Lens upgrade suggestions

[viewfinder]

I plan to upgrade my current lenses and I'm just wondering what you experienced photographers would suggest.

My current lenses are:
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Would like something with a bit more zoom.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8ll
Would like something with more wide open capability and zoom.

My camera is a 40D.

Prefer to stay in the Canon lens line up.
Wanting to get lenses for these situations.
A general purpose walk around lens and a telephoto zoom lens.
Budget would be $1000 max per lens.

I realize that limits the choices but, there has to be some quality lenses in that price range.

Outdoor photography is mainly what I like to do.
Nature, landscapes, buildings etc.
Like clear, sharp images.
Lens bokeh capabilities isn't too much of a concern to me.

I'm thinking about the EF 70-200mm f/4 without the IS option but I don't know if a tripod has to be used at all times with this lens.
Can it be used handheld and still get clear, sharp pictures when it's not fully zoomed?

I apologize for asking a question that I'm sure has been asked many times before in various ways but, I'm hoping with the information provided , it narrows things down.

[TenD]

The 28-135 is a decent mid range lens in Canons lineup. This means that you may be ready to step up to pro level glass. The 70-200 f/4 immediately comes to mind as within your budget and an excellent lens. It's not the fastest zoom lens in this range but it is very sharp and produces excellent results. It will work well in controlled environments (zoo) but it's a bit too short for in the wild.

Pair the 70-200 with a 17-40 f/4 and you have a decent set up covering 17-200mm with a slight gap in the middle that can be filled with a 50mm /1.8 and a 60mm macro. In reality you'll hardly notice the gap between 40 and 70mm as your feet can cover this pretty easily. The 70-200 goes for about $660 and the 17-40 goes for around $760. I have owned the 17-40 for the last 7 years and have used the 70-200. The 50 f/1.8 is under $100.

The 70-200 can be used without a tripod in good light with proper technique. I have a 80-200 f/2.8L I hand hold a fair amount. I routinely get very sharp photos with it handheld.

[XSiWorks4Me]

I plan to upgrade my current lenses and I'm just wondering what you experienced photographers would suggest.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8ll
Would like something with more wide open capability and zoom.

I'm thinking about the EF 70-200mm f/4 without the IS option but I don't know if a tripod has to be used at all times with this lens.
Can it be used handheld and still get clear, sharp pictures when it's not fully zoomed?

I apologize for asking a question that I'm sure has been asked many times before in various ways but, I'm hoping with the information provided , it narrows things down.

I own the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) and can vouch for the image sharpness handheld at any length...before I had the 70-200 I had the gawd awful 75-300 non IS...and have NEVER looked back. (BTW I am using a 450D XSi)

Also, my copy of the 50mm 1/8II is INCREDIBLE from about f2.8 on my body...

If you had a 17-40L the 50 and a 70-200 f4, you would have a pretty functional collection of glass.

I just got the 17-40L on craigslist to replace my 18-55 IS kit lens and bought the Sigma 10-22mm a while back so am prepared for pretty much everything...

If you want to stretch out that 70-200, look for a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. (next on my list)

JMHO and YMMV and any other abbreviated cliche used in Internet forums...

Jay

[VTEC_EATER]

The 17-55 IS comes in at just under $1000.

Then you have the 70-200 F/4, which is posted above.

However, in total cost you can get the 17-40/4 and the 70-200/4 IS and come in at about the same price. The question is, do you want IS in your short glass, or your long glass?

[TheWengler]

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8ll
Would like something with more wide open capability and zoom.

More wide open than f/1.8 and zoom? Just to be clear, zoom means the ability to change focal lengths. Telephoto means a long focal length. 12-24mm f/4 is a zoom lens. 300mm f/4 is a telephoto lens.

I'm thinking about the EF 70-200mm f/4 without the IS option but I don't know if a tripod has to be used at all times with this lens.
Can it be used handheld and still get clear, sharp pictures when it's not fully zoomed?

It depends what your SS is. If it's fast enough you can hand hold it. If it's not fast enough then you need a tripod.

I'd go with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4 IS as long as you aren't planning on FF anytime soon. The 2nd lens is a little over your budget new, but you could pick up used.

If you want to stretch out that 70-200, look for a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. (next on my list)

The 2x TC on an f/4 lens would make it f/8 and would probably kill the AF unless you were out in some bright light.

[XSiWorks4Me]

The 2x TC on an f/4 lens would make it f/8 and would probably kill the AF unless you were out in some bright light.

A Sacrifice I am willing to make....F8 for an equivalent 400mm lens....I will probably crank up the ISO a bit (maybe to 400) and regain those two stops...As for the AF it is slower yes, but the 70-200 f4 is an incredibly fast focusing lens.

[Flossmoor40D]

I second the suggestions on the 17-40 F/4L and the 70-200 F/4L (non IS). As you can see from the gear in my signature I own both along with the 50 f/1.8II. As Lukas said, you will have no problem hand holding the 70-200 F/4 as long as you keep the shutter speed up around the focal length of the lens, I do it all the time at 200mm for my daughters soccer games with great crisp results.

My question to you on the wider end of the spectrum is what do you plan to use it for? As this will tell me how wide you need to go and how fast it needs to be.

If you need the wider end for outdoor/landscape use then the 17-40 F/4L should fit the bill at around $750 new.

If you need less width and more speed (like f/2.8) then you might consider the 24-70 F/2.8L at around $1,300 new. Still under your $2,000 budget if you get the 70-200 F/F L non IS on your telephoto side. I have used this lens on my 40D and really liked it. Made for a good walk around length for me at least.

The meet in the middle option (wide and fast) is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens that others have mentioned above. Some consider this lens to be near L quality however it can't get that designation as it's an EF-S lens and will only work on crop bodies like the rebel series and the 40/50D and the new 7D body. It will not work on a 1.3 crop(I think) or full frame body. This lens is around $1,000 new.

Good luck with your decision.

[jeff5897]

40D + 70-200 F4 no IS is a good choice, you can review the photos taken by the set
http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=1&dc_model=42&iso1=0&iso2=0&len_id=79&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&num_focal_mm=0&num_focal_mm2=&B1=Query

and these are the photos taken by 40D + 17-40 F4L
http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=1&dc_model=42&iso1=0&iso2=0&len_id=8&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&num_focal_mm=0&num_focal_mm2=&B1=Query

[michaelb]

...
I'd go with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4 IS as long as you aren't planning on FF anytime soon. ....
.

Best suggestion, IMO. The 70-200 f/4 IS is one the best zooms Canon has ever made; you can't go wrong with this lens.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is an amazing lens optically, I just wish it were built a little better considering the price, but still a very good lens. Used, they go for about 850-900 on POTN and FM.

The 17-40 f/4 is a very good lens, but to pay $600 for an f/4 with this range on a 1.6X crop camera doesn't make sense to me. Great UWA on FF, but an odd lens on 1.6X crop.

[shoey]

Best suggestion, IMO. The 70-200 f/4 IS is one the best zooms Canon has ever made; you can't go wrong with this lens.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is an amazing lens optically, I just wish it were built a little better considering the price, but still a very good lens. Used, they go for about 850-900 on POTN and FM.

The 17-40 f/4 is a very good lens, but to pay $600 for an f/4 with this range on a 1.6X crop camera doesn't make sense to me. Great UWA on FF, but an odd lens on 1.6X crop.
Quoted for agreement!

[viewfinder]

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8ll
Would like something more wide open than f/1.8 and zoom.

More wide open than f/1.8 and zoom? Just to be clear, zoom means the ability to change focal lengths. Telephoto means a long focal length. 12-24mm f/4 is a zoom lens. 300mm f/4 is a telephoto lens.

That was a poor description on my part as to what I was trying to say.
What I meant by more wide open, was refering to the angle of view and not aperture and for zoom, I wanted a lens that had zoom ability.
The EF 50mm doesn't have that ability.
The 12-24mm f/4 you mentioned, is the category of lens I'm interested in.

Having said that, the upgrade to a better walk around lens is being put on the back burner.
Thank you all for the suggestions offered.
I'll be keeping them in mind when purchase time comes.
I guess I've decided what I really want to do at this point, is upgrade to the telephoto zoom.

It's down to either the EF 70-200mm non IS or the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6. IS USM.
Leaning towards the 70-200 as I have yet to read a bad user review about the image quality from this lens.
But, in a couple of the user reviews of the 70-200, some of the people had said that the 70-200 was not a good lens for taking pictures of small animals or birds over 40-50 feet away.
Does that sound right?
That's a situation I was wanting to use a telephoto zoom for.
I thought something like that would be no problem for such a lens.

Lens cost: $770 Canadian + the 13% sales tax!

Then there's the 70-300 for $30 more but a longer focal length.
This lens has generally gotten good user reviews but, not as glowing as the 70-200.

If anyone would like to comment or give more pros or cons to the two lenses I'm deciding on, it would be appreciated.
I don't mean this to be a lens bashing thing.
The more information I have, the better as I have no way of trying out either of these lenses before I make the purchase.

[Csae]

Theres already a thread on the 70-200 / 70-300.

But one ends at 200, and the other at 300.