Help me choose: EF lens for 60D

[koolman]

Consider Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC - much cheaper/lighter then the expensive/heavy canon 17-55.

[Ido]

Thank you all for the tips and recommendations.
You gave me all a lot to think about, and maybe I should indeed change the way I think about purchasing EF-S lens.

I think I'll go with the 24-105L or 17-55 2.8.. or maybe the Tamaron 24-70....

Well, back to reading reviews and looking at photo samples

Thanks again guys!

[M.ST]

First choice is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, but you ask for an EF lens.

A EF 17-40mm 4 L USM lens make sense on APS-C body and the price is very good. Hint: There is something new in the field for testing. If the new version of the lens (maybe with IS) hits the market you burn a lot of money. But until today there is no decision if one of the versions will be introduced.

My EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is now a 24-55 mm lens (the part from 17 to 24 mm is dead). 24 mm focal lenght as the widest focal lenght on APS-C limits you too much and the 16-35 2.8 II is not the best choice for APS-C.

[Marsu42]

The 17-40 f/4 L is a great lens and well within your budget but very limited zoom range ... I take a lot of group photos and the 24 mm on 17-40 (even on 60D & 7D) had barrel distrotion which I did not like ...

Since the 17-40 isn't the sharpest lens on the block anyway, I don't think distortion correction in post will make that much of a difference?

• EF 17-40mm f/4L USM    - Because I like the wide angle ( and I don't think the 17-35 justify the price tag)
• EF 24-105mm f/4L IS EF USM  - Looks like a very good range coverage, but I lose some of the wide angle.
• EF 24-70mm f/4.0L -    Looks good on the paper, but It's still not available, and I have an opportunity to purchase a lens now.

Concerning the lenses *you* asked about ... the new 24-70/4 is ridiculously overpriced, so as for 17-40 or 24-105 you simply need to determine if you need the wide focal length on crop (or ultra-wide on ff). For me, taking a step back has usually solved this problem outdoors and you can use panorama stitching to "get it all in". So do you shoot group portraits and/or indoors in tight spaces?

Concerning the lenses you didn't ask about: +1 for the Tamron 24-70 esp. on crop, after the price drop it's good value now and better build-quality than ef-s lenses. But of course esp. on crop f2.8 even with IS doesn't enable you to shoot in the dark and get good quality, so it's rather for thin depth of field if you want/like that.

[grenadilla]

For several months I was debating whether or not to get the 24-105 to use on a 500d.  I was worried 24 would not be wide enough.  Eventually decided to go for the lens and sure glad I did.  Absolutely love it, and the wide end of the lens isn't really that big an issue for my shooting.  Eventually I'd like to get a UWA, but there are rarely times when I feel like switching out the 24-105 as it is so versatile. 

[SJTstudios]

Of your picks, I'd recommend the 17-40, it is equivalent to about a 24-70 on your crop body about.

Honestly there is not much else that could give you the range you want for a wide walk around lens.

I know it is important to think about what lenses will work for you in the future, but the thing is, that if you get a good ef-s lens that allows you to take better images, you won't be at a loss if you can't sell it for a good price.

Photography isn't about the lens or the camera, but the combo. Ef-s lenses are made to be better than ef lenses on crop bodies.

You should only upgrade to ff when you have the money to buy both the camera and the lens.

This is especially important for wide-mid zooms.

I strongly encourage you look at the canon ef-s lenses and some of the sigma's

[Andy_Hodapp]

Go for the 17-40mm, I have a Canon T1i and every time I'm out in Montana, when I'm not taking photos of wildlife, I have the 17-40mm on.  It is a great lens and very sharp at F/8-11, many of my most famous works have been with it and it can transfer over to full frame, I just got a 5D MkII two days ago and haven't gotten around to shooting with the 17-40mm on it but I am sure it will be great.  Here are some photos I've taken with my 17-40mm.

[Policar]

The 17-55mm f2.8 IS is amazing in that way something that underwhelms you by virtue of having no weaknesses is. Resale is good, too. And it's sharp and the right set of focal lengths for portraiture and landscape (could be a little longer for portraiture, I like 85mm on crop). Some weird, gnarly CA but whatever... No distortion. Punchy, nice micro-contrast. I liked it for stills and for video. It's the lens I miss most now that I've gone to FF. Build quality was as good as my L lenses.

And to be perfectly honest, I preferred the 18-55mm kit lens to the 17-40mm L on crop. I like the 17-40mm L much more on FF, even though the corners are bad. It is a fine lens by f8 and it's contrasty, but so is most everything else.