I know another of these threads :bang: I'm looking for input on what to buy. My current lineup is :
EOS 40D, Canon 28-105, Tamron 90mm Macro, Canon 70-200L f4 Sigma 400 5.6
Main subjects are Garden / plant photography, wildlife & l'm starting to get into landscapes / buildings. Having recently bought the L lens & been blown away by its quality, it got me thinking about replacing the 28-105 for something a bit better. Unfortunately the old wallet won't run to another L so my research has led me to either the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the 17-50 2.8, which will have to be bought S/hand. I understand these seem to be best value for money although there can be sample variation
I'm currently undecided which to go for:
The 28-75 seems appealing as it is the closest in range to what I'm currently using and could still be a walkaround lens .... but on occasion I have found I could do with something a little wider. If I went for this then I suppose I can always save for something like a Tokina 12-24 in a few months time (more expense
)
The 17-50 gives me the wider view but may be a little short for a walkaround and means I would possibly have to carry the 70-200 to give me a wider coverage. However I probably wouldn't then need an UWA as there would be too much overlap
So can anyone rationalise my thought process please. As you can tell I'm in a dilemma from the length of my ramble
EOS 40D, Canon 28-105, Tamron 90mm Macro, Canon 70-200L f4 Sigma 400 5.6
Main subjects are Garden / plant photography, wildlife & l'm starting to get into landscapes / buildings. Having recently bought the L lens & been blown away by its quality, it got me thinking about replacing the 28-105 for something a bit better. Unfortunately the old wallet won't run to another L so my research has led me to either the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the 17-50 2.8, which will have to be bought S/hand. I understand these seem to be best value for money although there can be sample variation
I'm currently undecided which to go for:
The 28-75 seems appealing as it is the closest in range to what I'm currently using and could still be a walkaround lens .... but on occasion I have found I could do with something a little wider. If I went for this then I suppose I can always save for something like a Tokina 12-24 in a few months time (more expense
)The 17-50 gives me the wider view but may be a little short for a walkaround and means I would possibly have to carry the 70-200 to give me a wider coverage. However I probably wouldn't then need an UWA as there would be too much overlap
So can anyone rationalise my thought process please. As you can tell I'm in a dilemma from the length of my ramble
