[clafra]

Hi All,

I want to buy a good lens for my Canon 40D and struggle between two favourites.

I would like to buy either the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L or the Canon EF-S 17 - 55 mm F2.8 IS

Can someone give me some feedback and give me some guidance?

Thank you in advance!

Frank

[Steve400]

Hi Frank,

i got the 24-70mm as a replacement for my kit lens and absolutely love it! Quick AF and not a bad zoom range either. i use the 10-20mm and then zooms from 70mm upwards so it covered the range between them perfectly!

i'd recommend it although i've never used the 17-55 IS

[bain]

I

want to buy a 'prime' lens for my Canon 40D and struggle between two favourits.

I would like to buy either the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L or the Canon EF-S 17 - 55 mm F2.8 IS

.

Are these two lenses Primes, if i'm not mistaken a Prime lens is a single focal lenth ie 50mm,100,200,

[Dabhand16]

I think he meant a lens for primary use, not a prime focal length. A walkabout lens.

[bain]

[clafra]

Graham is right, I'm looking for a good lens for all day use.

Sorry for the confusion.

Any idea?

[bain]

Well for a walk-about lens i expect you would want to cover most focal lenths to a reasonable lenth, i don't think the 24/70 or the 17/55 fits the bill, both at f2 will give you the fast lens, but are restricted to short focal lenth areas .. but it depends on where your intrests lie.
Personally i would go for the ..depending on budget, either the sigma 18/200, or CANONS 24/105,28/135, or maybe the 28/200, I have not used any of these lenses so can't give comment on how good they are but for the focal lenth alone maybe worth considering

[bain]

oops wrong smilie

[Dave]

I was going to say the 24-105 F4 L lens would seem more suitable for everyday walkabout lens

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Dave

I was going to say the 24-105 F4 L lens would seem more suitable for everyday walkabout lens

Another vote for the above...if I could only have one lens that would be it

[Steve400]

was thinking the same, its cheaper than the 24-70mm aswell.

[P-E]

I've never owned or used a 24-105 f4 but based on the feedback from owners of the lens I would agree that it would be a very nice walk about one.

If you need the 2.8 then it would be the 24-70 over the 17-55 for me.

[M1ke A]

Originally Posted by P-E

I've never owned or used a 24-105 f4 but based on the feedback from owners of the lens I would agree that it would be a very nice walk about one.

If you need the 2.8 then it would be the 24-70 over the 17-55 for me.

Now I don't own any efs lenses but would say that if you're happy to stay with 1.6 crop bodies and the efs mount, I'd go with the 17-55 as it's wider and has IS. Cracking IQ as well.

If on the other hand you're ever likely to get a pro or full frame body, 24-70 all the way.

[clafra]

So I think it will be the 24-70, a shame that is does not have IS.

I'm not that big of a wildlife shooter though I will join a tour in February.
I like to shoot primarily landscapes and people so the 24-70 suits very well.

I then have the chance to upgrade to the 5D-II instead of buying the D700 which I look almost every day on the Web. I really don't like to shoot flash but the ISO performance of the 40D give you sometimes no other chance. I may have the chance to forward the 40D to my wife middle of next year...

I guess the add to that lens will then be the 70-200?

[Steve400]

I've never had the need for IS on the 24-70 yet but then you may shoot different subjects than me!!

yip i have the 70-200 f4, love it to bits, the f2.8 would be better if you have the £££ but the f4 is a good enough alternative for the price!

[Ali]

I'm considering upgrading my Canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM lens to the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM - having read the comments here it sounds as if the 24-105 would be a good buy

Clafra, I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and adore it. It's a fabulous lens which I use mainly for the dog work. I use it with 1.4 converter for wildlife/birds.