Lens Advice: 2 Mid-Level Primes or 1 L-Series Wide Angle Zoom

If you get the 15-85 , then you can stitch . You probably could then just get the / one of the 70-200's .

The thing about the 15-85 is it is 72 mm . While the 15-85 is wider , when I compared it to my 28-135 - it was not worth the money . But I was interested in both sides of the gap between the 17-55 and the 70-200 . I already had the 10-22 . Also the 17-55 ,70-200 and the 10-22 are 77 mm -

You mentioned you were going to sell a lens and 2 filters which to me means you believe in them .  Try to get lenses in same filter size . While I already had 72 mm filters [ 28-135 and 35-350 lenses ] it would mean carrying different filters , but if it would have helped a bunch , I could have .

A word of advise - forget others saying this or that lens is not sharp . Look for shots taken with the lens you are interested in . If they look good to you - ignore reviews . There are several sites that compare lenses with shots .

There are good and bad copies of lenses out there .

Ember42 wrote:

YardYeti wrote:

You suggest primes for telephoto. Does anyone else agree? I like the idea of the 10-22, 15-85, and 70-300better. But I really want feedback. I'm sold on the first two lenses already, although if I can get 17-55 I will, just discussing the telePhoto.

That sounds like a fairly solid plan.

You may find the 15-85 is wide enough that the 10-22 is fairly redundant, depending on you subject matter. Framing interesting pictures at wider than 24 equivalent (15mm) takes a lot more thought than the more moderate ranges.

I got the 10-22 before I got a 17-55, and even with the 17-55 I find I use it a lot less than when I had the kit zoom. The 10-22 is better than the kit by a long shot, but not better than the 17-55 in the overlap.

I would start with the 15-85 in your situation, use it for 6 months, and then see what I was missing. If you miss the long end right away get the 55-250 to see how much real telephoto enthusiasm you have. I had done very little telephoto, got the 55-250, and within a year upgraded to a 100-400, but if it had only gotten moderate use, it would have satisfied me. I still have it for a lightweight kit, so even if you go beyond, it is not wasted.

If you find you would like to develop portraits more, then a 50, 60, 70 or 85 prime might be an option to investigate. One of the third parties makes a 70mm f2.0 macro that could fill both fast portrait and macro lens.

Agree strongly with this view 15-85 first unless you are shooting a lot of architecture or wide landscape the 10-22 is redundant, If you get the 17-55 then put the 10-22 back in the mix. For telephoto i chose the 70-200 F4 IS just because it is the most versatile and lighter. if you go longer either the 200 f2.8 plus teleconvertor or the 300 f4IS

P.S. You will love the 15-85