Best standard-zoom?

Considering replacing the average kit-lins on my canon 350d

Which of the following should I choose if price is not considered:

Canon EF 16-35mm 2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40mm 4.0L USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 2,8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8L USM

I currently own a 70-200, so the 24-70 looks perfect? Or do I need the 17-40?

Any input is very welcome.


--

Med venlig hilsen / Best regards
Nicolai

"Nicolai" wrote in message
...

Considering replacing the average kit-lins on my canon 350d

Which of the following should I choose if price is not considered:

Canon EF 16-35mm 2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40mm 4.0L USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 2,8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8L USM

I currently own a 70-200, so the 24-70 looks perfect? Or do I need the
17-40?

Any input is very welcome.

24mm will not give much in the way of wide angle, as it's the same as a 36mm
on full frame/film. If you ever shoot landscape or architecture then every
extra wide mm counts!

Adrian Boliston wrote:
"Nicolai" wrote in message
...

Considering replacing the average kit-lins on my canon 350d

Which of the following should I choose if price is not considered:

Canon EF 16-35mm 2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40mm 4.0L USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 2,8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8L USM

I currently own a 70-200, so the 24-70 looks perfect? Or do I need the
17-40?

Any input is very welcome.

24mm will not give much in the way of wide angle, as it's the same as a 36mm
on full frame/film. If you ever shoot landscape or architecture then every
extra wide mm counts!


I have and use the 24-105 ƒ4, IS. Nice.

24mm converted is just fine; for my landscapes I generally shoot 50mm or
so.

--
John McWilliams

"Nicolai" wrote:
Considering replacing the average kit-lins on my canon 350d

Which of the following should I choose if price is not considered:

Canon EF 16-35mm 2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40mm 4.0L USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 2,8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8L USM

I currently own a 70-200, so the 24-70 looks perfect? Or do I need the
17-40?

Any input is very welcome.

I would at least consider the Canon EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM. In your
application that lens covers 27 to 135 mm while your existing lens covers
about 110 to 320 mm.

The 17-55 is certainly a good lense but in your combination it leaves a gap
between 88m and 110 mm. I would not want that particular gap but only you
can decide if that works for you.

The 24-70 is, once again, a great lense but in your combination leaves
28-38 mm uncovered. I, myself, couldn't live with that gap either. But
again, what matters, is what works for you.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Nicolai wrote:
Considering replacing the average kit-lins on my canon 350d

Which of the following should I choose if price is not considered:

Canon EF 16-35mm 2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40mm 4.0L USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 2,8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8L USM

I currently own a 70-200, so the 24-70 looks perfect? Or do I need the 17-40?

Any input is very welcome.


--

Med venlig hilsen / Best regards
Nicolai
It really depends on what sort of shooting you do. From the lenses you
listed it sounds like landscape/architectual so the wider the better.
From what I've, some the companies such as Tamrom, Tokina, Sigma, etc.
make good lenses in this categories but I would defer to people in this
group with greater knowledge and expertise in that area.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Nicolai wrote:
Considering replacing the average kit-lins on my canon 350d

Which of the following should I choose if price is not considered:

Canon EF 16-35mm 2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40mm 4.0L USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 2,8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8L USM

I currently own a 70-200, so the 24-70 looks perfect? Or do I need
the 17-40?
Any input is very welcome.

My choice would be easy, the Canon EF 16-35mm 2.8L USM, but you
asked what YOU should chose. For me every mm towards wide is
important.

That's really true. The difference betwen 17mm and 16mm is quite
pronounced, where 28mm to 29mm is minimal. Since he said money was not an
object... I'd definitely go with the 16-35 2.8 (which I did, BTW).

My only gripe with my 24-70 is that it feels too short as a carry-around
normal zoom--especially on FF.
I've been very happy with the 24-105 IS L as my basic carry-around.

I would have little use for IS on a wide-normal lens to
that would not appeal to me. Your needs and uses may be far different
than mine, that is why they make so many different lenses.

I wouldn't mind IS on my 16-35 if that were possible--especially on a
cropped sensor, where camrea shake is more easily noticed. For landscapes
on a tripod, it doesn't matter...but for shooting interiors without a
tripod, IS can really save the day...even at wide angle.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson