So what lens do you want to buy next ?

[ghibbett]

I used to have a 17-55 f/2.8 on my 400D. It's a very highly rated lens, however I was never 100% convinced by it. My 10-22 was just as sharp (although I think I had a particularly good example).

However the f/2.8 in combination with IS does make it a decent low-light/indoor walkabout zoom.

[CarMad]

I've changed my mind and I think my next lens will be.... Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - Only £659.00 - Park Cameras Online

Has anyone got/used one?

View is its virtually an L but for a crop as the elements are L level apparently but they just don't give it the badge. I've asked an a few people think its great and it seems to get cracking reviews. I looked at a thread on fredmiranda recently and many people had it as a top 5 for the 40D.

[GCab]

[re. 18-200 zoom] Thats pretty darn long for a zoom so will have a fair few compromises to say the least.

It's probably bad form to cross-post/hype your own post, but I couldn't resist this in response to the above: http://www.tyresmoke.net/forum/lounge-joy/111408-red-arrows-typhoon-others-dawlish-air-show-pic-heavy-post.html, as these were all taken with a (Nikon, f/3.5-5.6) 18-200.

I'm sure there's plenty of compromises obvious to those in the know, but as a newbie I found it great. Any cr@pness is more likely to be due to me than to the lens/camera - Id be very grateful to hear any faults in any case.

Hard to judge sharpness etc. as the pics were taken as JPEGs in the first place and I've mangled it further for posting, but the sharper ones (e.g. the close side view of the Typhoon) are the least digitally-cropped ones as you'd expect and therefore the most representative, allowing for the fact that these things weren't moving slowly. Not exactly low-light conditions though, admittedly.

Anyway - this item title attracted me as I've now got both that Nikkor 18-200 VR (= IS in Nikon-speak) and the 50mm f/1.8 for indoor/portraits etc. which seems pretty equivalent to the Canon one which you're all talking about; and I'm now wondering whether to (a) explore wide angle more or (b) dip a toe into f/2.8 zoom land with a Tamron 17-50mm, as per the discussion here: Flickr: Discussing Lens choice advice in Nikon D300 Users.

The problem with the latter is I don't particularly want to be "weaned off" my 18-200mm by a faster, overlapping focal length lens, when it's less than a month old ... rather find my way around it better first. I also want to play around more with landscapes when we go back to the Lakes this month.

So a wide-angle it probably is. The Sigma 10-20mm has good reviews, but people seem to be talking a lot about a Tokina 11-16mm which isn't available in the UK yet so I don't know whether to wait. Has anyone else seen much about the Tokina, or know when it's out here?

Or I could just sit tight (as the pic of the whole bay shows, the 18-200 isn't bad as a wide-angle to my untutored eye), but then I'd have to find a different way to irritate my wife

Edited August 16, 2008 by GCab

[GCab]

PS the guy I met at a wedding with a 40D (which is partly what got me interested in playing around with a D-SLR) was using that EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 you mention, and was getting some truly stunning shots, including inside the (dark, Greek Orthodox) church with no flash; when he showed us on his Mac later, his processed pics were much better than the official photographer's.

[CarMad]

I've used the 10-20 and its a really nice lens that can created some fantastic pictures. Don't know anything about the 11-16mm Tokina sorry, but the extra few mill's from the previous models 12-24 was very worth while.

On the debate of a single multi-zoom or multiple, it depends what you are doing with the shots and what compromise you want really. If you don't want to carry loads of lenses or need the extra speed or be able to get that bit extra then what your using will probably be fine.

The pro's will tell you to get a dedicated lens for what you need but then does it really matter as the photos that you are taking will still be 2 or 3 times more detailed than the best compacts, even the hybrids.

I've been lucky enough to have a play with a few L lenses (Pro level for Canon) and they do indeed help to create great shots and also are very fast and clean at focusing, great when you only get once change to get 'the' shot. If you have got the money spend it on some nice top end lenses you won't regret it.

[CarMad]

PS the guy I met at a wedding with a 40D (which is partly what got me interested in playing around with a D-SLR) was using that EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 you mention, and was getting some truly stunning shots, including inside the (dark, Greek Orthodox) church with no flash; when he showed us on his Mac later, his processed pics were much better than the official photographer's.

This sounds familiar, I went to a friends wedding recently and the photographer had a standard Fuji Hybrid not even an SLR. I'd certainly like to compare the images I took to him, the 30mm f1.8 and the 50mm took some great shots.

[biturbo]

It's probably bad form to cross-post/hype your own post, but I couldn't resist this in response to the above: http://www.tyresmoke.net/forum/lounge-joy/111408-red-arrows-typhoon-others-dawlish-air-show-pic-heavy-post.html, as these were all taken with a (Nikon, f/3.5-5.6) 18-200.

I'm sure there's plenty of compromises obvious to those in the know, but as a newbie I found it great. Any cr@pness is more likely to be due to me than to the lens/camera - Id be very grateful to hear any faults in any case.

Hard to judge sharpness etc. as the pics were taken as JPEGs in the first place and I've mangled it further for posting, but the sharper ones (e.g. the close side view of the Typhoon) are the least digitally-cropped ones as you'd expect and therefore the most representative, allowing for the fact that these things weren't moving slowly. Not exactly low-light conditions though, admittedly.

Anyway - this item title attracted me as I've now got both that Nikkor 18-200 VR (= IS in Nikon-speak) and the 50mm f/1.8 for indoor/portraits etc. which seems pretty equivalent to the Canon one which you're all talking about; and I'm now wondering whether to (a) explore wide angle more or (b) dip a toe into f/2.8 zoom land with a Tamron 17-50mm, as per the discussion here: Flickr: Discussing Lens choice advice in Nikon D300 Users.

The problem with the latter is I don't particularly want to be "weaned off" my 18-200mm by a faster, overlapping focal length lens, when it's less than a month old ... rather find my way around it better first. I also want to play around more with landscapes when we go back to the Lakes this month.

So a wide-angle it probably is. The Sigma 10-20mm has good reviews, but people seem to be talking a lot about a Tokina 11-16mm which isn't available in the UK yet so I don't know whether to wait. Has anyone else seen much about the Tokina, or know when it's out here?

Or I could just sit tight (as the pic of the whole bay shows, the 18-200 isn't bad as a wide-angle to my untutored eye), but then I'd have to find a different way to irritate my wife

17-35 f2.8 still on offer

http://www.tyresmoke.net/forum/general-marketplace/106855-nikon-nikkor-af-s-17-35mm-f2-8-ed-if-zoom-lens.html