I am just new to cameras and photography that I just started last September (2006)when I bought my first camera,Canon 30D.At the moment,the lenses that I have are the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L ,70-200mm F2.8L ,and the 50mm F1.8.My main lenses are the 24-70mm F2.8L and 70-200mm F2.8L.Anyway,in the near future,I am thinking of adding 2 more lenses to my system.One for wide-angle,Canon17-40mm F4L and one for macro,Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro.My question is based on the lenses that I already have,what should I get first,the Canon 17-40mm F4L or the Canon 100 F2.8 Macro?And why?
THANKS.

Michael Y.

Depends on what you want to shoot more. My call is get the 17-40 F4L.

Since you lack the wide side on your arsenal I would suggest get the 17-40m F4L.

i'd find the 17-40 more useful... unless you want to concentrate more on macro shots that is. if that's the case, then get the macro lens.

well if you wanna take macro shots then the macro lens..but if you wanna take scenic shots then id rather suggest the efs 10-22 versus the 17-40. The 17-40 is still going to be long on the wide end.


oh, and MY GOD! youve been into photography this early and youve got a 24-70 and a 70-200 2.8?? nothing but the best huh?

question, you related to Cres?

well if you wanna take macro shots then the macro lens..but if you wanna take scenic shots then id rather suggest the efs 10-22 versus the 17-40. The 17-40 is still going to be long on the wide end.

Randy T. thought of the same thing while I was discussing wides with him. The only disadvantage of the 10-22 is you only get to use it with a 1.6x body. But I'd plunk some cash for that lens if I wasn't using a 1D.

question, you related to Cres?

I don't know but if her roots are from Negros,most likely,we're related as my grandfather came from there.

well if you wanna take macro shots then the macro lens..but if you wanna take scenic shots then id rather suggest the efs 10-22 versus the 17-40. The 17-40 is still going to be long on the wide end.

I know what you mean.I was also thinking of getting the 10-22 for wide-angle shots but I'm kinda hesitant about it because in the future,1.6 cropped cameras might become obsolete.Anyway,Many Thanks for your reply.

Go for the 17-40. You can also use your 50 1.8 as a macro lens by attaching an extension tube, or reversing ring to attach to your other lenses.

i agree with sir nino, if you dont have a 1D currently then just get the 10-22 coz you can sell that later on if you do upgrade to FF bodies. Dont think too much of the future camera you never know you might even end up switching systems. Just get what you can now with your existing gear and with the 10-22 youll be happy with your scenic shots that you wont regret the purchase. Have you seen what richard larios can do with the 10-22.

Oh btw, richard is here in england. I suggested that he drop by Lake District for magnificent photos. Ill see if i can also drop by there as it is 5 hours away from central london (i think) but if he did go I am definitely excited to see what he came up with using his 10-22.

definitely agree with nino, don't think of your future use with the lens, think what is better for your use in the present. There is also a big difference in pricing so be careful in buying something that will not be of use to you today.


Wish list.....

Canon 5D
17-40L f4
24-70L f2.8
70-200L f2.8
Metz dedicated flash

definitely agree with nino, don't think of your future use with the lens, think what is better for your use in the present. There is also a big difference in pricing so be careful in buying something that will not be of use to you today.


Wish list.....

Canon 5D
17-40L f4
24-70L f2.8
70-200L f2.8
Metz dedicated flash


Ricky,
If I may ask,in your wish list,why is that instead of choosing the 16-35 F2.8L,you chose the 17-40 F4L?well,to be honest,I haven't had had any experiences with both these lenses but I was just assuming that the 16-35 F2.8L would be a better lens because of the F2.8 feature.
THANKS.

im not up to date with the 16-35 coz its not in my wish list but i think it has problems. Just google it, itll pop up.

Reviews have been mixed about the 16-35 as compared to the 17-40. In terms of focal range you lose 1mm on the wide end but gain 5mm on the long end with the 17-40. And you can get it for a lot less than the 16-35.

But if I would get a 16-35, I'd rather upgrade to a full-frame body first like the 5D then get the 16-35. Now that's really wide.

Ricky,
If I may ask,how come in your wish list,you chose the Canon 17-40 F4L over the 16-35 F2.8L?Well,I haven't had had any experiences with both these lenses but I was just assuming that the 16-35 F2.8 would be a better choice because of the F2.8 feature.
THANKS.

Cost difference was a factor. I rarely shoot wide angle without a tripod. I figured that the 40K+ difference was too high.

17-40 is a nice choice since you have an all "L" lens lineup.

I know what you mean.I was also thinking of getting the 10-22 for wide-angle shots but I'm kinda hesitant about it because in the future,1.6 cropped cameras might become obsolete.Anyway,Many Thanks for your reply.

funny how things get sometime...in my case, i went full frame more than a year ago...sold my 10-22 in that effect. when i got a 2nd body. although i have the 17-40 and 16-35 i still got the 10-22 recently for the 2nd body thats 1.6x.

you might be asking why? for a light system the 400D+10-22 without grip is just sweet, handy and perfect travel kit:) simply unbeatable if weight is an issue...
btw since then i dont have the 17-40 anymore.

anyways, my point...get the 10-22...worry bout full frame when you get full frame...its easy to sell 10-22 used...

I know what you mean.I was also thinking of getting the 10-22 for wide-angle shots but I'm kinda hesitant about it because in the future,1.6 cropped cameras might become obsolete.Anyway,Many Thanks for your reply.


funny how things get sometime...in my case, i went full frame more than a year ago...sold my 10-22 in that effect. when i got a 2nd body. although i have the 17-40 and 16-35 i still got the 10-22 recently for the 2nd body thats 1.6x.

you might be asking why? for a light system the 400D+10-22 without grip is just sweet, handy and perfect travel kit:) simply unbeatable if weight is an issue...
btw since then i dont have the 17-40 anymore.

anyways, my point...on the wide end 17-40 isnt wide enough...get the 10-22...worry bout full frame when you get full frame...its easy to sell 10-22 used anyways!

there are hundreds of thousands of 1.6 crop bodies out there, if you go full frame in the future, there will be a lot of takers for a 10-22.

composing landscapes/cityscapes with a 10-22 vs. a 17-40 is a no brainer. UWA is just sweet. think of the shots you can get with an ultra-wide NOW that you are on a 1.6 body. my kit lens is just 1mm shy of 17-40 but it is really bitin...BITIN! for my landscapes and architecture/urbanscapes. i dont wish for an L....i will be happy with a 10-22 :) so i suggest instead of a 17-40, consider mo rin the 10-22.

but that macro 100mm is on the crest....some would contend sharpest of the sharp lenses out there.....excellent for portrait work!

Hi Mike,

I have both those lenses before, and I think the question I have to ask you is what do you want to shoot more at the present. Landscapes or macro and decide on that.

They are both excellent lens especially the 17-40, i love the sharpness and contrast of that lens. the 100 mac is very sharp as well, and works great as a portrait lens too.

get the 10-22,, being rare on the second hand market nowadays says a lot about the lens,, and i think you won't have any problems when you decided to go full frame coz i think it will sell fast given that you give a reasonable price

on your original question,, i'd get the 17-40L,, HTH

I am just new to cameras and photography that I just started last September (2006)when I bought my first camera,Canon 30D.At the moment,the lenses that I have are the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L ,70-200mm F2.8L ,and the 50mm F1.8.My main lenses are the 24-70mm F2.8L and 70-200mm F2.8L.Anyway,in the near future,I am thinking of adding 2 more lenses to my system.One for wide-angle,Canon17-40mm F4L and one for macro,Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro.My question is based on the lenses that I already have,what should I get first,the Canon 17-40mm F4L or the Canon 100 F2.8 Macro?And why?
THANKS.

Michael Y.

Michael,

Skip the 100 f2.8 macro and the 17-40L. Get an extension tube (about P7,500 locally) or even a 2nd hand will do (about P5,000). Put that in your 50 f1.8 or 24-70L (from 50-70mm only) or your 70-200 and you instantly get a macro lens with very good optical qualities.

Well, it's not going to be as versatile as a true macro lens, but it is really effective for a cheaper solution for now. And once you get a macro lens, that extension tube is still useful. The Kenko pro dg is very popular. That's what I have and it's pretty solid on my 50 f1.8 mk2 and 100 f2 usm. You will get very interesting shots with it.

For wide angle, I'd skip the 17-40L. Not that it is a bad lens, but it is virtually limited (at 17mm) in a crop camera. Get the 10-22mm. You will not regret it. L class without the red stripe.

If you think this is small matter, read this. All my friends have taken to the 17-40L even when the 10-22 was out. They all reasoned that it is an L and the 10-22 was not, and they don't want to be obsolete in the future when they migrate to a 5d or whatever it is they replace it. Guess, what, whenever we get to shoot weddings, they always borrow my 10-22! Why? Because, in most instances, you really can't get the entire barangay ginebra on a 17mm in tight spaces. Last time, my friend who has a 17-40L can't get the entire San Sebatian church into his frame even if he stepped backwards already.

Get the 10-22 and be prepared to be amazed and be happy. :) If you decide to sell it, it will sell quickly. Trust me on this. This lens has a very, very good reputation. And another anomaly, the lens has a very, very low bad copy rate. So, if you buy one, it's really very rare getting a bad copy. A new one is around P33k. A used one goes for P28k. My friend got one for P25k. Between that and a sigma or tokina, I'd get the 10-22 used or brand new.

dami nga post 10-22 canon is better than the 17-40 pag dating sa wide shots esp pag sa crop bodies. i am contemplating also on the same dilema. wide or 17-40 for a FF in the future. FF camera now is 120k, 17-40 is 35k. if i get the 10-22 now i have UWA out of the box. then maybe i myt just resell it at dami naman naghahanap. 16-35 f2.8 is REALLY expensive around 65k? pero mahirap gumamit ng 2.8 for shots involving brgy ginebra. too shallow DOF. :)

if you think you'll be shooting more wide then 10-22 pag you're going to shoot more macro 100mm. buy the lens you think you'll be using more often:)

i don't do macro so i didn't long for the macro but sometimes i wished i had a UWA lens for some shots. so my next purchase will be the 10-22 pag nakaipon na ako :)

Get the 10-22mm. You will not regret it. L class without the red stripe.


a lot of people told me this already,, and after i bought this glass i think i know now what i've been missing on not getting an L lens:RedEye: buy this glass i think i haven't read anything bad about this glass except that it is not compatible on a FF body

i don't have any of the lenses discussed here yet but the first on my list would be the 10-22. i've made an extensive research about this lens and from what i've read (including from the ones posted here), i'd said that anyone won't go wrong choosing this lens.

so, Michael, iisang bangka tayo. ano bibilin natin? :)