Looking for wider lens - need your opinion
 

Hey guys,

So I've got the 24-105mm F4 L IS lens, and so far it's been really good with great image quality, but... I find that sometimes it's not wide enough and I don't always carry my 10-22mm with me... so I was thinking of getting the 17-40mm F4 L, or maybe even trading my 24-105 for 17-40... What do you guys think? I'd be loosing a bit of zoom + the image stabilizer, but I'd be getting a wider lens. Is there another "better" option for me? Any other L series lenses you guys would recommend?

Thanks! :)

Oooh I wish I had a 24-105 L lens :D

Ooooooor you could stop being such a girl and start taking you 10-22mm out with you? I mean you bought it, why not use it? Buying new glass won't make you any better, going out and shooting will.

Thanks Kyle... thanks for your useless comment!! ;) j/k
You do make a good point though... I guess I could do that. I'm just saying there are occasions where I don't always can bring more than one lens, or don't always have time to swap the lenses and that moment for a great shot is gone cuz I didn't have wide enough lens. Ya know?

it does look like the 17-40L is a good choice..if not..the 17-55mm f2.8
its VERY similar to the 24-70L
its sharp!

Hmm... 17-55mm f2.8 could be a good choice, but I'm not sure if I want to get it just because if I ever upgrade to a full frame, I won't be able to use it. Just like my 10-22mm... but that's not gonna happen any time soon...

17-40L is as good as it gets, but depending on what you use it for. if low light go with the 16-35L

planning on picking up this set:
16-35L F2.8
24-70L F2.8
70-200L F2.8

Suuure, but the same thing can happen if you had a 17-40 mounted and needed a longer shot. Thats one of the downsides of DSLR's, but if you want better image quality than a p&s you make do. If you really want a do it all lens, why not one of the 18-200 range lenses out there? I really think you need to just stop lusting for new gear, you have similar or even better lenses than I do, its not holding you back

On a high pixel density sensor like a 50D, the 17-55 F2.8 is better than the 17-40 L for sure.

The 18-200 is not a bad idea, but then I'm giving up the L glass (if I were to trade for someone for it for example). But I think I'll stick with my setup for now and just try to bring my 10-22 with me more often... And you make a good point about not having enough zoom if it was a longer shot.

high pixel density? you mean Mega pixels?

I think he means 1.6x crop like my XTi I'm using.

im deciding if its neccesary to get a true wide angle...
the 10-22 or the tokina 11-16

my fish eye is like my camera toy..its sooo fun ><

No
No

He means pixel DENSITY, exactly what it sounds like, the 50D has more pixels on the same size sensor as the 30D,40D ect. Therefor the pixel density is higher. Megapixels just means how many pixels there are, not how many on a given size.

the 10-22 weighs nothing! if you're shooting with an aps-c cam and have a 10-22 and 24-105L theres pretty much NO reason to switch! maybe grab a fast prime or two instead?

Aaahhhh.... I get it now...

I think you're right. I may just stick with this setup and just bring my 10-22 with me "just in case".

No, high pixel density means just that: high pixel density. It means you have more pixels is a given area on the sensor compared to a full-frame sensor. If you had a FF sensor with the same pixel density as the 50D sensor, you'd have a 40-45MP sensor.

^^ and that would be pimp! And expensive... lol

... and noisey ;)

oh that makes sense now.. thanks! :thumbsup:

opps double post :(