Type of Photography: General Purpose/Family Shots, Landscape, Some Mountain Biking and Snowboarding action.
Possible General Lens Choices:
EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
EF 24-105 f4 L IS USM
EF 24-70 F2.8 L USM
Telephoto
Probably will end up being EF 70-200 f4 IS USM to compliment one of the above.
So the big question is, which general lens to go for (Bearing in mind, I am only really considering Canon lenses)
Given the possible choices would I be missing too much at the wide angle end of the "L" lenses for family/general/landscape shots? Will I suffer with F4 when shooting the action stuff as opposed to the f2.8 options? And is the lack of IS on the 24-70 a drawback? Will I be a bit short changed at the Zoomed in end of the 17-55 for general purpose shots?
Please help me decide. I really want to place an order!!!!
If you want a single lens for walking around/travel, I think you'd be hard pressed to beat the flexibility of the 18-200 ... most of the pictures I took when Heli-skiing in Utah and many from an Antarctica cruise were shot with that.
Sure, it's not as "good" as the other lens (11x zoom has tradeoffs), but if you are mountain biking & snowboarding, you probably don't want to carry extra gear ...
Which lens do you have now? Do you often finding yourself wishing you had more reach? If not, then 17-55 IS all the way (the shots with that lens consistently blow me away).
Depends on what your subjects are. I choose the 20/f2.8 or 35/f2 for "walking around" because they are light, fast and work great with the 1.6x crop for snapshooting. More often than not I find the need for fast glass rather than slow zooms, but that's me.
I originally went with the 17-55 f2.8 IS, which I loved. I wanted more reach, though, and this Christmas my wife surprised me with the 24-105 f4 IS. Not only has the 24-105 has become my new walkaround lens, but I haven't even mounted the 17-55 since Christmas. I'm even seriously considering selling it.
Yes, it one stop slower and not as wide, but for what I shoot the extra reach is worth it.
What about low light, no flash? You might find yourself wishing you had the extra stop of an f2.8. Adding IS, and you've got a great lens for indoor natural light. For landscape, 17mm beats 24mm in many situations. For me, I'd easily pass on the extra reach of the 24-105 and get the 17-55,
If indoor and\or natural light is not high on your list, then the 24-105 may be a more cost effective option, if you don't want the 17mm. And it can be used on a FF.
For landscape and a general walk around, the 16-35 is very usefull on a 1.6 crop. I used one all around Disney recently. Sure there were a few times I would have liked the extra reach of a 105, but I don't think I missed the 70mm of my 24-70. The 16 was a better option most of the time.
24-105L. I just couldn't bring myself to drop more than a grand on a non-L, EF-S lens. I just upgraded to full frame and am ecstatic that I made that choice. The 24-105L is incredible on FF!
17-55 without a doubt. Even if you plan to go FF as this lens does not drop much in value at all. In fact if I were to sell mine I would get more money than I paid for it (I bought it second hand).
if and when you go FF, you can sell it for a couple hundred less than you bought it for, and can consider it a rental fee. (250 bucks for a one-year rental is pretty cheap.)
I would go with 24 -70 from the OP's options especially if he is planning to get a 70-200. Also f2.8 over IS = better imho.
The 17-40L on a crop body is another good possibility with the beneft of saving some dosh for something else EF 70-200 f2.8 USM or a fast prime for family portraits.
