Lens dilemma please help

lmyamen

OK so im in the market for my next lens. I currently only have a 70-200 f/2.8. I am shooting along with another wedding photographer right now and use his gear primarily. I am actually thinking about starting into the senior photography business, so my equipment would be primarily used in that. I have 2 options i am looking at right now. Keep in mind I shoot with a 40d so i have a 1.6 crop factor to think about..


1st option is to buy a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for my more wide angle shots since i do not have anything under 70mm currently. If i go this route i would also pick up a Canon 85mm f/1.8, i have heard great things about this lens.

+


or

2nd option is to buy a Canon 135L F/2, it would not cover my wide angle shots obviously but i have heard this lens is incredible. I thought that for senior portraits outside it could be a fantastic addition...

Zerodog

If all you have is a 70-200 then think about getting a 17-55. I am not a Canon user, but on my Nikon that is my favorite all around lens. Your 70-200 has you covered at the 135 range. Why not get a wider lens that you can use in front of someone.

Qarik

17-55 for sure.

Cameron

I agree with the above replies. You need to cover the < 70mm range more than you need to add the 135. The 70-200 serves you nicely in that range. I've owned the 17-55 and agree it's a fabulous choice. If it's too pricey for you at the moment, the Tamron you mentioned is a good alternative. The Tamron is optically very sharp.

ThatCanonGuy

Or for less than the Canon 17-55 you could get a 17-40 f/4L(if you can deal with the f/4 aperture). It's an L, and if you step up to FF later on, you can use it then, whereas you can't use the 17-55 on FF. I don't know if you can use the Tamron on FF. But the 17-40 is just a little more than the Tam.

rpcrowe

17-40L + 70-200mm

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Or for less than the Canon 17-55 you could get a 17-40 f/4L(if you can deal with the f/4 aperture). It's an L, and if you step up to FF later on, you can use it then, whereas you can't use the 17-55 on FF. I don't know if you can use the Tamron on FF. But the 17-40 is just a little more than the Tam.

Many photographers recommend the 17-40L as a companion to a 70-200mm (series) lens. However, I have used that combination and never liked it.

The 17-40L is far too slow to be used as a mid-range zoom, the long side is too short (64mm equivalent is anemic) and I really missed the gap between 40 and 70mm.

Zerodog

Unless you have a really good reason to compromise, don't get anything but 2.8 lenses. It doesn't sound like much but, there is a difference in flexibility. Sometimes you need the DOF control. It is nice to have the extra low light ability too. It seems there is never enough low light ability, no matter what you have.

Eclipsed

The Tamron is an excellent lens. I think that the Tamron and the 85mm is a great choice.

ThatCanonGuy

rpcrowe wrote: »

Many photographers recommend the 17-40L as a companion to a 70-200mm (series) lens. However, I have used that combination and never liked it.

The 17-40L is far too slow to be used as a mid-range zoom, the long side is too short (64mm equivalent is anemic) and I really missed the gap between 40 and 70mm.

I see your point, it is a little slow. It might make a nice wide angle(although it'd be 27mm on the wide end on a 40D) and then the OP could get a 2.8 zoom to fill in the gap, or he could get a 50 1.4(80mm equiv).