which combi of lens to choose?

[evilorgi]

i own a 450d now and i have the kit lens plus a 55-250mm lens. was thinking of replacing my kit lens with 17-40L. i mostly shoot cityscape/landscape @ night and occasionally portraits, wildlife and events such as car show or NDP.

i have plans of upgrading to FF in the future hence i was considering between the 2 choices of lens:
1) 17-40 f4L; 50 f1.4; 70-200 f4L IS
2) 24-70 f2.8L; 70-200 f4L IS

the dilemma now is:
1) if i were to go for option 2, i will not buy 17-40L as 17-40 & 24-70 will be duplicate focal length. but i am not satisfied with the performance of the kit lens and is looking to replace it ASAP.
2) if i were to buy a 24-70 f2.8L straight to replace the kit lens, on a 1.6x cropped body, a 24-70 will be equivalent to 38.4-112. this will be too narrow for my style of shooting.

what should i do? please advise...

[eosdigital]

I go for option 1.

[Headshotzx]

Actually, the ideal f/2.8 trinity used by professionals are the 16-35L, 24-70L and 70-200 2.8L IS, so you can see that the 24-70L is definitely one of those indispensable lenses, especially on full frame.

It's best to think of the present though, so go with the 17-40L. When you upgrade to FF in the future (are you sure you have so much money to make the jump so quickly?!) you'll then face troubles with a normal walkaround lens; that's when you'd probably want a 24-70 or 24-105L (f/4 trinity).

[evilorgi]

headshotx i see that you own a 400d with a 17-40L lens. i have read alot about 17-40 lens, most people complain about the barrel distortion @ wide end. in your opinion, is this a good lens for 1.6x cropped body? are you satisfied with the IQ? are you hampered with the lack of IS?

[evilorgi]

option 2 will cost 200 more than option 1.. however i am really attracted by the 24-70 f2.8 as it will produce very good bokeh and better ability to shoot in low light when compared to 17-40L.

however i think the lack of IS in both lenses is the main draw back for me esp if i shoot more in the dark.

[evilorgi]

Originally Posted by eosdigital I go for option 1.

care to explain more on why you will choose option 1? i do think that 24-70 will form a very good walk ard lens on a FF. what you think?

[Headshotzx]

Originally Posted by evilorgi headshotzx i see that you own a 400d with a 17-40L lens. i have read alot about 17-40 lens, most people complain about the barrel distortion @ wide end. in your opinion, is this a good lens for 1.6x cropped body? are you satisfied with the IQ? are you hampered with the lack of IS?

Barrel Distortion - What? There is distortion? Okay, there is, but it doesn't affect me at all. Much better than the 17-85mm (kit2) lens at 17mm.
Focal length on 1.6crop - 27-64mm range; perfect for a normal walkaround.
IQ - Yes, I like the IQ even though it's a tad soft at the corners. It allows much sharpening without becoming 'too sharp'.
Lack of IS - What? Why would I need IS in this lens?

Only thing that hampers me is the f/4 aperture, but hey, I can't get everything I want in one of the cheapest L lenses right? 16-35 f/2.8L costs twice as much and has more barrel distortion than I like. So I've resorted to always using (external) flash when shooting with the lens indoors.

FF very soon: 24-70, 70-200
Sticking with 1.6crop for quite some time: 17-40L + 50mm (or 85mm) + 70-200 (if needed; range is covered by 55-250 already)

[evilorgi]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx Actually, the ideal f/2.8 trinity used by professionals are the 16-35L, 24-70L and 70-200 2.8L IS, so you can see that the 24-70L is definitely one of those indispensable lenses, especially on full frame. It's best to think of the present though, so go with the 17-40L. When you upgrade to FF in the future (are you sure you have so much money to make the jump so quickly?!) you'll then face troubles with a normal walkaround lens; that's when you'd probably want a 24-70 or 24-105L (f/4 trinity).

when i upgrade to a FF i most will sell away the 17-40 and 50 f1.4 so as to fund the 24-70. 24-70 and 70-200 i think will cover most of my needs. esp 24-70 i think will serve as a amateur portrait lens and an excellent walk ard lens?

hence my current concern is that if i go for option 1, i might have trouble selling away the 2 lens in the future. plus i will 'throw' away quite a sum of money in selling it.

[eosdigital]

Originally Posted by evilorgi care to explain more on why you will choose option 1? i do think that 24-70 will form a very good walk ard lens on a FF. what you think?

Yes, on a FF that is, the 24-70 will be good.

But on the 450D, it's a perfect focal range. If i were you, i wouldnt choose the 24-70 while on 450D coz that will cripple my WA ability with the minimium 35mm.

[enkindel]

17-40L

[evilorgi]

Originally Posted by eosdigital Yes, on a FF that is, the 24-70 will be good. But on the 450D, it's a perfect focal range. If i were you, i wouldnt choose the 24-70 while on 450D coz that will cripple my WA ability with the minimium 35mm.

i see.. thanks for sharing your opinion, will take that into consideration when deciding which lens to buy...

[evilorgi]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx Barrel Distortion - What? There is distortion? Okay, there is, but it doesn't affect me at all. Much better than the 17-85mm (kit2) lens at 17mm. Focal length on 1.6crop - 27-64mm range; perfect for a normal walkaround. IQ - Yes, I like the IQ even though it's a tad soft at the corners. It allows much sharpening without becoming 'too sharp'. Lack of IS - What? Why would I need IS in this lens? Only thing that hampers me is the f/4 aperture, but hey, I can't get everything I want in one of the cheapest L lenses right? 16-35 f/2.8L costs twice as much and has more barrel distortion than I like. So I've resorted to always using (external) flash when shooting with the lens indoors. FF very soon: 24-70, 70-200 Sticking with 1.6crop for quite some time: 17-40L + 50mm (or 85mm) + 70-200 (if needed; range is covered by 55-250 already)

alright, it seems that a better choice would be to buy the 17-40L and the 50 f1.4 1st to complement my 450d and 55-250.

and even 70-200 i think i will buy only when i change to FF. d**m, this means i need to save up at least 6k to upgrade to FF as i will get FF body + 70-200 + 24-70 @ 1 shot.

thanks so much for sharing your insights on 17-40L. i think on a 1.6x body the barrel distortion is barely there, so that should not be a prob. thanks worx!!

[evilorgi]

Originally Posted by enkindel 17-40L

yeah, the most affordable L lens around...

[Benosaurous]

if i go ff, i will most likely have 24-105 as kit lens, 5D+24-70 is like doing soc when going travels! haha.

and yea, the F2.8 thrinity is every professional ideal set. But think carefully if you really need them, for they all cost more than 2k each.
If i will go FF, i will still keep my 17-40, reason being it has really good IQ and better flare, distortion control over 16-35, and F2.8 on wide angle is not my style.

My desired build will be, 450D,5D, 17-40 (walk around for 1.6x, uwa for ff) , 50f1.4 (standard portrait lens), 70-200f2.8is +2x extender for occassional reach. and 24-105 for walkaround travels on ff. of cos 24-70 if i feel rich...

my answer to your question will be,

17-40 pros
- good walk around on 1.6x, decent uwa on ff
- one of the cheapest L
- good optics, IQ, barrel distortion, flare control as good as, or some argue better than 16-35
- the lighest L lens, 450g approx. compare to 16-35II and 17-55, 650g approx, 24-70 900g approx.
- it is weather seal, inner focusing USM, no barrel protruding when zooming out or front element rotating, makes big difference if you are using filters, CPL, GND.

cons
- lack of IS, try to follow 1/focal length rule you will be safe, with F4 it is quite ok to reach that shutter
- F4, doest pose a problem at least to me, as landscape photography mostly will use the sunny 16 rule, F9, F11, F16. Use ext. flash for lowlight portraits.
- soft on the corners (still alot better than other uwa, just apply unsharp mask if too visible)

if you are not going FF, 17-55 f2.8 will answer your needs.

[engrmariano]

Originally Posted by evilorgi i have plans of upgrading to FF in the future hence i was considering between the 2 choices of lens: 1) 17-40 f4L; 50 f1.4; 70-200 f4L IS 2) 24-70 f2.8L; 70-200 f4L IS.

these one is abit though.

Originally Posted by evilorgi the dilemma now is: 2) if i were to buy a 24-70 f2.8L straight to replace the kit lens, on a 1.6x cropped body, a 24-70 will be equivalent to 38.4-112. this will be too narrow for my style of shooting.

with your shooting style, i think combo 1 will suit your needs on both format.

[chalib]

Originally Posted by evilorgi when i upgrade to a FF i most will sell away the 17-40 and 50 f1.4 so as to fund the 24-70. 24-70 and 70-200 i think will cover most of my needs. esp 24-70 i think will serve as a amateur portrait lens and an excellent walk ard lens? hence my current concern is that if i go for option 1, i might have trouble selling away the 2 lens in the future. plus i will 'throw' away quite a sum of money in selling it.

The brick (24-70) can be walk around lens if you dont mind the weight and size........

[evilorgi]

Originally Posted by Benosaurous if i go ff, i will most likely have 24-105 as kit lens, 5D+24-70 is like doing soc when going travels! haha. and yea, the F2.8 thrinity is every professional ideal set. But think carefully if you really need them, for they all cost more than 2k each. If i will go FF, i will still keep my 17-40, reason being it has really good IQ and better flare, distortion control over 16-35, and F2.8 on wide angle is not my style. My desired build will be, 450D,5D, 17-40 (walk around for 1.6x, uwa for ff) , 50f1.4 (standard portrait lens), 70-200f2.8is +2x extender for occassional reach. and 24-105 for walkaround travels on ff. of cos 24-70 if i feel rich... my answer to your question will be, 17-40 pros - good walk around on 1.6x, decent uwa on ff - one of the cheapest L - good optics, IQ, barrel distortion, flare control as good as, or some argue better than 16-35 - the lighest L lens, 450g approx. compare to 16-35II and 17-55, 650g approx, 24-70 900g approx. - it is weather seal, inner focusing USM, no barrel protruding when zooming out or front element rotating, makes big difference if you are using filters, CPL, GND. cons - lack of IS, try to follow 1/focal length rule you will be safe, with F4 it is quite ok to reach that shutter - F4, doest pose a problem at least to me, as landscape photography mostly will use the sunny 16 rule, F9, F11, F16. Use ext. flash for lowlight portraits. - soft on the corners (still alot better than other uwa, just apply unsharp mask if too visible) if you are not going FF, 17-55 f2.8 will answer your needs.

Benosaurous thanks a million for giving me such a detailed writeup of the 17-40L. now i have gain wonderful insights regarding the lens other than the reviews i read.

i agree with what you said regarding the f2.8. however one of the reasons of why i wanted a 24-70 f2.8 is because due to fact that i take portraits occasionally, if i have this 24-70 then i can make do with the 50 f1.4.

your desired build is really desirable... with the exceptions of $$$.. i think i will need to invent a money printer soon to own that listed equipments. haha.

and dont think i will consider 17-55. no doubt it's a superb piece of lens however i am really bothered by it being EF-S. it will cost me alot more if i were to choose this over 17-40L. so i suppose it's a great lens however not suitable for long term usage as i have plans to upgrade to a FF.

[evilorgi]

Originally Posted by chalib The brick (24-70) can be walk around lens if you dont mind the weight and size........

imagine 24-70 on a 5d with grip, omg.. it will be around 2kg i think??

[Garion]

I would say, if FF is in your plans in near future (say within the next 1 yr or so), go for option 2.

For the wide angle option, you can opt for a cheap 2nd hand EF-s 18-55mm kit lens to temporarily serve as your wide for the time being...until your FF body arrives. It gives decent IQ esp. when stopped down.

This is prolly what I would do....but if you do have a higher budget, you could also consider getting 2nd hand 3rd party UWA lens too like Sigma 10-20mm or Tamron 11-16mm...these cost around $600 up for 2nd hand copies.

[evilorgi]

Originally Posted by Garion I would say, if FF is in your plans in near future (say within the next 1 yr or so), go for option 2. For the wide angle option, you can opt for a cheap 2nd hand EF-s 18-55mm kit lens to temporarily serve as your wide for the time being...until your FF body arrives. It gives decent IQ esp. when stopped down. This is prolly what I would do....but if you do have a higher budget, you could also consider getting 2nd hand 3rd party UWA lens too like Sigma 10-20mm or Tamron 11-16mm...these cost around $600 up for 2nd hand copies.

i already have a 18-55 le, however i am not really satisfied with the performance hence i am seeking to change it. i think most prob 17-40 will be the replacement.. 17-55 is too ex for or a short term investment while 24-70 will be too narrow for my 450d.

thanks for your suggestions too, will consider 3rd party lens options too!!!