Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Which walkabout lens?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Warriorpoet
13 Dec 2009 - 11:23 PM

Hello all.

I currently have 3 lenses with my 40d

Sigma 10-20 (bought with camera)
Canon35mm f2 (make do walkabout)
Magic Drainpipe (ebay bargain I couldn't resist)

I have got to the point where I really need and can nearly afford to fill in the gap between the siggy and the 35mm and/or the siggy and the drainpipe.

I want to go full frame one day so I am looking at EF lenses, one to replace the sigma in time as FF wide angle and a walkabout.

I am looking at the 17-40 and the 24-70 Canon Ls.

The questions are which first? Or should I buy neither and keep saving given the rumours of the 24-70 IS (which will drive the price of the non IS down) and also the 12-24L EF that is rumoured that could replace the siggy straight off.

I am really only primarily interested in landscapes.

Any thoughts gratefully received.

Dave

Last Modified By Warriorpoet at 13 Dec 2009 - 11:24 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
13 Dec 2009 - 11:23 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

cameracat
cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
13 Dec 2009 - 11:38 PM

Primary interest landscapes = Canon 17-40 f/4 L.....Simples...Smile

strawman
strawman  1022002 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
13 Dec 2009 - 11:43 PM

I use a 17-40 as my walk around lens and find it a good partner to the 10-20. I often find myself preferring wider angle lenses so it is a good standard lens for me.

I do not have the 24-70, but I do know it has an excellent reputation. so you could buy either.

Or you could get the 24-105.

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
Warriorpoet
13 Dec 2009 - 11:48 PM

Thanks guys MPB seem to have a glut of 17-40s and if they drop the price again I think I will be unable to resist.

I might well go for the 105 as from what I can gather image quality is about the same as the 24-70 and the extra money is probably for the f2.8 which I wouldn't use anyway.

stevie
stevie e2 Member 101198 forum postsstevie vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
14 Dec 2009 - 7:17 AM

The 24-105 is a very good 'walk around' lens which I've enjoyed using for a few years. I'm sure it would be a good partner to your 10-20 Sigma.

User_Removed
14 Dec 2009 - 7:21 AM

Landscapes = 17-40
Walkabout = 24-105

Gerry.

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
14 Dec 2009 - 11:24 AM

On a full frame camera, such as the 5D, I would choose the 24-105 as a 'walk around' lens (or 24-70, but that is getting a bit heavy).

For a crop camera such as the 40D, I would go with the 17-40 instead.

Warriorpoet
14 Dec 2009 - 4:35 PM

Thanks all.

I am decided on the 17-40 first off. I use the 35mm quite a bit and I think the range between that and the sigma will be what I want most.

KathyW
KathyW  101793 forum posts Norfolk Island12 Constructive Critique Points
14 Dec 2009 - 5:26 PM

I think you'd be happy with the 17-40, you may well find you won't be using the Sigma 10-20 much in the future Smile

Scuse my ignorance, but what is a magic drainpipe? The drain in my yard keeps overflowing - would a magic drainpipe be any help?

colin beeley
colin beeley e2 Member 111070 forum postscolin beeley vcard England10 Constructive Critique Points
14 Dec 2009 - 5:26 PM

canon ef 28/300 L IS Wink

colin beeley
colin beeley e2 Member 111070 forum postscolin beeley vcard England10 Constructive Critique Points
14 Dec 2009 - 5:31 PM

magic drain pipe

Last Modified By colin beeley at 14 Dec 2009 - 5:33 PM
KathyW
KathyW  101793 forum posts Norfolk Island12 Constructive Critique Points
14 Dec 2009 - 5:36 PM

Oh... wouldn't do much for my gutters then... Smile

28-300 L IS sounds interesting, also sounds rather heavy & expensive Sad

stevie
stevie e2 Member 101198 forum postsstevie vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
14 Dec 2009 - 6:00 PM

I tried a 28-300 once - it's a bit of a compromise as you'd expect and the image quality is just not quite what I would call L-series, if you know what I mean. And its big and heavy, although it does cover a large range.

NeilS
NeilS e2 Member 7828 forum postsNeilS vcard United Kingdom
14 Dec 2009 - 6:25 PM

Have you considered the light cheap/fast autofocusing as well as fast aperture 85mm 1.8 or 100mm f2 prime they would be hard to beat for something slightly longer which you may need on full frame.

Alternatively the 24-105 if its wide enough for your landscape and perhaps a 135 f2, which with a 1.4x TC could make your magic drainpipe redundant.

Warriorpoet
15 Dec 2009 - 12:13 AM

Kathy

The drainpipe is the 80-200 2.8L forerunner to the various 70-200Ls.

I got mine for less that the 70-200L F4 Smile

Neil

I think the 24-105 will be on my shopping list somewhere down the line.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.