yohan81718

Which lens would you go for on 40D?

17-55 IS
-wider angle
-IS
-slightly cheaper (about $150 cheaper)

24-70 L
-[RED]red stripe[/RED]
-quality of L lens



I have one prime lens, 50mm f/1.4, so I'm leaning towards 17-55 right now and down the road, 70-200 f/2.8 L... but I would like some opinions from you guys (especially for those who have used either of the lenses)

Billiam

By most accounts, the only reson the 17-55 isn't an L lens is because it's EF-S. If you have no particular plans to go full frame any time soon, then I'd say the 17-55 wins. 24 on a cropped body is almost cerainly going to leave you wanting to go wider.

danny25

24 just isn't wide enough on a cropped body, unless you have the 10-22 already.

ChodTheWacko

I suppose I would go 17-85. Depends on how long term you get.

I currently have the 10-22 / 24-70 / 70-200 combo and I think I'm set for life.
24 * 1.6 = 38mm which actually isn't -too- bad, but it'll be annoying.

Dan Martin

17-55 all day long

waTSX

24mm just ain't wide enough.

svtmike

My favorite lens on my Nikon.

CCColtsicehockey

same. I would says its on my camera 80% of the time.

itrhybrid

iTrader: (1)

I'll go against the grain on this one and say the 24-70. I ran that on my 30D for a year and loved it. Now that I have the 5D, it's that much better. If you ever step up to the 5D, you'll wish you had the 24-70.

Dan Martin

The 24-70 is on your 5D is as good as the 17-55 is on the 30D.

I had both for my 30D and the 17-55 was the keeper. If I was shooting a 1 series or a 5D, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up the 24-70 though.

tuan209

Bingo! I had this lens on my 30D, and I simply loved it. I recently just sold it though as I think I will upgrade to a 5D.


Dan,

Will you go FF soon?

Dan Martin

If you asked me a month ago if I wanted to go full frame anytime soon, I'd probably say I was on the fence. However, after going through the images we took on our honeymoon last month with our two 30D's, I'm very happy with what we have now. Especially when I consider what it would cost for us to switch both bodies and replace the EF-S lenses we have now.

At a minimum, we would need two 5D's, a 16-35, a 24-70, and something longer to make up for loss of reach we get from the 70-200 on the cropped body. Probably a 300 f/4 or a 100-400 would be the cheapest route to go. That's an easy $9K worth of gear just to get to the coverage we already have, and we'd probably get $3K for the stuff we would need to replace on the used market. So at the end of the day, it would be about $6,000 for us to upgrade.

I think I'd rather spend the $6K on another trip (or two) and use what we already have while we're there. The 30D's were workhorses on our trip and renewed my confidence in their abilities.

sixsixfour

17-55 hands down. unless you are going to FF anytime soon, this is as good as it gets for a handheld/walkaround lens.

Mizouse

Dan so you have a 10-22 and 17-55? do those go well together?

cause i was thinking since i am going to get a 10-22 that it would go better with the 24-70 than the 17-55

ChodTheWacko

Definitely get the 24-70. It pairs with your current kit better.


I see a lot of people saying, 'if you don't plan on doing full frame anytime soon.....' But you need to think longer term. A good lens will last you 10 years, easy. I have a fantastic lens that is 19 years old.
So the question is, will you ever go full frame? We all cry for 'better pixels, not more pixels'. Let's face it - better pixels = Full frame. To me the Nikon D3 approaches the holy grail - big ass pixels on a full frame sensor. So that is the direction I see myself going. I can easily see myself going full frame in say, 6 years or so. I almost went for the 5D as is.

If full frame is eventually in your future, getting the 17-55 means one more lens to replace in the future, which as dan pointed out, makes it that much harder. (If you want an ultrawide, you have to get an EFS too).
If you only want a one lens solution, then you'll probably want the 17-55. Or perhaps the 17-85, since that's a nicer range. (trading off lens range for pure quality).
If you are willing to go two lenses, I'd say get the 24-70, and later spring for the 10-22 if you really want wide angle. 24 * 1.6 = 38mm, which is fine. Practically the same as 99% of the point and shoots.
I think having both a Full frame body and a crop sensor body would be a wonderful combo, along with lenses that work with both.

Anyway, just wanted to throw more out there to confuse you.

- Frank

Mizouse

right now i have the 18-55, 50mm 1.8 and 70-300 IS,

i really just want to replace the 18-55 lens, but at the same time i would like to get the 10-22 because i can see myself using a UWA lens.



and i would like to goto full frame sometime in the future, but if i can get good enough coverage on a 1.6crop camera then i see no need to switch.

ChodTheWacko

I think eventually you'll want to float towards:
10-22 / 24-70 / 70-300.

Do you shoot more on the wide side, or the zoom side right now?
Getting just one of those for a while is fine till you get the other:

Both : 10-22 / 50 / 70-300
and 18-55 / 24-70 / 70-300

are pretty reasonable combos.

- Frank

danny25

lenses don't really depreciate that much. So replacing them in the future isn't that big of a deal especially if you got good use out of it. As long as it's still in good shape you'll recover most of your cost. So go for the 17-55 even if you do plan to upgrade to FF down the road.

yohan81718

Thanks for all the inputs guys. I don't think it's that much of "investing" even if I decide to go full frame. Since I just bought my 40D, I don't plan on going to 5D or 7D (rumor) anytime soon... will keep this one for another good 2~3 years. I feel like I should buy what I would get more out of at the moment than in the future. By the time I get full frame, I'm quite sure 24-70 will have IS and slightly larger focal range (just like how it was 28-70, then 24-70 was introduced).

So, I decided to go 17-55 IS and batter grip for this winter's double rebate offer ^^

waTSX

Good choice yohan. You'll be happy with the lens. It's a very high quality piece, with great sharpness, color and contrast, and you just can't beat IS. Combined with your 40D, you'll have an outstanding rig.

Dan Martin

I had the 10-22 with the 24-70, but replaced I replaced it with the 17-55 and it's a much better combo. There's nothing wrong with having a little overlap, it saves you from switching lenses. The 24-70 is just not wide enough or long enough on a cropped body, so I found it kind of awkward. The 17-55 is a better length for a walk around.

Dan Martin

Especially if you buy used to begin with. My 24-70 was used and I sold it for almost exactly what I paid for it a year later.

For me, it's not that I would lose money on selling my gear if I were to upgrade to a full frame kit, it's just that the full frame equivalents of the lenses (and bodies) I have now are much more money.

Mizouse

actually now that i had some use in the field, i found the 55 to be too short, but then again i could've just as easily and should have recomposed and moved closer to the speaker.

i found myself putting on the 70-300 and standing very far back, when instead i should have just got in close and photographed the speaker for the event i shot at.

Dan Martin

I just switch to my 70-200 when I need reach, but I find that I need "wide" more than "long" when I walk around.