17-40l!!!

[97TurboDSM]

i agree with that as well. it took some doing to convince myself of this but I think this will be the best route. I kinda wish I could man up and get the 2.8L IS but the advantages don't seem to really be sticking out at me, so the 4L will have to suffice.

[TROLL]

well the 2.8 would be nice for indoors particularly, but the IS isnt all that beneficial IMO on a wide lense where camera shake is much less of an issue.
i'm not sure of the price difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8, but its probably pretty substantial and if you dont know that you need the 2.8 (like if you do a lot of indoor available light shooting), then i think you'll be fine with what you're getting.

[97TurboDSM]

yea the price difference is quite substantial, and for what i'm doing I dont think low light situations are going to be a huge deal so I cant justify the slight advantages for that price at that focal length. im so anxious to get a lens, i might buy brand new but i'd rather try and save $150 and buy used.

[i like rice]

used prices:
70 200 2.8 ~ $800
70 200 4.0 ~ $500
70 200 2.8 IS ~ $1400

Not sure on the 4.0L IS

[YellowMSP]

i'll be up in west chester til sunday then i'm heading to the beach for the summer so i dont know if that works for u if u wanted to check out any of my lenses or my brothers 17-40 since he's here in wc too. but like other people said, u cant go wrong with any of the L lenses

[raceMpower95]

Originally Posted by YellowMSP

i'll be up in west chester til sunday then i'm heading to the beach for the summer so i dont know if that works for u if u wanted to check out any of my lenses or my brothers 17-40 since he's here in wc too. but like other people said, u cant go wrong with any of the L lenses

I am in Langhorne or Philadelphia all the time, so if you're near either place you can try both lenses. I HIGHLY recommend both the 17-40 f/4L and the 70-200 f/4L. I have both of them and I love them. Believe it or not, the 70-200 f/4L is actually sharper than the 2.8 version. It is also a lot lighter so it's great for hand holding portrait shoots or whatever else. I do all of my shooting with the 17-40 and the 70-200 and I have been very pleased with them.

I just got back from a huge photo convention down at Cape May. These are some shots I got down there:

With the 17-40 f/4L on my 40D:


With the 70-200 f/4L on my 20D:


Some car shots for comparison since that's what a lot of people shoot on here:

With the 17-40 f/4L on my 40D:


With the 70-200 f/4L on my 40D:



I hope those help. Like I said, I'm not sure where you're from, but I'd be happy to meet up and let you try the lenses out so you can make a decision. Also, if you're local, check out Allen's Camera on New Falls Road. They always have a huge selection of used equipment and great prices, too. I know that YellowMSP, BornFromJets, and myself have all found great deals there on our stuff.

[97TurboDSM]

Thanks for the help everyone. Right now I'm actually in Lancaster so I'm kinda far from west chester and philly. I have a few options on POTN for 17-40 f/4L's so we'll see what happens but taking a trip to Allen's doesnt seem like a bad idea. I'm gonna have to find out how late they're open and how far away they are from me.

[i like rice]

Originally Posted by raceMpower95

I HIGHLY recommend both the 17-40 f/4L and the 70-200 f/4L. I have both of them and I love them. Believe it or not, the 70-200 f/4L is actually sharper than the 2.8 version. It is also a lot lighter so it's great for hand holding portrait shoots or whatever else.

Both are good lenses to start with, but most will eventually upgrade to a faster lens.

Yeah, the 4.0 non IS is sharper but only when you're pixel peeping and printing 30 x 45" prints. One additional f-stop advantage, more background blur, plus 2 f/stops from the IS is valuable for certain situations, situations where the 4.0 would have to use 3200 ISO when the 2.8 IS can use ISO 400.

[97TurboDSM]

trust me. right now, a two stop advantage is not going to make me shell out extra money. this is going to be a lens for me to mess around with and get me back on my feet shooting again. there will be plenty of time for me to upgrade, whether it be selling this for a faster IS version or going a completely different route.

[i like rice]

[97TurboDSM]

i wish i could wait a week. but i want my lens for the show in york next weekend.

[TROLL]

where are you buying it? if its a local shop ask them if they'll post date the receipt for ya

[97TurboDSM]

right now i have one lined up on POTN. buying used will save me another $75 or so on top of that rebate so I figure why the hell not. if it turns out to be a busted up lens..lesson learned. seems as though lots of people buy used so I think I can handle a used lens.

[howielong]

Personally if all you are saving is $75 over a new lens with the rebate, I would go for the new lens. Just to have the piece of mind that it isn't a dud. Especially with the type of cash we all throw around for our lenses. I personally rather spend more on a new lens and have the felling that nothing is wrong with it, and the warranty's is always nice. But thats me, so good luck either way you go.

[97TurboDSM]

eh, the guy i bought from is a reputable guy over on POTN and the lens, from the pictures, looks to be in awesome shape. plus, i really cant wait another week to use the rebate. if its a dud, its a dud and i'll live with it. its just money. anyway, just paid for it and am having two day priority shipping so should be here thurs/friday. cant wait.

[97TurboDSM]

just got my lens today! its in amazing shape and i cant wait to get out and mess with it.