LENS conumdrum

[gturner]

I am looking for a new wide angle from my 50D

Current stock
18-55mm (old kits lens)
28-135mm IS USM (new kit lens)
70-200mm L F4 (new)
90-300mm (old telephoto plastic thing that still works ok)
50mm F/1.8 II


I am looking at either of 2 closely priced options, selling the 28-135mm which just isn't wide enough
17-40mm L F4
OR
15-85mm IS USM (coming out soon)

The idea would be to have the new lens on the body at all times, changing to the 50mm or 70-200mm should the situtation dictate

Having owned L glass, I am tempted to the go with the 17-40mm

The question is: will I really miss the 40-70mm range on the crop frame sensor?

[OsmosisStudios]

I'd go with the 17-40. The gap between 40 and 70 can be easily filled by the 50mm. The L glass is gonna be awesome.

[shiraq]

17-40 for sure. L.

[gturner]

Thats just the answer I was hoping for
(not that there is a wrong answer, I just need some convincing)

[thegrandpoohbah]

There's also the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 which is supposed to be a great lens. That would give you a little more reach than the 17-40. I would have bought this lens instead of my Tamron 17-50mm had I not been unemployed and broke.

[Murtasma]

17-40 F4 L I think would be a waste on a crop body. If you find how wide your kit lens goes to be acceptably wide then I would say it would be the best choice for you. If you want to go wider then your kit lens you will be limited with the 17-40. Have you considered the 10-22mm the distortion, sharpness and CA is not as well controlled as the 17-40 but you will be able to go a lot wider. Isn't that the whole point of having a wide angle lens? The 10-22 is ultra wide angle lens designed for crop bodies. The 17-40 would be equivalent to the 10-22 on a full frame body on the wide side. The 17-40 will only go slightly wider then your kit lens on your body. Working with the 18-55 I always wanted to go wider when I got a chance to use the 10-22 the focal length is what I would consider a true ultra wide angle lens for a 1.6 body.

If you ever want to go full frame you can always sell the 10-22 and make most of your money back, you can then purchase the 17-40 since they are pretty close in price.

[LoveDSLR]

Before Nikon 14-24, Canon 16-35 L and the introduction of EF-S lenses, 17-40 L was a worthwhile standard zoom for the cropped sensor bodies. That reminds me of the 28-135 IS that I sold after a month of purchase for my D30.

Consider a true UWA as Murtasma suggested.

[gturner]

I have looked at the 10-22 for a while as an additional product, not competing with this purchase. The kit is 6 years old, is slow focusing and the image is not a touch on the L lens.

I am basically looking for a walk-around wide rather than a UWA.

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by gturner

I have looked at the 10-22 for a while as an additional product, not competing with this purchase. The kit is 6 years old, is slow focusing and the image is not a touch on the L lens.

I am basically looking for a walk-around wide rather than a UWA.

Have you considered a f/2.8 zoom? Maybe a Sigma or Tamron.

[inkista]

While the 17-40 is a good choice as a walkaround, it's f/4 and has no IS. The 15-85 IS USM looks like it's built and designed more along the lines of the 17-55 f/2.8. The 17-55 is probably still the better lens, and of course, it's f/2.8 vs the much slower 15-85, but I think waiting to see what the reviews on the 15-85 look like seems a good idea. The range is very nice, and if you don't need the speed for available light/action, it may be worth the high pricetag.

The EF-S 18-135 IS, otoh, is cheaper than the 15-85, and looks like a better fit than the 28-135 IS USM on a crop body, but it's a smaller step up in optical quality than the 15-85. Might be another option, though, if the pricetag on the 15-85 is too high.

The 16-35 f/2.8L II is also a nice piece of glass, but the range may be too limited if you're used to using the 28-135 as your walkaround, and the pricetag's kind of astronomical. You might want to consider looking for the MkI or the 17-35 f/2.8L used instead. Not as sharp, but less expensive.