2nd (and possibly last) lens choice?

[JNB]

Here's the basics - I have a Canon Xt that came with the kit zoom. S'ok, but really, meh.

I'm expecting delivery next week on the EF 70-200 f/4L USM, and expect that to cover 60-70% of my walkaround needs.

BUT (you knew that was coming), I want something down the road that covers the other end of the spectrum. I am not likely to buy for a couple years--and may even have a new body by then, at that.

I know most say that everyone should have at least one good prime, and I'm eyeing L glass in the 35mm range (with the 1.6X factor that gets me to 48mm). However, I'm also thinking a short zoom--like the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

(And yes, I know that there's a lot of good glass that isn't in the L series, but these are the last lenses I'm gonna buy. I may go through another five or six bodies, but I want lifetime glass.)

So, my question to the group is this. On the short end, and assuming only ONE other lens, prime or another zoom?

 

[taylorwilsdon]

I'm a little surprised you went with the XT if you're dropping the cash for L-glass. I'd recommend a nifty fifty for a short throw prime to the normal (cash strapped) XT user but in your case, perhaps a 50mm 1.4 would do you right? Its an excellent lens.

Or, if you're in the mood to really splurge, the 50mm 1.2 would be an excellent choice. Sharp as a tack.

 

[JNB]

I'm a little surprised you went with the XT if you're dropping the cash for L-glass.

I shoulda probably mentioned that the body & kit lens cost exactly nothing. Got it with airline miles, and it was also right before the XTi was introduced.

Even with that, though, I have to admit that the size of the Xt is pretty good for me. That being said, if the 30d or 40d were available similarly, either of those would have been my first choice.

Thanks for the advice!

 

[M@lew]

Think about if you really want the wide angle or if your kit lens if sufficient enough. Since you have an XT, have a look at the 17-55 for the "other end". It's decent enough to cover most that you're missing and has USM + IS. The only downside is that it's not L, but you won't find any EF-S L lenses anyway.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Actually the body is not as important as the glass so the OP has it right on. I'm actually very pleased to see someone not splurge for a nearly unnecessary body so they can invest in better glass.

 

[JNB]

Think about if you really want the wide angle or if your kit lens if sufficient enough. Since you have an XT, have a look at the 17-55 for the "other end". It's decent enough to cover most that you're missing and has USM + IS. The only downside is that it's not L, but you won't find any EF-S L lenses anyway.

Good point, but on the off-chance I may ultimately progress beyond the xt/30d/40d (or its successors), I'm not going for any more EF-S lenses. Not that they're bad (and actually, the one you mentioned is quite nice), but they will limit my bodies to 40D and lower. I'm going to assume (pretend?) that I will move above that at some point.

I have been on a fool's errand with cameras AND lenses over the last 30 years. Either I get a system where I can quit throwing money at glass with every body change, or I find another hobby.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

For the price of the 16-35, I'd get the 17-40, 50/1.4, and a good steak somewhere.

 

[Abstract]

16-35 mm.

And it's not the last lens you'll buy.

 

[JNB]

And it's not the last lens you'll buy.

Shhh! Don't wake the inner child!

 

[sjl]

Good point, but on the off-chance I may ultimately progress beyond the xt/30d/40d (or its successors), I'm not going for any more EF-S lenses. Not that they're bad (and actually, the one you mentioned is quite nice), but they will limit my bodies to 40D and lower. I'm going to assume (pretend?) that I will move above that at some point.

There are two points to consider:

1. There are EF-S lenses that hold their value quite well - specifically, the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm. Buying these and later moving to full frame will give you lots of shots that you otherwise would have been hard pressed to get, and although you'll lose some money in the deal, it won't be a great deal. How much is the shot opportunity worth? In particular, extreme wide angle can be a lot of fun - I adore my 10-22mm on my 20D - and there's no L series lens that will fill that hole until you move to the 5D or 1Ds series.
2. You're paying a price premium for "full frame" lenses on a crop body. Remember that money now is worth more than money later on. Would you be better off spending the money on a cheaper EF-S lens, using that for however many years, and then getting the L series zooms (partially funded by selling the EF-S glass) when you eventually go full frame?

I have been on a fool's errand with cameras AND lenses over the last 30 years. Either I get a system where I can quit throwing money at glass with every body change, or I find another hobby.

I have two EF-S lenses: the 17-85mm and the 10-22mm. I intend to go with the 5D in due course (or its direct successor, depending on what Canon do in the next few months.) But I've managed to get some really nice shots with the 10-22mm that I wouldn't have had if I'd not bought it, and I don't regret spending the money. Down the road, it will be sold - there's no doubt about that - but in the meantime, it's done a very good job for me.

I'm not trying to push you down a particular path; just raising points for you to consider. This is a game that never ends; there's always something better or shinier just around the corner (I did the maths and came up with $AU10,000 worth of glass that I would reasonably like to have, and which I actually would use - so not going crazy with things like the 400mm f/2.8, for example), but as with everything in life, it may be worth your while to compromise.

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there may be other aspects to the debate that you haven't yet considered. The 16-35mm is a fantastic lens, especially on a full frame body, but I'm not convinced that it's worth the cost on a crop body. Your money, though ...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

It might be too far "at the other end", but I might vote for the Canon 10-22mm EF-S. Based on the reviews I've read it shares some design elements with L lenses and should be good enough to satisfy most in terms of quality.

The 10-22mm will, I think, be the next lens I get for my XT.

I'd also recommend an EF 50mm f/1.8 prime - for under 80 bucks there's no reason not to get it unless you opt for one of the more expensive 50mm primes...It's a fantastic lens for people on a budget like myself.

 

[isleofjib]

Actually the body is not as important as the glass so the OP has it right on. I'm actually very pleased to see someone not splurge for a nearly unnecessary body so they can invest in better glass.

my thoughts exactly. and that he got that body for basically free is even better!