None of the lenses you suggested are excellent in optical quality comparing with the L lenses you have, you might want to look at the EF-S 17-55/2.8 or just get a prime lens like 50mm/1.4 to use in the low light situation.
the 28-135 is not a bad lens but you may be wanting more considering what you have now.
Why not just get the body and a tamron 28-75 2.8 or trade your 17-40 and go for the 17-55 is
So, no strong recommendations on the lenses ..
I had bad experience with Tamron (28-300) so, no back to tamron ..
I have 50mm 1.8 ..
If any one have 17-55 2.8 IS and L lens (like 17-40) , to give an opinion about image quality between these two lenses, and how IS effective in short zoom range (17-55) ..
the tamrons like the 28-75 and the 17-50 (both 2.8) are sooooo much better than the superzooms, lots of lovers of those 2 lenses on here.
you could also look at the new sigma 24-70 comming soon which is supposed to be alot more compact than the current one or the 24-70L (another great lens)
My fav for travel is the 17-55 2.8. It's optically better than my 17-40 L albeit more bulky & heavy. For walkaround, I often use an EF 30 2.0: sharp, fast 'n petite.
Get a nice little prime maybe the 85 f1.8 or the 100 f2.0 to go with the 50 you have. You've got nice glass, and like the others have said, the kit glass is marginal at best.
I read that Tamron and Sigma have good lenses in this zoom range with good prices, but "Canon Lens for Canon Camera ) (like Toyota oil for Toyota cars )
I already have 50mm 1.8 but L zooms beat cheap primes easly (in my opinion).
I seriously consider 17-55 for 2.8 and IS and some praise to IQ.
I'm not interested in long primes, even my 50mm seems to me long on my 350D.
Abdullah M wrote:
I read that Tamron and Sigma have good lenses in this zoom range with good prices, but "Canon Lens for Canon Camera ) (like Toyota oil for Toyota cars )
I already have 50mm 1.8 but L zooms beat cheap primes easly (in my opinion).
I seriously consider 17-55 for 2.8 and IS and some praise to IQ.
I'm not interested in long primes, even my 50mm seems to me long on my 350D.
thank you all, appreciate your responses...
If your 50 seems long on a crop then why not sell the 17-40 and get the 17-55 and then add 1 of the ultra wides. 10-22 of Tokina 11-16 2.8
Did you know that the 50D needs good resolving lenses in order to get the most out of the sensor?
If you are going to use lenses like the 17-85, 18-200 or 28-135 you are better off with a 40D. It is cheaper and will probably give the same detail as a 50D...
For wide angles, I have Sigma 10-20mm.
sell 17-40L for 17-55 2.8..? I'm not sure about image quality of 17-55
since 17-40 (27-65 on 350D) has great IQ.
I read about lenses data stored in 50D, but I don't inderstand how this can help?
I changed my opinion about 17-85, 18-200 , 28-135, I will do more search about 17-55 2.8 , and I may end with buying body only.
Suggest you buy the body only, for sure. Keep your lens options open.
For an excellent "walk-around" lens, I suggest the 24-70 L. The f2.8 gives excellent low light speed and the range on a 1.6 crop is very suitable. For a wider lens, the Canon 10-22 is a nice and cheaper lens to add to the collection after the 24-70.
Why not consider something on the long end? Keep your 17-40 and add a Sigma 50-150, Tamron 50-135 or a 70-200 of your choice. If you don't like your 17-40 on your new body you can always replace it with a Canon 17-55 or Tamron 17-50.
Skip the kit, your current lenses are better anyway.
You say 50mm feels long to you, so why are you looking for another lens? Do you want faster than f4, or longer than 40?
If you want to close the gap between the 40 and 70mm ranges, the 24-70L is a great choice. If you want something faster, the 17-55IS is excellent (as is the Tamron 17-50).
The lack of IS and fast apeture of my 17-40 and 70-200 f4,
push me to think about IS and fast Canon zoom lens..
the available choice is EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.
the question is : sell 17-40L for 17-55 or not?
I'm not sure about quality of images of 17-55 ..