents.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2011 08:49:22 PM · #7 |
Thanks to you all for your suggestions, they are appreciated.
Dan |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/31/2025 06:38:34 PM EDT.
