Choices are always difficult

[Bryant]

Ive saved about 1k and im looking into buying a lens to add to my collection. At the moment I have my 70-200 to fit my sports needs, a 50 f/1.8 for portraits and my 28-135 for a walk around. I have been thinking of the 24-70 f/2.8 to make the L combo and get rid of my 28-135 for some extra cash. It would give me great coverage. Would it be smarter to get a very short, along the lines of 10-22 due to my crop body? Please advise me, as I'm open to any suggestions.

Thanks

 

[usayit]

* Have you shot at 28mm and wished you could wider? If so, then yes.... you might want to consider adding a wider zoom to your collection.

* IMO, the 24-70 f/2.8L is a wonderful lens but not particularly great as a walk around lens. Heavier than your 28-135IS as well as short in focal range.

The only way to really determine which lens will serve you best is if you first ask yourself what you need; Wider, faster, longer etc...

 

[Overread]

Firstly I would try walking around with your 28-135 as if it were a 28-70mm lens. The 24-70mm is a sharper lens so the image quality will improve, but you might find that walking around you prefer the slightly longer focal range.
As for the 10-20mm that lens is a different kettle of fish - instead of enhancing the quality you get with the existing kit its expanding what you are capable of taking - and whilst its a bit too short for prolonged portrate work (it gives and interesting effect, but few want that effect all the time in portrate) it is a brilliant landscapers lens.
Also consider the sigma 10-20mm lens - which is a very popular choice since it is on par with quality with the canon and yet is far cheaper.

 

[frXnz kafka]

Other than the fact that your 28-135 is not an L lens, what don't you like about it?

If you like the focal length, but want a better quality lens, consider the 24-105 f/4L

If you wish it was wider, and don't find yourself using the long end, consider a 17-40 f/4L (or the 16-35 f/2.8 if you've saved up a lot)

If the wide end is wide enough, you aren't using the long end, and you want something faster, consider the 24-70 f/2.8L

If you like your 28-135, but want to test out the ultra-wide waters, consider something in the 10-20 range (I would suggest the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8)

 

[JerryPH]

Do you find yourself wishing you had a UWA or similar? Would taking pics like this interest you?


(Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 lens)

If yes... yeah, you need a 10-20mm, but if not and your interests are elsewhere, that 24-70 is an excellent range on either a cropped or full sensor.

It depends on what you are looking for and what your needs/desires are.

 

[Big Mike]

The 24-70m F2.8 L, can be a great lens, although I've heard from some 'pixel peepers' who say the focus is often off. But it's a big heavy lens, it's nick name is 'The Brick'...maybe not something to carry around all day.

Also, I personally feel that 24mm just isn't wide enough for me, on a crop body. Try it yourself and see if you like it.

I would recommend something in the 17-50mm range. That is basically what the 24-70mm lens was designed for, but on film cameras.

The 'best' lens in this range is the Canon EF-S 17-50mm F2.8 IS. It's expensive for a non L lens, but the optical quality is up to L standards. Unfortunatly, the build quality, while good, is not up to L.

For significantly less, you can get the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 or the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8m which are both very good for the price you pay.

If having a large aperture isn't all that important to you, I'd suggest the EF-S 17-85mm IS. It's basically the same lens as your 28-135 IS...but wider for crop bodies.

The 10-22mm (or similar Sigma etc) are great...but are Ultra wide angle. They are great if you like or need that...but might not be so good for every day use.